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
1828
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 00:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.
While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.
I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
238
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 02:04:00 -
[2] - Quote
Something I said in one of the anti-Mittani threads that probably bears repeating here: his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position because he would be choosing those actions anyway. They aren't ganking miners because Mittens is CSM, they're ganking miners because it benefits them (and is fun). Take away the CSM tag, they're still ganking miners. Don't confuse his decision as an alliance leader with his role as CSM chair.
Lest you think I'm a goon alt or just stroking his e-peen, I've been critical of the CSM and Mittani in the past. I call it how I see it, and in this case the dude has done nothing wrong. There, got that out of the way.
Since my group started our campaign against these isk factories a week ago, I've heard from a lot of people who support what we do because they see incursions as detrimental to the rest of the Eve landscape. I'm hearing that C1-C4 wormholes are largely being abandoned in favor of the security and conveniences of high sec. Others are saying that lowsec exploration and nullsec ratting have been dropping off, and there's a general sense among the guys who have contacted me that this is due more to incursions being so profitable than incarna ragequits or any other reason. If this is true, Incursion has damaged Eve more than Incarna, in that it is diluting the rest of the game with the draw of low-risk iskmaking equal to that of wormholes and k-space nullsec.
So my questions: What's your take on highsec incursions?
If you think they need to be rebalanced, do you have any ideas on how to do so?
edit: y u hate wromhols? |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
258
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 02:44:00 -
[3] - Quote
Have you stopped beating your wife in the wormholes you hate so much?
No, seriously, no actual questions from me at the moment but I think you doing this thread is a great idea, I hope you get some good questions.
Issler |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1828
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 06:15:00 -
[4] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote: So my questions: What's your take on highsec incursions?
If you think they need to be rebalanced, do you have any ideas on how to do so?
edit: y u hate wromhols?
I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.
So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 07:27:00 -
[5] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.
So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them.
Are you happy with the profitability/risk of hisec incursions compared to other pve activities, such as 0.0 anomalies, wormholes, etc? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1829
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 08:04:00 -
[6] - Quote
The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Kata Amentis
Re-Awakened Technologies Inc
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 08:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit.
Very true, the social side is by far the best thing about incursions. The isk is nice, but the social side takes away the boring grind of making isk.
The Mittani wrote: And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.
Not quite true... you do see some highly suspect groupings of characters in incursion sites, fleets made up exclusively of the 1 month old single member corps with highly suspect names, not seen too many, but it's still something that needs to be kept an eye out for and reported / shot at |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 08:14:00 -
[8] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap.
I'd be willing to settle for bullet points.
or a picture of your dog. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1829
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 08:28:00 -
[9] - Quote
Steelshine wrote:
Are you happy with the profitability/risk of hisec incursions compared to other pve activities, such as 0.0 anomalies, wormholes, etc?
There can be no argument: the anomaly nerf was an unmitigated disaster on a number of levels. It impacted logins dramatically. It ruined the already tenuous risk/reward balance of nullsec. It disproportionately impacted the line members of alliances, and alliances which do not have technetium income (most of them). It was implemented in a brief period between CSM5 and CSM6 with no consultation with the CSM, so there was no sanity firewall to prevent CCP from doing a dumb thing. The dev blog introducing it was full of reasoning so spurious as to be laughable - reasoning which has all been disproven in practice since the nerf was implemented.
It was bad. Anyone advocating for the anom nerf should feel bad about themselves.
Restoring the balance of risk and reward to nullsec is a high priority of most of CSM6, once the sucking chest wounds ruining the game have been addressed (lag, supercaps, ship balance, hybrids, etc).
Wormhole risk/reward is probably fine. I know little about w-space and mostly rely on Two Step, who seems both rich and smug, and certainly we haven't heard cries of poverty from w-space residents besides hysterical, tinfoil-clad miners.
Hisec has received a huge buff from the L4/Q20 adjustment, with every L4 agent now having the same, maximal quality. When you can use a botting Tengu to solo these things 23/7 with virtually no risk (if you have the brain cells necessary to avoid pimping your mission Tengu, so you don't attract gankers) or make barely the same isk scraping away in nullsec with no protection whatsoever, it's no wonder that null has depopulated and interest in EVE has flatlined during this era of neglect.
I don't mind hisec incursions. Like I said, they're social and are at least more difficult to bot than missions. I mind L4 missions vomiting isk willy-nilly into the economy via bots while the common nullsec ratter starves.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
53
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 08:35:00 -
[10] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap. My personal take on the "get ganked" bullshit is that we're looking at 2 or 3 nodes (or more) in a loadbalanced cluster, and one of them is down. The fact I'm redirected to another URL so I can't just refresh is also annoying as all ****, and I've lost count of how many posts have been eaten because I didn't copy them before doing post or preview, and apparently took more time than some arbitrary session timeout or something.
It would be awesome if someone on the forum team (with their awesome track record so far) could get a hard kick up the behind, for it is, as you say, atrocious. |
|
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 09:15:00 -
[11] - Quote
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. Blow Me Up Good Contest --áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29295&find=unread |
The Groundskeeper
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 09:24:00 -
[12] - Quote
Do you support an immediate and forceful crackdown to deal with the ongoing Bring Stabity question? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1830
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 09:47:00 -
[13] - Quote
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. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Ajurna Jakar
Jian Products Engineering Group Nulli Secunda
5
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 11:38:00 -
[14] - Quote
whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking? |
Bomberlocks
CTRL-Q
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 12:09:00 -
[15] - Quote
Dear Mittens, is it true that you eat a kitten each morning for breakfast, washed down with a delicious glass of exhumer tears before you go off to your day job of skinning baby whales alive?
Also, given that us FW babbies are babbying very much at the moment about what is going to become of our beloved, but somewhat stagnant FW, do you have a position on what you willbe discussing with CCP at the summit.
Yours Truly -- BabbyBomb |
Mike deVoid
EC Riders Mech Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 12:17:00 -
[16] - Quote
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? |
Khanh'rhh
Sudden Buggery
262
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 12:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Has the CSM seen any figures on WHspace population changes in the last 6-8months?
It seems, both to myself and to many (many) people I speak to, that the number of people running PVE in wormholes (sleeper sites) has gone down drastically. It is my opinion (and the stated preference of people I have spoken to) that this is because you can effectively do the same type of PVE in highsec, earn MORE ISK doing it, with much much less risk. Yep, Incursions. You also don't need to go looking for them, they're just there.
Wormholes that were teaming with life (C2 holes with a highsec static for instance) now seem devoid of anyone in them. We find a lot of towers abandoned, and the corp is still active, but back living in highsec.
The price of melted nanoribbons (sleeper salvage) has been climbing since early this year (up almost 50%), and does not seem to be slowing down.
My point? I believe highsec Incursions are killing WH space by misappropriated risk/reward.
It occurs to me, that highsec incursions are actually about right, income wise, for the reasons you outlined above. What is not right, is that they are exploited (by not completing the mom site) turning them into 23.5/7 ISK factories, rather than as the unique encounters I was lead to believe they were envisaged as. Incursions lack all of the immersion, when content designed to be "fighting back the sansha" are turned into a grind. You may as well remove the mom site, and the incursion constellation effects, since that seems irrelevant now. They were actually fun and engaging when they were first put into the game; they're now just a beacon on the overview and an ISK printing machine.
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? - "Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual, issued in the 1930's |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
243
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 13:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
Oh ffs. Forums ate my response, too. Seriously, CCP...there have been really good forums on the web for more than a decade now. Why did you have to reinvent the wheel?
To sum up my thoughts:
I'm all for incursions. I have been since they came out. I think anything that teaches people to work in fleets and deal with other players more is a good thing.
I agree that wormholes are fine the way they are. The problem is that highsec incursions pay about as well as wormholes now, with much less risk and investment. That's a problem.
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.
There seems to be a common theme around here that something should be done about botting. Bot miners, bot missioners, bot ratters....clearly the consensus is that bots are putting too much into the economy. CCP needs to find ways prevent bots from doing what they do instead of trying to detect them. Things like putting ore into grav sites would at least slow the bots down and require more effort by their owners.
I have an idea for correcting the imbalance that exists with highsec incursions:
The idea behind incursions is that the Sansha are invading and Concord needs our help pushing them out. Concord pays us for this help. When we spend days opting to wait for more Sansha to arrive so we can shoot them and collect more bounties, does it make sense that Concord just accepts this? I would expect them, at some point, to say "Would you hurry up and just get rid of them?"
So I would suggest two things: First, that vanguard sites have diminishing returns. The longer an incursion is active, the lower the payout gets for vanguard sites, down to roughly 60% their current rate. This makes farming less profitable and creates a compelling reason for finishing the incursion and getting a fresh one started elsewhere.
If that doesn't work, the second idea is to do the same with the mothership payout: increase the base reward for winning the mothership battle, and then reduce it over time as Concord grows impatient. The reward would be in quickly dispatching the invasion rather than sitting in the middle of the invasion and shooting the smaller ships so you get more bounty.
edit: A third idea: highsec incursions shouldn't be available all day, every day. There needs to be a break in them so that people can't run from one incursion to the next doing nothing but farming them. |
Mai Khumm
Unseen Technologies Permanent Mental Syndrome
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 13:56:00 -
[19] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.
So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them.
I agree with high sec incursions being more profitable aswell. On the same note they should have more risk involved aswell. An idea would be to make all incursion areas as open pvp (function as 0.0, or at least low sec) would you support this idea? |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
244
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:18:00 -
[20] - Quote
Mai Khumm wrote:I agree with high sec incursions being more profitable aswell. On the same note they should have more risk involved aswell. An idea would be to make all incursion areas as open pvp (function as 0.0, or at least low sec) would you support this idea?
There should definitely still be a sec status hit, so lowsec. Or maybe just significantly drop the concord response so that it would be possible to gank the shiny battleships, but you would be concorded for it. |
|
Justin Credulent
Perkone Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:29:00 -
[21] - Quote
Quote:his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position
Yes they do. |
Mai Khumm
Unseen Technologies Permanent Mental Syndrome
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 15:46:00 -
[22] - Quote
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:Mai Khumm wrote:I agree with high sec incursions being more profitable aswell. On the same note they should have more risk involved aswell. An idea would be to make all incursion areas as open pvp (function as 0.0, or at least low sec) would you support this idea? There should definitely still be a sec status hit, so lowsec. Or maybe just significantly drop the concord response so that it would be possible to gank the shiny battleships, but you would be concorded for it.
I'd prefer sec status hit without Concorde intervention, otherwise why isn't Concorde fighting the incursions since the incursions itself is against the law...
Ninja edit...
Unless mass abduction/slavery/invasions/theft (just to Name a few offenses) is allowed but a noob shooting a can permits Concorde intervention... |
Poetic Stanzitroll
BLOG University
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 16:24:00 -
[23] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: 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.
The prospect of what you state coming to fruition frightens me greatly. In preparation I've ordered a brand new thesaurus and grammar book. -Check out my blog, it's the best! |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Important Internet Spaceship League
12
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:14:00 -
[24] - Quote
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. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
667
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:23:00 -
[25] - Quote
Justin Credulent wrote:Quote:his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position Yes they do. How so? The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:30:00 -
[26] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Justin Credulent wrote:Quote:his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position Yes they do. How so? How he plays is how he's going to represent his position on the CSM. The activities he enjoys in-game are the sorts of activities he's going to push for improvement on.
(I've got no problem with the way he plays. His Ice Interdiction is fine with me, other than that it might push CCP towards making highsec even safer.)
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 19:36:00 -
[27] - Quote
Ajurna Jakar wrote:whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking?
First, reverse the anomaly nerf. Soundwave has already indicated in the just-released video blog about balancing that the value of anomalies in nullsec will be increased, so CCP is taking our feedback into account.
Beyond that I'd like to see less emphasis on technetium, either a rebalancing of moon minerals across the board so 3/4ths of the nullsec moon space isn't worthless, or a 'quick fix' like R32 alchemy.
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.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1850
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:39:00 -
[28] - Quote
Bomberlocks wrote:Dear Mittens, is it true that you eat a kitten each morning for breakfast, washed down with a delicious glass of exhumer tears before you go off to your day job of skinning baby whales alive?
Also, given that us FW babbies are babbying very much at the moment about what is going to become of our beloved, but somewhat stagnant FW, do you have a position on what you willbe discussing with CCP at the summit.
Yours Truly -- BabbyBomb
FW is among the 'abandoned features' that the CSM has already championed at the May summit for CCP to stop neglecting. However, it would be kind of silly for me to give specific advice towards fixing FW as I know absolutely nothing about it.
FW is part of the litany of 'things that need iteration' that is slightly below the CSM priority of 'sucking chest wounds'. Many of the sucking chest wounds are being addressed in Winter though, so I suspect the 'merely awful and shameful' will be up for fixes next. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:40:00 -
[29] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Ajurna Jakar wrote:whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking? First, reverse the anomaly nerf. Soundwave has already indicated in the just-released video blog about balancing that the value of anomalies in nullsec will be increased, so CCP is taking our feedback into account. Instead of increasing the value of anomolies, why not decrease some of the rewards from other regions, such as highsec incursions (which are already grossly imbalanced with respect to risk/reward.) This, in turn, would increase the inherent value of anomolies. There's already more than enough ISK flowing into the system, do we really need more? It's simply causing inflation. CCP should be looking at removing some of the ISK flowing into the system, not increasing the flow.
Was CCP economist one of the people laid off? It would seem so. Blow Me Up Good Contest --áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=29295&find=unread |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
224
|
Posted - 2011.11.04 19:47:00 -
[30] - 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. My issues with E-Uni are not the point. If CCP is making highsec safer, that's the problem. And it is a big problem.
When I do make an issue of connecting E-Uni to the highsec issues, that's to give people someone to point to. People get behind issues a lot quicker when there's an obvious scapegoat (look at how many people enjoy scapegoating Goonswarm over pretty much anything.) Considering CCP sees E-Uni has their highsec golden child, attaching E-Uni to the issue is not particularly difficult.
(But in deference to you, I refrained from doing that in my original reply in this thread.)
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 19:50:00 -
[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 |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1858
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 09:58:00 -
[61] - Quote
Rer Eirikr wrote: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.
My feelings are mixed. First, my eyes glaze over whenever PI is mentioned. My loathing for PI as a missed opportunity is well known; I don't think PI has much 'game' to it, and I mark Tyrannis as one of the worst expansions EVE has ever suffered. PI exudes banality.
I'm also kind of meh about another structure to shoot with another reinforcement timer. On the other hand, it /is/ something new to shoot for smaller groups that makes a market segment more profitable in low/null compared to hisec.
vOv was basically my reaction to it. I'd like more Farms and Fields, but I want them to be actually fun, too.
Quote: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.
You might have noticed that CSM6 had to go to the mat with CCP's management in both the emergency summit and again in September before the 'all hands on FiS' reallocation announcement. It's exhausting and infuriating and doesn't leave much time for glad-handing or mingling.
Hopefully, if CCP's management returns to earth and stays there, we will have more time to focus on nitty-gritty spaceship issues and do fireside chats more regularly. The whole 'CSM Spotlight/Fireside Chat' mechanic was devised to push in-game feature stuff like TiDi, which it did masterfully, not to handle riots, kool-aid drinking, overheating video cards or monocles.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Mintrolio
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 11:54:00 -
[62] - Quote
CONFRIMIGN I HAVIGN 2 QUSTIONS.
1. ALSO WILL YOU BEIGN TO RUN FUR CSM IN NEXTS YEAR?
2. ALSO WILL YOU PLESE TO BE VOTIGN FUR ME IN NEXTS YEAR CSM ELECTSIONS?
ALSO I LIKE TO ASK YOU TO HAFIGN GOON TO SUPPROT ME IN THESE.
~KEEP UP THE GOOD POASTIGN! |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 12:47:00 -
[63] - Quote
Props Voted for you under the assumption that, if nothing else, you would wake everybody up from their gentle slumbers while pointing out the fires. Thus far I have been more than happy with your conduct as an elected official.
Clarification I remember (but may be in error) the Mittani stating destructible Outposts would be something he would strive for. I ask for an update on that stance and would like to hear how much of a priority this has to the Mittani as a chairman of the CSM.
Permanent GÇ£thingsGÇ¥ I think that EVE would have better player retention if players in any size entity could build something their own and permanent for as long as they / their corp are active. This would of course have to be something you can disturb and camp but not necessarily destroy (unless left unattended for six months, then it may burn :), pillage and plunder with functionality that reflects that. Would you consider such a player / corp owned and operated deadspace hangout? Do you think it would help 0.0, wormholes and lowsec if people could leave a mark there all their own?
Player retention through social engineering As an addition to this, some players are lost to EVE if they are not stimulated to become and remain part of a sizeable entity so as to be privy to the social interaction this brings. As part of that the following questions: Does ccp keep track of the size of active membership in corporations? Does ccp keep track of the active membership size of corporations the moment an active account goes inactive? If ccp has these numbers, would it be possible for you to get to see them? Would you consider granting perks in functionality to corps that have a certain number of active members so as to stimulate players to always strive for a corp that has the best player retaining active member-base numbers? So, social engineering to keep players happy by applying honey in places that have shown to keep players happy?
The meat locker for corpses, making your own Incarna environment. How do you view establishments and customizable captains quarters in places a player frequents, possibly tied in to the aforementioned permanent build-able GÇ£thingGÇ¥? Author would like to state that this would be after dealing with gaping chestwounds, would be far in the future. Preferably years from now when the standard computer setup for an eve player has caught up with the ccp view of what they feel they should offer, graphics-wise.
A wall of fame and shame Player benchmarks on display. Right now you have to leaf through all manner of logs in the client or through piles of information offered up by secondary outlets to see your own greatness. Do you feel player benchmarks such as first hull, first pod, first gcc, biggest fight partaken in, biggest loss suffered, npc corporate standing and other logged happenings should be on display for the player? Corpmates? Alliancemates? Everyone? In CQ? On player lookup? |
Angel Lust
Vikinghall
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 13:02:00 -
[64] - Quote
Funny thread..... Well done |
Elsa Nietchize
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 13:57:00 -
[65] - Quote
Thanks mittens that is all |
Arkanon Nerevar
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 14:57:00 -
[66] - Quote
voted for you in the last election (meant i voted for vile rat) under the basis that the leader of the largest alliance in the game would actually want the game to work and would actually have his ear to the ground for whatever the frag it is that CCP cook up.
Q: how much influance do you, and the CSM at large, have regarding the player feedback on the upcoming game mechanic changes, for example the hybrid and new BC changes, baseically do you have a more direct line to provide feedback and do you hear about the devs taking our feedback to heart?
Q: what is your opinion on the proposed hybrid changes, not enough, the wrong direction and what would you do? Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter-Gallente capsuleer motto |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 15:24:00 -
[67] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
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.
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.
Nutter . . . fair enough, I play and write different than you so I must be nuts.
Failed runs (fixed that for you)
I do know what an NDA is but I am comparing the minutes of previous CSM meetings where we could see what the CSM was discussing prior to their work with CCP to the silence out of your CSM until changes are announced.
Nope, don't doubt your dedication to your self image at all.
Followup Questions
Is there CSM/CCP work on the winter expansion still ongoing or have sights been set to things further on the horizon?
Are you encouraging other members of the CSM to follow your lead in this excellent idea to talk to the player base in the forums that were created for that purpose?
m |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
99
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 15:31:00 -
[68] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: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] nothing about how small alliances can be killed by any bigger one that is bored ? a big alliance can grind easily a small alliance territory, just to kill time if they want. i dunno if it really happen, i heard it often, but on the others hand shooting structures and other side refusing to fight given they have no chance don't seems that interesting to kill time... btw i don't really get why nerfing tech would help small alliances here ; if others moons become a bit more intersting, bigger alliances may come even more often. i remember seeing lots of TEST pos on some low sec, and it was not only for the best moons... |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 15:36:00 -
[69] - Quote
I made a topic about distributing the resources in nullsec better to permit self sufficiency because I am such a awesome poster.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=28733&find=unread
In short instead having huge mult regional areas with only one racial of rat or ice have it be a over-representation of one (50%) then a mix of others.
That way more of a abundance of one resource, and a shortage of another then a total exclusion of some.
What would you support of that?
|
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
15
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 16:53:00 -
[70] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: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.)
First thank you for the response Mr. Chairman I am pleased that the idea was not completely dismissed out of hand because it might be a new feature.
Some of your concerns I had addressed in the initial post like a five minute timer for the "Hijack" to be effective, this would give a mobile autopilot freighter the chance to use autopilot without fear of being "Hijacked" so that should assuage any fear of lost subscriptions CCP might vocalize and seriously if an afk pilot rage quit over loss of a ship to "Hijacking" he would do the same thing if he loss the ship to "ganking" and CCP is not at all concerned about that as anyone hanging around a gate already knows. I think your fear of CCP being worried about loss of subscribers is both laughable and intellectually baseless, which doesn't mean you shouldn't have an answer to present when they propose it might cause a rash of rage quits.
Why the hijacker would want the ship to follow him is #1 to be able to hijack ships you perhaps can't fly yet, #2 to be able to retain your Hijacking fit ship and not do a 1 for 1 swap. Some of us in the player base would very much like to have all the isk from a ship we could "Hijack" instead of just the bits leftover after the bang we might get to salvage. This makes afk piloting and bot operation less safe and less profitable and would give those of us who don't gank a taste of tears how can you not support that?
No belt bots are not being effectively handled by gankers primarily the interdiction is in Gallente space so the bots just moved on, and secondarily driving every miner from an ice belt to get the bots is not policing it's extortion, which is fine under game rules I readily acknowledge.
So hoist a few brews and drive this around the block a few times on skype i think a little more crime and chaos that players might more easily access would be a good thing.
|
|
Resivan
Driftglass Development
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 17:57:00 -
[71] - Quote
How would you feel about using Single Transferable Vote for CSM elections instead of the current First Past The Post system?
I don't see such a change keeping the null sec alliances from controlling the CSM if they want to. If anything it would make it easier to get a ticket through. On the other hand, it would give high sec a shot at electing someone rather than splintering their vote between dozens of candidates. |
Kel hound
Traveler 52 D-Collective
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 18:55:00 -
[72] - Quote
I have a question for you Mittani but first I would like to preface it a little.
First I'd like to say that what you do outside your position of CSM is your business. I've always felt this way about politician's. What Bill Clinton's secretary did to him under his desk doesn't really have any effect on if his leadership was good or not. Unless an action made by a politician is overtly hypocritical I have never seen why it should effect ones judgment of that politician. I presently believe you are the CSM that EVE needs right now, even as a fairly new player I can see that EVE really does have some "gaping chest wounds" that need to be addressed before moving on with anything else. The current CSM has shown their dedication to these issues and their strong desire to see them fixed.
However, early on in the elections you freely admitted that one of your reasons for wanting to acquire the position of CSM was the power that it held. I recall you stating that you were glad for the general perception that the CSM was useless as it would allow you to take the position with ease. With all of the above now stated please understand that your little ice blockade doesn't even enter into this question.
Once the "gaping chest wounds" have been delt with and the host of other issues have been addressed, why should we continue to vote for someone who so openly craves power for their own ends? Can the average guy (or girl) really trust not just you but the other major alliances NOT to try and use the CSM for their own ends? and if this isn't really an issue then what is it you (the CSM) actually do?
I didn't vote in the last election, I had not been playing for long enough to have any real invested interest in the game. Now I do. So why should I vote for someone who while impassioned about the game, is also unashamedly a "scumbag" (insert scumbagsteve.gif here). You may be what we need right now but why will we need you in the coming year or 2 down the track? |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
63
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 19:03:00 -
[73] - Quote
As it stands, Sov warfare in null sec sucks. It's probably the most boring and monotonous task in EVE. Most alliances aren't blessed with a DBRB who absolutely love taking out massive fleets for the sole purpose of shooting structures for hours on end.
There are so many times in eve where you go to visit an alliance to raise hell and they just dock up for a week or two. The only other offense is to hit sov and completely remove them. This aspect of the game requires an astounding amount of resources, not just effort where the defending party can just hide behind a station spammed constellation/region.
What are your ideas for making inactive/hiding alliances who hold sov in nullsec lives a bit more difficult so that the "blueball" technique is less used and attacking parties don't have to commit so much in terms of resources for those who don't utilize their space?
Would you like to see more of a dynamic system in null sec where activity and system use is what determines the difficulty to take/remove sov from people?
I.E.: ihubs/stations HP nerfed (hardcore) and sov levels of system usage (military/industry/ a new marketing and jump activity as well as potentially moon mineral per month accumulation etc..now determines strategic level)
Then, Sov increases the resistances of structures. Potentially, the sov V systems also have a reduction in sov bills!!
What would you like to see in null sec going forward so we don't continue to have the "screw grinding sov structures" problem that currently exists?
It's not Rocket Surgery |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1862
|
Posted - 2011.11.05 23:47:00 -
[74] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote: Clarification I remember (but may be in error) the Mittani stating destructible Outposts would be something he would strive for. I ask for an update on that stance and would like to hear how much of a priority this has to the Mittani as a chairman of the CSM.
Destructible outposts are a major priority of mine for any adjustments to the sov system. I think they should become repairable wrecks, with a wrecked outpost costing between half and 75% of a full egg to restore to functionality. Players should still be able to undock from a wrecked outpost, but not be able to redock.
I'd like to uproot Goonswarm and burn entire regions to ashes, leaving nothing but misery and chaos in our wake. Right now an alliance must abandon war after a while because it can only conquer, not raze. Alliances should be able to raze a region (perhaps not the 'original three' stations in a region, just its outposts).
Quote: Permanent GÇ£thingsGÇ¥ I think that EVE would have better player retention if players in any size entity could build something their own and permanent for as long as they / their corp are active. This would of course have to be something you can disturb and camp but not necessarily destroy (unless left unattended for six months, then it may burn :), pillage and plunder with functionality that reflects that. Would you consider such a player / corp owned and operated deadspace hangout? Do you think it would help 0.0, wormholes and lowsec if people could leave a mark there all their own?
I generally prefer the guideline that anything in EVE that is built by players should be destroyed by players. So I'm not a fan of this.
Quote: Player retention through social engineering As an addition to this, some players are lost to EVE if they are not stimulated to become and remain part of a sizeable entity so as to be privy to the social interaction this brings. As part of that the following questions: Does ccp keep track of the size of active membership in corporations? Does ccp keep track of the active membership size of corporations the moment an active account goes inactive? If ccp has these numbers, would it be possible for you to get to see them? Would you consider granting perks in functionality to corps that have a certain number of active members so as to stimulate players to always strive for a corp that has the best player retaining active member-base numbers? So, social engineering to keep players happy by applying honey in places that have shown to keep players happy?
What CCP tracks/does not track isn't my place to answer and is probably covered by the NDA. I don't think the idea of perks for membership size of a corp is a good idea, as it would benefit Dreddit and Goonwaffe for no real reason.
Quote:The meat locker for corpses, making your own Incarna environment. How do you view establishments and customizable captains quarters in places a player frequents, possibly tied in to the aforementioned permanent build-able GÇ£thingGÇ¥? Author would like to state that this would be after dealing with gaping chestwounds, would be far in the future. Preferably years from now when the standard computer setup for an eve player has caught up with the ccp view of what they feel they should offer, graphics-wise.
I don't trust CCP with WiS, as I've said earlier in this thread. Let's just back away slowly from WiS and work on spaceships. Things years in the future don't really matter as I might not be around then.
Quote: A wall of fame and shame Player benchmarks on display. Right now you have to leaf through all manner of logs in the client or through piles of information offered up by secondary outlets to see your own greatness. Do you feel player benchmarks such as first hull, first pod, first gcc, biggest fight partaken in, biggest loss suffered, npc corporate standing and other logged happenings should be on display for the player? Corpmates? Alliancemates? Everyone? In CQ? On player lookup?
We have medals, which are player-generated. I don't see the need for a CCP-sanctioned achievement system. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1862
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:00:00 -
[75] - Quote
Arkanon Nerevar wrote: Q: how much influance do you, and the CSM at large, have regarding the player feedback on the upcoming game mechanic changes, for example the hybrid and new BC changes, baseically do you have a more direct line to provide feedback and do you hear about the devs taking our feedback to heart?
Q: what is your opinion on the proposed hybrid changes, not enough, the wrong direction and what would you do?
We have a substantial level of influence, but not an overwhelming - or any kind of formalized power. We're not 'in charge' of anything; the CCP folks who work on FiS get along smashingly with the CSM and we have a solid, professional working relationship.
We have many direct lines for feedback, most notably the 24/7 CCP/CSM Skype channel.
I mostly delegated discussion of hybrid issues to the CSM6 hybrid experts, Prometheus Exenthal and White Tree. I'm a nullsec sovwar guy, whether rails need a 10% buff and a 12% grid decrease is really too micro for me. I'd just mess things up.
I'm pretty happy with what Tallest has posted in his hybrid blog.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1862
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:04:00 -
[76] - Quote
Resivan wrote:How would you feel about using Single Transferable Vote for CSM elections instead of the current First Past The Post system?
I don't see such a change keeping the null sec alliances from controlling the CSM if they want to. If anything it would make it easier to get a ticket through. On the other hand, it would give high sec a shot at electing someone rather than splintering their vote between dozens of candidates.
Hisec elected Trebor in CSM6 and will likely elect both Trebor and Kelduum in CSM7. Usually the hisec reps are 'hey look, a girl on the internet' or someone from Eve-Uni.
Hisec has had no trouble getting reps on past CSMs; barring the Eve-Uni reps (good folks like Deidra Vaal) they have usually been comical and incompetent (Ankh, here's looking at you, kiddo). I'm quite fond of Trebor though, and support both him and Kelduum for CSM7 should they run.
I don't see a problem with First Past The Post. As I said earlier in this thread, the change we need for CSM7 mechanics is a minimum signatures requirement to get on the ballot. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1862
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:11:00 -
[77] - Quote
Kel hound wrote: Once the "gaping chest wounds" have been delt with and the host of other issues have been addressed, why should we continue to vote for someone who so openly craves power for their own ends? Can the average guy (or girl) really trust not just you but the other major alliances NOT to try and use the CSM for their own ends? and if this isn't really an issue then what is it you (the CSM) actually do?
I didn't vote in the last election, I had not been playing for long enough to have any real invested interest in the game. Now I do. So why should I vote for someone who while impassioned about the game, is also unashamedly a "scumbag" (insert scumbagsteve.gif here). You may be what we need right now but why will we need you in the coming year or 2 down the track?
Make up your own mind. I like power, everyone knows it - and so does anyone else who runs for CSM, but they might lie or mince words or - worse still - be personally deluded about their own motives. I don't lie about it.
You trust me with your vote or you don't. vOv The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 00:59:00 -
[78] - Quote
Have you stopped fondling little boys? |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
110
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 01:17:00 -
[79] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Nullsec will always need a strong representative on the CSM. CSM5 only had Vuk, and Vuk was away when a gaggle of people who have never used a jump bridge in their life told Greyscale that removing bridges would be peachy. Null said 'never again', and here we are.
To follow up, what is your opinion on the actual JB change that hit TQ? Specifically a) only one bridge per system, b) jump-capable ships not being able to use JBs. |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
26
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:02:00 -
[80] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: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. [..] 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. Mmm, that signatures thing might have some benefits.
I am not sure where you stand yet on my second question. Can I conclude from your statements that the CSM doesn't represent all players and that's the way you think it should be?
IIRC the CSM now serves in one year terms. What if 3 months after the election, something happens and a certain group of players becomes motivated and organized, but alas, the election is 9 months away. What do you think the CSM should do in this situation? |
|
Solo Player
58
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 02:58:00 -
[81] - Quote
Questions I'd like to see you answer, dear Mittani:
1. What is your stance on the importance of plausibility/coherence of the game universe vs. gameplay mechanics?
1.a. In regard to your answer for 1., how do you feel a paint job for a ship should be priced in relation to the price of the ship itself?
1.b. As players of a subscription-based MMO, should we not be able to expect the majority of customization options (both current and future) to be free apart from a relatively small range of vanity extras?
2. As a stricly solo player (who has his reasons to stay that way) in EVE, I currently don't find many paths in the game to really be fun. Do you think players like me should be considered at all or should they just bugger off and play a single player game?
2.a. If the former, what would you suggest to be done make the game more fun for solo players?
3. Is high sec empire space more of a theme park or a sandbox, and what should it be?
4. Do you avoid the Assembly Hall on purpose?
5. What do you answer those whe decry this thread as an empty PR vehicle of the current CSM establishment?
6. What's your conntection to ancient Mesopotamia and the Hurrians? |
Steelshine
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:09:00 -
[82] - Quote
Che Biko wrote: IIRC the CSM now serves in one year terms. What if 3 months after the election, something happens and a certain group of players becomes motivated and organized, but alas, the election is 9 months away. What do you think the CSM should do in this situation?
Probably the same thing other motivated people who missed out on an election do.
Get prepared while waiting for the next one.
|
Nubs McIbis
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:13:00 -
[83] - Quote
The Mittani,
As Chairman of the CSM and King of Space, you must get many letters from irate pubbie constituents. Can you please publish a blog of the most entertaining complaints you have received? I am particularly interested in reading letters written in-character by Very Serious Roleplayers. Also any letters threatening legal action.
Sincerely, Nubs McIbis, Concerned Voter |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
227
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 08:39:00 -
[84] - Quote
Nubs McIbis wrote:The Mittani,
As Chairman of the CSM King of Space, you must get many letters from irate pubbie constituents. Can you please publish a blog of the most entertaining complaints you have received? I am particularly interested in reading letters written in-character by Very Serious Roleplayers. Also any letters threatening legal action.
Sincerely, Nubs McIbis, Concerned Voter I wrote the following today, while passing through VFK-IV [Deklein], if that helps:
Quote:Poetic Stanziel > Please call upon your leader, The Mittani. I wish to meet him to discuss the return of the 24500 ISK he scammed from me. Radhamanthes > please hold on sir ... Garnoo > ill contact him for 50mln Poetic Stanziel > He promised to sell me exotic dancers, but when they arrived at my station they were fatties from Jenny Craig. I was outraged! n++Garnoo > because we all used them earlier.... VinnD > lol Poetic Stanziel > I thought the Goons ran an honest escort business. I will notify my local Chamber of Commerce about this! EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Amber Green Thorn
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 10:14:00 -
[85] - Quote
Any politician when asked 'will you stand for re-election', no matter what their intentions, will always be advised by his or her sleezie advisors to say yes!!- lest the politician seems lacking in staying power or committment.
Mittani -wil you say now if you intend to stand again for the CSM?
BTW - Are you gaye?? Or do you just like the look? |
Kaver Linkovir
Autocannons Anonymous
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 21:51:00 -
[86] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Destructible outposts are a major priority of mine for any adjustments to the sov system. I think they should become repairable wrecks, with a wrecked outpost costing between half and 75% of a full egg to restore to functionality. Players should still be able to undock from a wrecked outpost, but not be able to redock.
I'd like to uproot Goonswarm and burn entire regions to ashes, leaving nothing but misery and chaos in our wake. Right now an alliance must abandon war after a while because it can only conquer, not raze. Alliances should be able to raze a region (perhaps not the 'original three' stations in a region, just its outposts).
Would such a mechanism not impede and disadvantage smaller entities? I can see such a mechanism work for large powerblocks but only for large powerblocks. It seems like something that would be and inconvenience for large entities while being disastrous for smaller entities.
Kaver Linkovir wrote:Permanent GÇ£thingsGÇ¥ I think that EVE would have better player retention if players in any size entity could build something their own and permanent for as long as they / their corp are active. This would of course have to be something you can disturb and camp but not necessarily destroy (unless left unattended for six months, then it may burn :), pillage and plunder with functionality that reflects that. Would you consider such a player / corp owned and operated deadspace hangout? Do you think it would help 0.0, wormholes and lowsec if people could leave a mark there all their own?
The Mittani wrote:I generally prefer the guideline that anything in EVE that is built by players should be destroyed by players. So I'm not a fan of this. How about if it were wreckable / repairable as you would like to see outposts? Or conquerable and / or fully destructible? And beyond not being a fan, do you think it might help player retention?
Kaver Linkovir wrote: Player retention through social engineering As an addition to this, some players are lost to EVE if they are not stimulated to become and remain part of a sizeable entity so as to be privy to the social interaction this brings. As part of that the following questions: Does ccp keep track of the size of active membership in corporations? Does ccp keep track of the active membership size of corporations the moment an active account goes inactive? If ccp has these numbers, would it be possible for you to get to see them? Would you consider granting perks in functionality to corps that have a certain number of active members so as to stimulate players to always strive for a corp that has the best player retaining active member-base numbers? So, social engineering to keep players happy by applying honey in places that have shown to keep players happy?
The Mittani wrote:What CCP tracks/does not track isn't my place to answer and is probably covered by the NDA. I don't think the idea of perks for membership size of a corp is a good idea, as it would benefit Dreddit and Goonwaffe for no real reason.
To clarify, the perks would be tied to active membership and reach maximum perkyness around the active memberbase number that works best for player retention (hence the question on statistics and wether CSM have acess to them). I would expect that to be around 50 to 100 active members. So while huge entities such as Dreddit and Goonwaffe would have maximum perkyness (defying gravity and failcascading and all) they would have reached maximum perkyness long before becomming huge. |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 22:40:00 -
[87] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote:The Mittani wrote:Destructible outposts are a major priority of mine for any adjustments to the sov system. I think they should become repairable wrecks, with a wrecked outpost costing between half and 75% of a full egg to restore to functionality. Players should still be able to undock from a wrecked outpost, but not be able to redock.
I'd like to uproot Goonswarm and burn entire regions to ashes, leaving nothing but misery and chaos in our wake. Right now an alliance must abandon war after a while because it can only conquer, not raze. Alliances should be able to raze a region (perhaps not the 'original three' stations in a region, just its outposts). Would such a mechanism not impede and disadvantage smaller entities? I can see such a mechanism work for large powerblocks but only for large powerblocks. It seems like something that would be and inconvenience for large entities while being disastrous for smaller entities. I wrote this to a reader of this thread who liked my post on the previous page:
"The only way to get a foothold in null these days (which I'm not entirely opposed of) is to align yourself to a powerbloc that has a set of interests you and your friends can relate to.
Null sec alliances are not your friends. However, building bonds with alliances in null can help build relationships that can last years. These relationships create content for members and with current game mechanics, content + members logging on = win.
If you're able to surround yourself with people who share similar interests, you're likely to have more content for you and your friends to enjoy.
Young/New alliances have an open door to nullsec. However, nullsec is comprised of empires, just as high sec is, where aligning yourself allows for the perks. In high sec or low, you can do missions which get you hated by other factions and liked by the ones you work for. Null sec is no different where you need to use actual person to person diplomacy and not just train an in-game skill to succeed."
EVE has never been a game where the smaller or weak can get an advantage. It does have the ability for the small and strong to, however the alliances who are small and strong (militarily) are few and far between. With my experience thus far in null sec, I've been aligned with many power blocs. Some I've had fun, others I've absolutely hated. The thing is that I understand is current mechanics prohibit small entities to gain an advantage in sovereign null space and I don't see this changing any time soon without CCP intervention and in a sandbox, you'll lose players as the ability to create empires is important to some while tearing them down is important to others. Not only that, but some entities band together for the sole purpose to stop new power blocs from forming. In all,I don't see this as "bad". The successful blocs aren't opposed to new people coming on board, provided you're capable of not being dead weight and bring something of value to the table.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1867
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:17:00 -
[88] - Quote
Zagdul wrote: What are your ideas for making inactive/hiding alliances who hold sov in nullsec lives a bit more difficult so that the "blueball" technique is less used and attacking parties don't have to commit so much in terms of resources for those who don't utilize their space?
Would you like to see more of a dynamic system in null sec where activity and system use is what determines the difficulty to take/remove sov from people?
I.E.: ihubs/stations HP nerfed (hardcore) and sov levels of system usage (military/industry/ a new marketing and jump activity as well as potentially moon mineral per month accumulation etc..now determines strategic level)
Then, Sov increases the resistances of structures. Potentially, the sov V systems also have a reduction in sov bills!!
What would you like to see in null sec going forward so we don't continue to have the "screw grinding sov structures" problem that currently exists?
I think destructible outposts will make a huge difference. People who hide will have their empire burn around them; people who dislike shooting structures will have a different view of the experience when the outpost they're shooting becomes a smoking ruin at the end of the day.
Destructible outposts also open up the possibility of punitive invasions, rather than invasions purely of conquest. No one wants to conquer Cobalt Edge, but a lot of people would enjoy burning IRC out of their hovels.
I don't have any 'magic bullet' sov fix ideas, sadly; I'm not a game designer. I know a dumb idea when I see one, though.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:22:00 -
[89] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: I know a dumb idea when I see one, though. Where was that keen eye when, over a year ago, someone in Goonchat wrote "Hey, Mittens, you should run for the CSM."
Kidding. You've been a pretty good King of Space.
EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:27:00 -
[90] - Quote
One of my pet peeves the last 2 years has been the atrocity that is today's SOV system. I keep hoping for someone in CCP to say that they're going to revamp the system to make it more attractive to attack multiple systems at the same time with smaller fleets, rather than what we're looking at today where we're just getting as many as we can into a system and whoever wins the one fight, wins that round.
I'm not sure how this could be done in actuality, but I keep thinking that maybe either have the SOV system be descriptive rather than prescriptive, or borrow the tug-of-war element from POS warfare (although of course with modifications to avoid the grinding aspect), so that the strategy for winning a war is deeper than "grind this system, now grind this system".
(I've no idea if this could even be done, or if people would still just go with the grind one system aspect, though. Or even if it's just a bad idea from start to finish.) |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1867
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:29:00 -
[91] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:The Mittani wrote:Nullsec will always need a strong representative on the CSM. CSM5 only had Vuk, and Vuk was away when a gaggle of people who have never used a jump bridge in their life told Greyscale that removing bridges would be peachy. Null said 'never again', and here we are. To follow up, what is your opinion on the actual JB change that hit TQ? Specifically a) only one bridge per system, b) jump-capable ships not being able to use JBs.
That was sort of a holding action on the part of CSM6, and our first major battle.
First of all, the very idea that bridges were 'safe' was something only a fool believes in. As we've seen though, until CSM6 took office, many foolish ideas about nullsec were espoused. As anyone who lives in null knows, you can camp a bridge with a dictor or hictor simply by parking your bubbler 300km off the bridge in line with the other bridge, safely outside of the range of any pos-guns.
So there was a lot of howling from 'small gang pvp experts' who have never run a bridge network that had no clue how to interdict bridges despite their 'expertise'; these are the sort of rabble that clog up forums like Failheap. They were pathetic, but they made a lot of noise and so our 'start point' of negotiations in CSM6 was from CSM5's laughably uninformed 'removing bridges would be fine' idea.
Since our start point was mired in ignorance, going from "remove bridges" to "one bridge per system plus a 300% fuel bay buff" is a success. Now the simpletons who never figured out how to camp a bridge with a dictor 300km off a pos can be on a gate instead, which is a lot easier and more obvious than a in-situ cloaking bridge-camp.
Did I include enough dismissive contempt for the 'remove bridges' wretches in this post? I can probably add more if needed. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:38:00 -
[92] - Quote
Che Biko wrote: I am not sure where you stand yet on my second question. Can I conclude from your statements that the CSM doesn't represent all players and that's the way you think it should be?
I've seen your bad thread in Jita Park. You have a preconceived notion about the nature of the CSM and will twist anything I say to try to support that notion.
I won't play ball with your tinfoil. Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog? The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
230
|
Posted - 2011.11.06 23:54:00 -
[93] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog? Answer thy good gentleman's query, scoundrel! A pox upon your protestant soul!
EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:02:00 -
[94] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:[quote=Raid'En]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]
Mr. Chairman can you please explain why nerfing supercaps is a good idea? It would be helpful if you could enlighten those of us reading your thread who are not Null sec residents as to why and how taking something which seems like fun (flying an awesome killing machine) out of the game before we can get a chance to skill up and try it ourselves. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:03:00 -
[95] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Questions I'd like to see you answer, dear Mittani:
1. What is your stance on the importance of plausibility/coherence of the game universe vs. gameplay mechanics?
1.a. In regard to your answer for 1., how do you feel a paint job for a ship should be priced in relation to the price of the ship itself?
1.b. As players of a subscription-based MMO, should we not be able to expect the majority of customization options (both current and future) to be free apart from a relatively small range of vanity extras?
I care more about balanced game mechanics than the 'coherence of the universe', since not many of my constituents pay attention to EVE's schizophrenic fluff anyway. Because of this, I'm not too interested in relating the pricing of paint vis a vis actual ingame 'fluff' paint value.
I don't know what 'players of a subscription based MMO' expect in an industry shifting from subs from microtransactions. I don't really give a crap about what they price vanity items so long as pay-to-win never shows up in EVE. The $70 monocle was stupid and doomed the NeX to failure, but my constituents are mostly nullsec warriors who don't care about fashion. I'd prefer their pricing strategy to be actually successful so CCP stops firing their employees, though.
Quote: 2. As a stricly solo player (who has his reasons to stay that way) in EVE, I currently don't find many paths in the game to really be fun. Do you think players like me should be considered at all or should they just bugger off and play a single player game?
2.a. If the former, what would you suggest to be done make the game more fun for solo players?
A solo player finds a game designed to be played in a group tedious and boring? Quick, let's redesign the social game to accommodate him!
Go play X3. It's a much better singleplayer space game than 'solo EVE'.
Quote: 3. Is high sec empire space more of a theme park or a sandbox, and what should it be?
Sounds like a trivial semantic distinction between vague abstractions, and thus meaningless.
Quote: 4. Do you avoid the Assembly Hall on purpose?
I don't go there often. The Assembly Hall has the odd good idea in it, but I think it should be merged with 'Features and Ideas'. The AH subforum is a relic of the first couple of CSMs when the CSM was considered a parliamentary organization rather than an advocacy group, and it deludes the players who go to the AH with the false hope that the CSM is like a 'space congress' where votes on proposals result in game changes being 'passed'. The CSM isn't parliamentary at all, which is why years worth of upvoted AH proposals rot on a backlog, ignored by CCP.
Quote: 5. What do you answer those whe decry this thread as an empty PR vehicle of the current CSM establishment?
6. What's your conntection to ancient Mesopotamia and the Hurrians?
5. Something between "lol" and "suck my ****". Take your pick.
6. I got a minor in Ancient Law and learned Akkadian back in college. We studied the Amarna Letters which had a lot to do with discourse between Egypt, Mittani and Akkad. The name was cool so I named a Malkavian Elder in a WoD game 'The Mittani', and recyled the name when I came to EVE. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:09:00 -
[96] - Quote
Amber Green Thorn wrote:Any politician when asked 'will you stand for re-election', no matter what their intentions, will always be advised by his or her sleezie advisors to say yes!!- lest the politician seems lacking in staying power or committment.
Mittani -You are very good at this sh*t and have done well for us all in the last year. Thank you. Not read anywhere that you intend to stand down, however I may be mistaken. The question many will be asking is this: Will you say now that you intend to stand again for the CSM?
also BTW - Are you gaye?? Or do you just like the look?
I've already said in this thread that I'll run for CSM7, barring being banned or CCP driving the game off a cliff. CSM6 is the most organized and effective CSM yet, and I don't see why we should toss that kind of power away now that we've finally gotten CCP to focus on spaceships.
I'm not gay, but I am very, very pretty. Ain't no thang. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Solo Player
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:11:00 -
[97] - Quote
Since I believe you did not exude enough dismissive contempt in your last post on the subject:
The argument could be made that a space setting requires a strong sense of vast distances, and thus, in EVE, distances should matter a lot. Now, some would feel that this illusion is negatively impacted on by JBs (as well as by jump drives, jump clones and, not least, warp to zero). Due to these conveniences, treks from the fringe to jita are felt to have turned into trips, and power is much too easily projected across swathes of space.
I gather you do not share these feelings. What disadvantage do you feel has been removed by this development, aside from inconvenience? Wouldn't you say that locality and strategy have suffered from it? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1869
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:11:00 -
[98] - Quote
Nubs McIbis wrote:The Mittani,
As Chairman of the CSM and King of Space, you must get many letters from irate pubbie constituents. Can you please publish a blog of the most entertaining complaints you have received? I am particularly interested in reading letters written in-character by Very Serious Roleplayers. Also any letters threatening legal action.
Sincerely, Nubs McIbis, Concerned Voter
Sadly, I don't. Most of my voters are die-hard null types who appreciate what I've managed to do, and the irate pubbies who didn't vote for me are either drooling, eating paste, or penning whine thread about how I blew up their Mackinaw. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1871
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 00:59:00 -
[99] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: Mr. Chairman can you please explain why nerfing supercaps is a good idea? It would be helpful if you could enlighten those of us reading your thread who are not Null sec residents as to why and how taking something which seems like fun (flying an awesome killing machine) out of the game before we can get a chance to skill up and try it ourselves.
You can do your own research. There's a ton of threads related to this, including the comments in the supercap nerf blog itself. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 01:04:00 -
[100] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Temba Ronin wrote: Mr. Chairman can you please explain why nerfing supercaps is a good idea? It would be helpful if you could enlighten those of us reading your thread who are not Null sec residents as to why and how taking something which seems like fun (flying an awesome killing machine) out of the game before we can get a chance to skill up and try it ourselves. You can do your own research. There's a ton of threads related to this, including the comments in the supercap nerf blog itself. Mr. Chairman thanks for the swift response i shall indeed research this issue as you have instructed. |
|
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 02:25:00 -
[101] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Zagdul wrote: What are your ideas for making inactive/hiding alliances who hold sov in nullsec lives a bit more difficult so that the "blueball" technique is less used and attacking parties don't have to commit so much in terms of resources for those who don't utilize their space?
Would you like to see more of a dynamic system in null sec where activity and system use is what determines the difficulty to take/remove sov from people?
I.E.: ihubs/stations HP nerfed (hardcore) and sov levels of system usage (military/industry/ a new marketing and jump activity as well as potentially moon mineral per month accumulation etc..now determines strategic level)
Then, Sov increases the resistances of structures. Potentially, the sov V systems also have a reduction in sov bills!!
What would you like to see in null sec going forward so we don't continue to have the "screw grinding sov structures" problem that currently exists?
I think destructible outposts will make a huge difference. People who hide will have their empire burn around them; people who dislike shooting structures will have a different view of the experience when the outpost they're shooting becomes a smoking ruin at the end of the day. Destructible outposts also open up the possibility of punitive invasions, rather than invasions purely of conquest. No one wants to conquer Cobalt Edge, but a lot of people would enjoy burning IRC out of their hovels. I don't have any 'magic bullet' sov fix ideas, sadly; I'm not a game designer. I know a dumb idea when I see one, though. Distributable/Incapacitated outposts in my opinion don't provide enough incentive for an attacking alliance to hit someone.
An idea I've been trying to push/develop is the activity in held space = reward. The more active a system is, the higher the resistances on the sov infrastructure thus increasing it's hp.
If an alliance decides to abandon it's space, the resistances drop, thus the EHP drops and making "cleanup" easier. However, current infrastructure would need an HP nerf.
When you're at Sov1 the HP is low enough that a fleet of 100 people can hit a system and reinforce it with battleships in < 30 minutes time. As it stands now, this is not possible due to the insane hp sov structures + stations have.
When we went to provi to hit a smaller alliance, they hid. This made creating fleets to go harass them dull and boring. Burning someone smaller to the ground should be fun and engaging. Keeping participation up to be involved with this activity should be enjoyable for the attacker but currently isn't as all you need to do as a defender is spam a station throughout your constellation. If you come under attack, hide for 2 weeks till the attackers leave.
Hiding behind the shield of HP shouldn't be a viable defense. I don't believe distributable outposts solve the problem.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 02:31:00 -
[102] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.
While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.
I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.
So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :) |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1872
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:06:00 -
[103] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote: So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC.
Mining is awful. Don't do it. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Poetic Stanziel
Arrakis Technology
231
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:34:00 -
[104] - Quote
Why is Goonswarm Federation listed as a FACTION on EVE Gate and not as an alliance?
What is the difference between Goonswarm Federation and GoonSwarm (the Alliance)? (I'd link Goonswarm Federation, but factions don't get their own EVE Gate page, so they are not linkable.) EVE Online: Incarna - New Coke EVE Online: Winter Expansion - Coke Classic |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 04:56:00 -
[105] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Takara Mora wrote: So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC. Mining is awful. Don't do it.
Yeah, you're right ... I actually DON'T believe you :)
But that's what bad guys are for .... |
Tasiv Deka
The Baseborn Syndicate
8
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:50:00 -
[106] - Quote
First off I don't care what people think about me for saying this but, I find Combat PVP to be truly boring of course while i have only gone on a few low/null runs (roughly 20 ventures lasting anywhere from 1 to 3 hours) there never seems to be anyone to fight (and no i am not saying this because i have only ever died i did find my fights entertaining when i could manage to find them) and the idea of attacking a mining/industrial that's just going to sit there like a moron doesn't seem interesting (i am an adrenaline junky after all) so my question (ignoring the significant sized build up) is do you consider lack of small scale PvP opportunities to be a "Gaping Chest Wound" as i believe you called it, and if not do you consider it a problem at all?
Also I do have to agree with you that the idea of being able to raze systems would be entertaining just to hear about if nothing else.
oh yes before i forget you say in most of your posts that mining is terrible yet i believe it was in an earlier one in this thread that you stated that 0.0 mining had become worthless is this why you have your views on mining? and if so how is the CSM expressing to CCP that mining needs to be changed apart from the botters because unfortunately that is part of MMO life.
Edit: My apologies the post i was talking about is on the first page of "How can we as players help fix the sandbox that is EVE" and goes as follows
Gank miners in empire to make nullsec mining worthwhile again.
sorry for not quoting it but posting from my phone is already an enormous chore |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 06:52:00 -
[107] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:The Mittani wrote:Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog? Answer thy good gentleman's query, scoundrel! A pox upon your protestant soul!
Guys, he did answer that early on in this thread. Do try to keep up. He does NOT represent everybody nor does he care to. Tell the truth I totally agree with him on this one. There are a lot of folks who prove that they need less representation and more medication.
As to whether the CSM as a whole represents the player base . . . I doubt you could form a committee of 9 that DID.
Each election we get what organization and apathy and stone cold ignorance conspires to give us.
This year we Got Mittens and crew.
Speakin of which, yer lordship, sir . . .
I understand you separation of player (ganking ice miners) and CSM chair. Please do me the same courtesy of keeping my fictional blog separate from questions or opinions expressed here. Others seem to have managed to make that distinction.
Is the CSM in the loop for Dust 514 or is that a) NDA covered b) Not Eve therefore not your baliwick
m
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:44:00 -
[108] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Takara Mora wrote: So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC. Mining is awful. Don't do it.
You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 07:49:00 -
[109] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat? |
Redklaw
VALHALLA'S Wrath True Reign
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:13:00 -
[110] - Quote
Mittani,
I'm a member of a small alliance in null and am anxious as to what forseeable solutions there are to existing problems with sovereignty mechanics.
I feel that this among the top things holding back small groups from actually making an impact on the enviroment of nullsec. The vast majority of claimable null is unoccupied with sov held by mega alliances or their pets, this space would be better utilized and would bring health back to null if smaller alliances were fighting for this territory.
It feels game killing to be in a small alliance that can keep a ton of it's members nearly 23/7 in claimed area only to have it taken at leisure by a mega alliance that only even visits the system to re-enforce or protect a structure.
I believe that Mega alliances should truly be juggernauts when it comes to SOV and tracts of held space, but there should be a mechanism for alliances of all sizes to hold space if they show the dedication to do so.
I'm wondering if there is a proposal to somehow change sov mechanics to be based on actual occupancy and activity within an area, or at least make it feasible for a small alliance to hold sov at all.
And if there isn't, would you be willing to plead the case for one? |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:16:00 -
[111] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat?
Actually I haven't. Should I? Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Max Flipper
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:25:00 -
[112] - Quote
Kaver Linkovir wrote: A wall of fame and shame Player benchmarks on display. Right now you have to leaf through all manner of logs in the client or through piles of information offered up by secondary outlets to see your own greatness. Do you feel player benchmarks such as first hull, first pod, first gcc, biggest fight partaken in, biggest loss suffered, npc corporate standing and other logged happenings should be on display for the player? Corpmates? Alliancemates? Everyone? In CQ? On player lookup?
You want Achievements? In my EvE? Its more like then not to be implemented in a ******** way. With a Sandboxgame like EvE most "notable" Achievments are hard to measure in a predictable way. How do you detect if someone has successfully infiltraded a Corp, made someone Ragequiet and so on. So please don't
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
64
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 10:46:00 -
[113] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected? I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat? Actually I haven't. Should I? I think so: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22653&find=unread |
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:34:00 -
[114] - Quote
This thread has allayed a lot of my concerns about CSM and also about your chairmanship of it. This is the kind of communication I would hope to see from a CSM chairman. Thank you for taking the time to create it and respond to so many posts. |
Arkanon Nerevar
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 11:37:00 -
[115] - Quote
I have a few questions mostly directed towards your position as the null-sec representative, there fairly interlinked questions so feel free to structure the answers as you see fit.
Q:do you think the coming supercapital changes are going to shift null battles away from super cap pilots being the most desired by the alliances
Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"
Q:do you think the coming gallente changes are enough to make their ships viable across the board for null-sec life/battles
Q:some players (myself) have a strong inclination to want to fly just one factions ships, generally because of a combination of looks/mechanics/feel, do you think this kind of thought is applicable/viable in null-sec in general Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter-Gallente capsuleer motto |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
987
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 14:05:00 -
[116] - Quote
Arkanon Nerevar wrote: Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"
~Citation Needed~
I'm still seeing BS as the go-to subcap fleet ship for large fights. Drakearmy has had it's heyday and been in decline since PL rolled out their Hellcat doctrine (and since Team Gridlock did their excellent thing and pushed the lagbar so much higher).
What we don't see any more are the old-school long-range BS, due to the extreme efficiency of on-grid probing. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Quebber
Edge of Midnight
6
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:00:00 -
[117] - Quote
You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.
How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.
This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1908
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 17:51:00 -
[118] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Since I believe you did not exude enough dismissive contempt in your last post on the subject:
The argument could be made that a space setting requires a strong sense of vast distances, and thus, in EVE, distances should matter a lot. Now, some would feel that this illusion is negatively impacted on by JBs (as well as by jump drives, jump clones and, not least, warp to zero). Due to these conveniences, treks from the fringe to jita are felt to have turned into trips, and power is much too easily projected across swathes of space.
I gather you do not share these feelings. What disadvantage do you feel has been removed by this development, aside from inconvenience? Wouldn't you say that locality and strategy have suffered from it?
This is one of the inexperience-fueled delusions that beguiled CSM5. Having never run a war before, they didn't understand that sov war is based on staging systems, alliance contracts, and forward deployments. One moves into a staging area and sets up shop for ops; one doesn't bounce between the front and your homeland. Fleet combat alts stay at the front, isk-making alts remain home or in hisec. Ignorant cries of 'but but, homeland defense' are met with a smirk and a remark about jump clones.
Removing jump bridges would only impact the lives of people inhabiting a region, and not change one's ability to wage distant war. Goonswarm is at war in Delve right now on a lark, half a galaxy away from Deklein. Our pilots are not trekking 7+ regions up and down the map each op.
So no: locality and strategy have nothing to do with it. There needs to be an incentive to bother building up a civilization in nullsec, since god knows after the Anomaly nerf there's not much point to holding and upgrading sov. You don't need sov to make moon income, after all.
Quote:Edit: thanks for your frank answers to my other post. Therein, it seems you use a limited view of your constituency as your null-sec voters. I think in other instances, you regard the whole of (at least the fundamentally sane) Eve playerdom as your constituents. What'll it be?
My voters are my constituents, but I do try to unfuck the game as a whole. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 18:42:00 -
[119] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:You have a preconceived notion about the nature of the CSM and will twist anything I say to try to support that notion.
I won't play ball with your tinfoil. You seem to have a preconceived notion about me.
I'll asume that you think my notion is "the CSM does not represent all players, but it should". I hope you'll agree that you haven't written anything (to me, anyway) that indicates the contrary, even when I ask you to clarify your statements. Quite the opposite, you avoid giving me clear answers, leaving me thinking you don't want to give clear answers.
You could have answered my question either a simple "yes" or "no" but instead you decided to post this (which is, as far as I can tell, supposed to be the answer to my question):
The Mittani wrote: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. Because this does not give me a clear answer, you leave it to me to interpret it. And when I then ask if a certain interpretation is the correct one, you refuse to answer, and seemingly try to discredit me to justify your actions.
I have been, and still am, more respectful to you than you have been to me. I therefor find it ironic that you are done playing ball with me. |
Venus Vermillion
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
207
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 20:31:00 -
[120] - Quote
Oh great and powerful King of Space,
I have but a few small questions for you that I hope you will bless with answers.
1 - How does it feel to be so incredibly ~spacefamous~ that your name causes people to go on spy hunts? (The Mittani sends his regards.)
2 - You miss Prencleeve, right? I mean seriously.
3 - As your sponsoree, have I done you proud?
4 - Is it true that I'm actually your alt? Riverini seems to indicate that I am and I can't disprove it. |
|
Solo Player
60
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:35:00 -
[121] - Quote
Last one, I promise:
The Mittani wrote:sov war is based on staging systems, alliance contracts, and forward deployments. One moves into a staging area and sets up shop for ops; one doesn't bounce between the front and your homeland. Fleet combat alts stay at the front, isk-making alts remain home or in hisec. Ignorant cries of 'but but, homeland defense' are met with a smirk and a remark about jump clones.
This makes sense to me, even if it does not quite cover the (un-?)importance of supply lines in such a conflict. But then, I'm not an armchair general but an armchair armchair general, and I look at such things from a purely academic perspective as opposed to your practical one. Still, from what I understand, jump clones are the key to projecting power as a null point null entity. Do you think it is to the broader game's best interest that they can do that so effectively no matter the distance, or would you prefer alliances to suffer drawbacks the further they deploy from home? If it is the latter, would you like CCP to have a close look at jump clones, big wrench in hand?
|
Steph Wing
Fantabulously Terrific Wonderment
50
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 21:44:00 -
[122] - Quote
Dear mittens,
Which do you think had a greater impact on CCP's recent face-heel-turn: the CSM's media zergrush, or the drop in subscriptions?
If the latter, what effects do you think this use of such a "blunt instrument" will have on EVE's future?
On an unrelated note, some guy from Goons said he could get me in and I paid him my 2bil deposit. Can you find out what's taking so long?
Regards, Steph |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.07 23:01:00 -
[123] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:The Mittani wrote:You have a preconceived notion about the nature of the CSM and will twist anything I say to try to support that notion.
I won't play ball with your tinfoil. You seem to have a preconceived notion about me. I'll asume that you think my notion is "the CSM does not represent all players, but it should". I hope you'll agree that you haven't written anything (to me, anyway) that indicates the contrary, even when I ask you to clarify your statements. Quite the opposite, you avoid giving me clear answers, leaving me thinking you don't want to give clear answers. You could have answered my question either a simple "yes" or "no" but instead you decided to post this (which is, as far as I can tell, supposed to be the answer to my question): The Mittani wrote: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. Because this does not give me a clear answer, you leave it to me to interpret it. And when I then ask if a certain interpretation is the correct one, you refuse to answer, and seemingly try to discredit me to justify your actions. I have been, and still am, more respectful to you than you have been to me. I therefor find it ironic that you are done playing ball with me.
If people who have an interest and want it represented, they need to find a candidate who supports their needs.
Much of Null sec got organized and behind this recent CSM panel and we're being represented as such. The previous CSM didn't stand up for us and CCP threw changes into the game that are destroying null sec as we speak. Less people are logging in and many are demotivated to play. This isn't just in null, but across EVE.
This CSM is vocal and raise hell. By how much effort in terms of media coverage, bitching and moaning this CSM (as a whole) has done, they've helped (maybe not completely responsible for) push CCP to focus on EVE the game and not CCP the company trying to make a quick buck.
They are representing our (null) interests because we got organized and put them all into office. They will most likely, as in real life, represent the aspects of the game which influence what they do on a daily basis the most.
If you want someone in office who supports the direction which you feel is important, you need to organize and make it happen. However, with the way empire is, being splintered and disorganized, it's going to be difficult.
It's not Rocket Surgery |
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
238
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 09:10:00 -
[124] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:The Mittani wrote: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. Because this does not give me a clear answer, you leave it to me to interpret it. And when I then ask if a certain interpretation is the correct one, you refuse to answer, and seemingly try to discredit me to justify your actions. I have been, and still am, more respectful to you than you have been to me. I therefor find it ironic that you are done playing ball with me. Sure seem clear to me. Perhaps you should buy better machine translation software so that it becomes meaningful to you as well?
You = no vote You = no representation You = sad QQ person
If you did vote and your candidate didn't get elected, sorry, try to pick a winner next time, or help campaign to make your candidate a winner. Highsec is getting represented, and if there is a low number of reps taking care of you it just reflects the low amount of people able to organize in highsec.
I think the idea of a pre-election petition to get onto the ballot would remedy alot of the lack of organization. The ballot this last year was hilarious, and the fact that the order was randomized made finding and voting for my candidates on my alts a chore. If voting wasn't so important it might even have made me give up o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
Velicitia
Open Designs
73
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:02:00 -
[125] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:
Highsec is getting represented, and if there is a low number of reps taking care of you it just reflects the low amount of people able to organize in highsec.
Or the low amount of people who actually live in hisec alone. |
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
240
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 13:13:00 -
[126] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:
Highsec is getting represented, and if there is a low number of reps taking care of you it just reflects the low amount of people able to organize in highsec.
Or the low amount of people who actually live in hisec alone. Dam I hate it when people give me good facts!
Tho I see that as a flaw of the game. There should be no reason to have a highsec alt if your a nullsec player, or a lowsec player. o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
MissyFire
Texas Deep Space Texas.
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 14:53:00 -
[127] - Quote
First and foremost; Great job on bringing more than an ounce of relevance to the CSM. And the quick stir to the politics of EVE.
My Question;
As a professional running a law practice myself and not having the time to really dedicate to EVE. I am now relegated to casual play time in high-sec. Do you feel EVE can remain committed to FiS for even the casual player or do you advocate more to the hard core player base.
Putting yourself in the casual/time limited players shoes, What do you think could be done better to attract and retain this kind of player?
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1916
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:39:00 -
[128] - Quote
Tasiv Deka wrote:so my question (ignoring the significant sized build up) is do you consider lack of small scale PvP opportunities to be a "Gaping Chest Wound" as i believe you called it, and if not do you consider it a problem at all?
I'd say it is a sucking chest wound, yes. And in my view, the reason for the death of small scale PvP is the proliferation of bots. Ratters are the plankton of the PvP foodchain; they provide targets for gankers, and gankers provide targets for small gangs, etc etc up the scale. For years now ratting bots instantly warp to a safespot, pos, or log off as soon as a neutral enters local, and as a result the old-school roam has almost entirely died off, except in player-created thunderdome zones.
Quote:oh yes before i forget you say in most of your posts that mining is terrible yet i believe it was in an earlier one in this thread that you stated that 0.0 mining had become worthless is this why you have your views on mining? and if so how is the CSM expressing to CCP that mining needs to be changed apart from the botters because unfortunately that is part of MMO life.
Mining basically died in nullsec - barring a few displaced carebears who kept at it despite a lack of profit - when the drone regions opened and began vomiting endless amounts of high-end minerals into the economy. I think the easiest fix for that is to remove 'gunmining' by giving the drones bounties like regular rats and removing their alloys. I enjoy killing miners, so it'd be nice to see mining ops in null besides IRC. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1916
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 15:46:00 -
[129] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected?
We try to push for fixes that cut across the low/null/high/wspace spectrum to improve the game. We're beginning to see some of the fruits of our labors with the first slate of POS Misery tweaks: fuel bricks, shorter timers, no passwords on bridges. With the exception of the bridge tweak, these improvements help everyone who has to suffer through using a POS. The CSM's championing of Team Gridlock (across multiple CSMs, not just CSM6) has resulted in dramatic reduction in Jita lag as a side effect of trying to fix lag elsewhere.
Come CSM7 I expect to see at least two 'pure Hisec' reps to help champion their issues, and I won't stand in their way. However it's not like I have ~brilliant hisec ideas~ that are just sitting in a pile. I'd defer to the wisdom of someone who deals more with hisec for fixes for that area, assuming they aren't a drooling, spoon-throwing idiot like Ankh was.
Mostly though I'll be pushing for the Dead Horse pos proposal, which again would improve industry and gameplay for everyone who deals with towers.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:01:00 -
[130] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
Mostly though I'll be pushing for the Dead Horse pos proposal, which again would improve industry and gameplay for everyone who deals with towers.
Mr. Chairman if you can get CCP to move forward with the Dead Horse POS proposal it would be greatly appreciated. I am still very let down by the junk pile look of my POSes.
CCP has embraced player designs with ship contest winners being buffed and brought into the game, a POS buff based on the Dead Horse Proposal I think would enhance game play for lots of corp members.
Any chance it could have a multi-player meeting area like the "War Room" planned for Dust541?
I hope you can get across the board player support for your effort to make the Dead Horse POS successful, I'm a high seccer mostly and i support your effort to do this. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1002
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:12:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Velicitia wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote:
Highsec is getting represented, and if there is a low number of reps taking care of you it just reflects the low amount of people able to organize in highsec.
Or the low amount of people who actually live in hisec alone. Dam I hate it when people give me good facts! Tho I see that as a flaw of the game. There should be no reason to have a highsec alt if your a nullsec player, or a lowsec player.
Well said! Hi-sec should be for people who want to live in hi-sec, not a mandatory requirement for people who's focus would be elsewhere but for the horribly gimped industrial limitations of 0.0
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Velicitia
Open Designs
75
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:30:00 -
[132] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:The Mittani wrote:
Mostly though I'll be pushing for the Dead Horse pos proposal, which again would improve industry and gameplay for everyone who deals with towers.
Mr. Chairman if you can get CCP to move forward with the Dead Horse POS proposal it would be greatly appreciated. I am still very let down by the junk pile look of my POSes.
Don't use Minmatar
can't wait for the new POS mechanics though... will be great. |
Khadmos
Serenity Engineering and Transport Company Fatal Ascension
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:50:00 -
[133] - Quote
Dear Mr. The Mittani,
I think EVE would be a far more interesting place if null sec alliances actually wanted other entities using their space. This would make it a lot easier for newer corps/alliances as they could live in another alliances space while learning the ropes of 0.0 warfare/politics and building their numbers.
So what keeps this from happening?
There is no incentive for a space holding alliance to allow anyone else in their space. Corp office rental fees, sales tax, etc. are a drop in the bucket compared to income from mining high end moons. On top of that, any guest corp/alliance can just move all their loot to jita with jump freighters so the host alliance wont see much income due to local commerce. As it is, station markets in 0.0 are only used to supply alliance members with ships and ammo to defend the space and/or rat. Rarely is anything of value (gained in the 0.0 space) sold on these markets.
On the flip side, the space holding alliance has little to offer the guest corp/alliance. Short of 24/7 roaming gangs they can't offer any protection. An alliance with lots of high end systems might be able to spare some belt rats but most alliances will need all of their anoms and complexes for their members. 0.0 resources don't scale to the number of players in the space, high sec has agents that give missions. If 1 person wants a mission, there is 1 mission, if 5,000 people want a mission, there are 5,000 missions. In 0.0, a fully upgraded system has at most 5 valuable anomalies whether there is 1 person running them or 5,000.
A lot of people (and I think the CCP devs are included in this) think of 0.0 space as somewhere that big alliances take over and make their home. The truth is, 0.0 space is just where the alliances farm. It's an awesome playground and the big alliances claim it as their own and beat up any other kid that tries to play there. Sure, their members spend 99% of their time in null sec but there is a constant stream of jump freighters moving ships, ammo and mods from jita out to null sec. Every 0.0 alliance does all of their shopping (buying and selling) in Jita. If it wasn't for the JF link to jita, none of the 0.0 alliances would have the minerals or ice products to support themselves.
Jump freighters and high end moons are by far the largest factors in the current state of 0.0. The gap in value between high end and low end moon resources is way too big, it shouldn't be so easy for 0.0 alliances to do all of their shopping in Jita and 0.0 space can't support anywhere near enough pilots for alliances to open their space up.
Am I just crazy, or would eve be far more interesting if null sec was actually a place where people lived, buying, selling, mining and manufacturing things?
Countless small things would need to be adjusted as well. For example, the access rights on mobile labs are currently useless. One outpost per system may not be enough, or outposts will need more research/manufacturing slots. Agents in player owned stations would be nice, better yet, allow sov owners to pay for missions or rat bounties (or add their own isk to rat bounties) in their systems and have the number of missions completed and rats killed give a benefit to the sov holders (tougher sov structures, cheaper maintenance costs, whatever).
Is CCP looking at doing anything like this to shake things up or are they quite happy with the current state of the game and sov warfare? |
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
242
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 17:56:00 -
[134] - Quote
Khadmos wrote:Dear Mr. The Mittani,
I think EVE would be a far more interesting place if null sec alliances actually wanted other entities using their space. This would make it a lot easier for newer corps/alliances as they could live in another alliances space while learning the ropes of 0.0 warfare/politics and building their numbers.
So what keeps this from happening?
There is no incentive for a space holding alliance to allow anyone else in their space. Corp office rental fees, sales tax, etc. are a drop in the bucket compared to income from mining high end moons. On top of that, any guest corp/alliance can just move all their loot to jita with jump freighters so the host alliance wont see much income due to local commerce. As it is, station markets in 0.0 are only used to supply alliance members with ships and ammo to defend the space and/or rat. Rarely is anything of value (gained in the 0.0 space) sold on these markets.
On the flip side, the space holding alliance has little to offer the guest corp/alliance. Short of 24/7 roaming gangs they can't offer any protection. An alliance with lots of high end systems might be able to spare some belt rats but most alliances will need all of their anoms and complexes for their members. 0.0 resources don't scale to the number of players in the space, high sec has agents that give missions. If 1 person wants a mission, there is 1 mission, if 5,000 people want a mission, there are 5,000 missions. In 0.0, a fully upgraded system has at most 5 valuable anomalies whether there is 1 person running them or 5,000.
A lot of people (and I think the CCP devs are included in this) think of 0.0 space as somewhere that big alliances take over and make their home. The truth is, 0.0 space is just where the alliances farm. It's an awesome playground and the big alliances claim it as their own and beat up any other kid that tries to play there. Sure, their members spend 99% of their time in null sec but there is a constant stream of jump freighters moving ships, ammo and mods from jita out to null sec. Every 0.0 alliance does all of their shopping (buying and selling) in Jita. If it wasn't for the JF link to jita, none of the 0.0 alliances would have the minerals or ice products to support themselves.
Jump freighters and high end moons are by far the largest factors in the current state of 0.0. The gap in value between high end and low end moon resources is way too big, it shouldn't be so easy for 0.0 alliances to do all of their shopping in Jita and 0.0 space can't support anywhere near enough pilots for alliances to open their space up.
Am I just crazy, or would eve be far more interesting if null sec was actually a place where people lived, buying, selling, mining and manufacturing things?
Countless small things would need to be adjusted as well. For example, the access rights on mobile labs are currently useless. One outpost per system may not be enough, or outposts will need more research/manufacturing slots. Agents in player owned stations would be nice, better yet, allow sov owners to pay for missions or rat bounties (or add their own isk to rat bounties) in their systems and have the number of missions completed and rats killed give a benefit to the sov holders (tougher sov structures, cheaper maintenance costs, whatever).
Is CCP looking at doing anything like this to shake things up or are they quite happy with the current state of the game and sov warfare? Go back and read Zagdul's post, the 2 of you might want to compare notes and see if you can tweak his proposal o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:00:00 -
[135] - Quote
Mr. Chairman I think many players like myself would like the opportunity to infiltrate Null Sec as saboteurs, agents of chaos, and just plain irritants to the big Alliances that have frozen us out. Would you support a hacking module buff that could be implemented by a cloaked ship that would allow it to use ANY jump bridge?
Some of the imbalance high sec suffers from is that a lot of the gankers get to flee home to GÇ£Too Safe Walled Garden Alliances Far Away In Null SpaceGÇ¥ if we could visit some of that gank PVP in their home systems I think everyone would be happier.
Mr. Chairman will you support some changes to the hacking modules that will allow a cloaked small gang or large fleet to infiltrate Null space jump bridge networks? Maybe we will find some tears other then our own when the shoe is on the other foot.
It could give us the chance to meet ship to ship in your local space at a time of my choosing which would be worth not getting out of your system with ship or pod. Are you up for a little non-consensual PVP on your turf? |
Stahlregen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:41:00 -
[136] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Mr. Chairman I think many players like myself would like the opportunity to infiltrate Null Sec as saboteurs, agents of chaos, and just plain irritants to the big Alliances that have frozen us out. Would you support a hacking module buff that could be implemented by a cloaked ship that would allow it to use ANY jump bridge? Some of the imbalance high sec suffers from is that a lot of the gankers get to flee home to GÇ£Too Safe Walled Garden Alliances Far Away In Null SpaceGÇ¥ if we could visit some of that gank PVP in their home systems I think everyone would be happier. Mr. Chairman will you support some changes to the hacking modules that will allow a cloaked small gang or large fleet to infiltrate Null space jump bridge networks? Maybe we will find some tears other then our own when the shoe is on the other foot. It could give us the chance to meet ship to ship in your local space at a time of my choosing which would be worth not getting out of your system with ship or pod. Are you up for a little non-consensual PVP on your turf?
Hang on let me get this straight- You want the same advantages as Null Sec groups, (specifically; use of their own JB's of which they pay for, protect and maintain and which have already been nerfed once already) without you having to bother actually putting in the effort of conquering space in order to achieve these advantages?
What is it exactly about not being able to use their jump bridges that makes it impossible for you to put a fleet together right now and raid nullsec alliances? Hell, If you're too disorganised to put a fleet together and send it into 0.0 for pvp as it is now I don't think you'd ever be able to, regardless of whether or not you can use the enemies bridges,
Putting this forward to the CSM, that is the CSM that was stacked with 0.0 duders as a backlash to the previous CSM consisting of empire publords who nerfed the **** out of nullsec for no good reason, must be the ******* stupidest thing I ever heard.
Yeah good luck with that one, mang. |
Veranius
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 18:47:00 -
[137] - Quote
Dear King o' Space and CFC Overlord,
I like your ideas on being able to raise an empire without having to take space and support your ideas on destroyable stations. I too have some ideas that I would like to add.
SBUs have a lot of potential to be very annoying for alliances that just dock up and log off when they are invaded. If SBUs could be upgraded (like ihubs) so that they actually prevented Ihub upgrades from taking effect. For instance you could have SBU upgrades that could prevent ratting/mining anomalies from respawning or that prevent JBs, cyno gen and jammers upgrades from working. These SBUs would essentially be "anti-ihubs" in that their own upgrades would counter act all ihub upgrades.
Also, since your sov level is determined by how long you take sov, wouldn't it also make sense that your sov level degrades after your systems are SBU'd for a certain period of time? It's way out of my league to come up with time frames, but let's say a nullsec alliance is being invaded and "docks" up with their systems SBU'd for like a week. Shouldn't their sov level drop some, so that at some point if they didn't undock things like jbs and cyno gens/jammers wouldn't work? i'm surely not advocating that SBUs should be able to remove sov entirely, and that if such a mechanic as described above were in fact enacted, it should bring sov level down to one and no entirely remove sov from a nullsec entity.
The point of SBUs was to cause fights and since sov would be vulnerable, but why not give alliances more invcentives to fight since they would actually lose important things like anoms, jb and cynogen/jammer use and possibly even sov levels. Docking up and hoping ppl get bored should not be a viable game mechanic and needs to be punished somehow and above is my 2 cents on how to do it.
|
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:13:00 -
[138] - Quote
Stahlregen wrote:
Hang on let me get this straight- You want the same advantages as Null Sec groups, (specifically; use of their own JB's of which they pay for, protect and maintain and which have already been nerfed once already) without you having to bother actually putting in the effort of conquering space in order to achieve these advantages?
What is it exactly about not being able to use their jump bridges that makes it impossible for you to put a fleet together right now and raid nullsec alliances? Hell, If you're too disorganised to put a fleet together and send it into 0.0 for pvp as it is now I don't think you'd ever be able to, regardless of whether or not you can use the enemies bridges,
Putting this forward to the CSM, that is the CSM that was stacked with 0.0 duders as a backlash to the previous CSM consisting of empire publords who nerfed the **** out of nullsec for no good reason, must be the ******* stupidest thing I ever heard.
Yeah good luck with that one, mang.
So when you use gates to gank ice miners in Gallente space it's okay because you conquered that space .... oh wait of course you didn't .... it's okay for you to gank & destroy ships built by other players that they pay for but how dare i ask the Chairman to allow hacking use of an Alliance asset that leaves it intact ..... if i am so disorganized in putting a fleet together what has caused your hive think nerves to get so jangled?
I have read the Chairman make comments about being in favor of Null warriors..... never heard him say just Null warriors on his team ...... and i think he enjoys pvp and perceives it is an essential element of the EVE experience and will encourage ALL expansion opportunities for it. |
Stahlregen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 19:34:00 -
[139] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Stahlregen wrote:
Hang on let me get this straight- You want the same advantages as Null Sec groups, (specifically; use of their own JB's of which they pay for, protect and maintain and which have already been nerfed once already) without you having to bother actually putting in the effort of conquering space in order to achieve these advantages?
What is it exactly about not being able to use their jump bridges that makes it impossible for you to put a fleet together right now and raid nullsec alliances? Hell, If you're too disorganised to put a fleet together and send it into 0.0 for pvp as it is now I don't think you'd ever be able to, regardless of whether or not you can use the enemies bridges,
Putting this forward to the CSM, that is the CSM that was stacked with 0.0 duders as a backlash to the previous CSM consisting of empire publords who nerfed the **** out of nullsec for no good reason, must be the ******* stupidest thing I ever heard.
Yeah good luck with that one, mang.
So when you use gates to gank ice miners in Gallente space it's okay because you conquered that space .... oh wait of course you didn't .... it's okay for you to gank & destroy ships built by other players that they pay for but how dare i ask the Chairman to allow hacking use of an Alliance asset that leaves it intact ..... if i am so disorganized in putting a fleet together what has caused your hive think nerves to get so jangled? I have read the Chairman make comments about being in favor of Null warriors..... never heard him say just Null warriors on his team ...... and i think he enjoys pvp and perceives it is an essential element of the EVE experience and will encourage ALL expansion opportunities for it.
Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place. |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:06:00 -
[140] - Quote
Stahlregen wrote:Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place. Perhaps this is indeed a case of my ignorance shining brightly but i was under the impression that without a password or being in the corp/ alliance that placed the JB you could not use it. I would like to be able to hack past that to further my criminal enterprises and gank players in their haulers, shuttles, and pods in their Null space home systems .... because ANYWHERE you undock in EVE should be dangerous ....... this is a bad idea? |
|
Stahlregen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 20:31:00 -
[141] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:[quote=Stahlregen]Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place.
Everywhere in EVE is dangerous. You're trying to say that the reward for months of effort and billions of isk expended to claim and hold space should be circumvented by a single ******* module on a single ******* ship just so you can avoid a couple of gate camps? It's ridiculous and flies in the face of the anti-solo gameplay that makes this game.
Hell, why shouldn't the pos you're trying to hack just blow you up the instant you uncloak? This is why it's a dumb idea, sorry it just is.
|
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:01:00 -
[142] - Quote
Stahlregen wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:[quote=Stahlregen]Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place. Everywhere in EVE is dangerous. You're trying to say that the reward for months of effort and billions of isk expended to claim and hold space should be circumvented by a single ******* module on a single ******* ship just so you can avoid a couple of gate camps? It's ridiculous and flies in the face of the anti-solo gameplay that makes this game. Hell, why shouldn't the pos you're trying to hack just blow you up the instant you uncloak? This is why it's a dumb idea, sorry it just is. Thanks for taking the time to share your opinion with me. BTW i did ask that a CLOAKED ship would be able to hack. D-scan works while cloaked so could a hacking module.
If you think EVE is anti solo player you better check their ad campaigns it's all about how ONE player's action can impact everything else. This game seems to be about multiplying the force of ONE player's choices not grinding them into mindless automatons that "Always follow orders".
I think you should look around and look forward, EVE is evolving and nothing your type of arguments will do can stop it, delay it some i'll grant you that, but new elections bring new opportunities, as will the new front for offense and defense that Dust541 represents.
I think the "Too Safe Far Away Alliance Havens" are heading into stormy weather, but the real Null Warriors will revel in it and the wannabes will give me their fears and tears about the months of effort and billions of isk i might turn to salvage ...... your fright is exactly what i had in mind with this proposal ...... EVERYTHING can be burned down, New Eden is not a safe place and should not be a safe place for big Alliances or single pilots ...... isn't that what EVE is all about? |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:06:00 -
[143] - Quote
Stahlregen wrote:
You're trying to say that the reward for months of effort and billions of isk expended to claim and hold space should be circumvented by a single ******* module on a single ******* ship .....
Correct me if i am wrong but isn't that exactly how the first Titan was tackled .... by a single ship with a warp scrambling module and ONE bold pilot? |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:07:00 -
[144] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Stahlregen wrote:Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place. Perhaps this is indeed a case of my ignorance shining brightly but i was under the impression that without a password or being in the corp/ alliance that placed the JB you could not use it. I would like to be able to hack past that to further my criminal enterprises and gank players in their haulers, shuttles, and pods in their Null space home systems .... because ANYWHERE you undock in EVE should be dangerous ....... this is a bad idea?
Do you understand that jump bridges are in deathstar pos's
1. its a module by the POS owner, so why should you get to use it? 2. Its got a ton of guns, stand near enough for 5-10 seconds you dead 3. being close enough to hack it (can't use modules while cloaked), or use it would decloak you, going to point 2, the guns.
Why would being able to use bridge between two systems help you that much, assuming all of the above does not stop you in first place, you go from two very predictable points that likely have eyes in. You save time going that direction but that's about it. To go to nullsec of a particular alliance you would first need to travel though many other regions, some empire, some low, and maybe other nullsec you don't get their bridges for a while.
Furthermore, going a predictable path of a bridge they would know where you were going could camp you down with one hictor, how will escaping work out with a big warp disrupt bubble around you and a zillion pos guns locking as you either plan on using a bridge or use one.
Nullsec is plenty dangerous with people who know their things and do roam it, they are already doing it. Do you want to have a class on how to do a roam? Need some professionals to hold your hand? |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:17:00 -
[145] - Quote
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Stahlregen wrote:Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place. Perhaps this is indeed a case of my ignorance shining brightly but i was under the impression that without a password or being in the corp/ alliance that placed the JB you could not use it. I would like to be able to hack past that to further my criminal enterprises and gank players in their haulers, shuttles, and pods in their Null space home systems .... because ANYWHERE you undock in EVE should be dangerous ....... this is a bad idea? Do you understand that jump bridges are in deathstar pos's 1. its a module by the POS owner, so why should you get to use it? 2. Its got a ton of guns, stand near enough for 5-10 seconds you dead 3. being close enough to hack it (can't use modules while cloaked), or use it would decloak you, going to point 2, the guns. Why would being able to use bridge between two systems help you that much, assuming all of the above does not stop you in first place, you go from two very predictable points that likely have eyes in. You save time going that direction but that's about it. To go to nullsec of a particular alliance you would first need to travel though many other regions, some empire, some low, and maybe other nullsec you don't get their bridges for a while. Furthermore, going a predictable path of a bridge they would know where you were going could camp you down with one hictor, how will escaping work out with a big warp disrupt bubble around you and a zillion pos guns locking as you either plan on using a bridge or use one. Nullsec is plenty dangerous with people who know their things and do roam it, they are already doing it. Do you want to have a class on how to do a roam? Need some professionals to hold your hand? ^^^^^^ If you could do that while in your shuttle or perhaps in your pod all the better please!
Do not discount strategy and tactics ...... i'm a patient sort of guy ..... after being in your system for a long time your many eyes will wander and lose focus ..... then i get to make my next move. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
84
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:28:00 -
[146] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Mr. Chairman I think many players like myself would like the opportunity to infiltrate Null Sec as saboteurs, agents of chaos, and just plain irritants to the big Alliances that have frozen us out. Would you support a hacking module buff that could be implemented by a cloaked ship that would allow it to use ANY jump bridge? Some of the imbalance high sec suffers from is that a lot of the gankers get to flee home to GÇ£Too Safe Walled Garden Alliances Far Away In Null SpaceGÇ¥ if we could visit some of that gank PVP in their home systems I think everyone would be happier. Mr. Chairman will you support some changes to the hacking modules that will allow a cloaked small gang or large fleet to infiltrate Null space jump bridge networks? Maybe we will find some tears other then our own when the shoe is on the other foot. It could give us the chance to meet ship to ship in your local space at a time of my choosing which would be worth not getting out of your system with ship or pod. Are you up for a little non-consensual PVP on your turf? Do me a favour, tell me why a JB should be hackable so it's usable by someone without the proper standings? What sort of benefits should this give them that isn't already there through wormholes and normal gates? What sort of drawbacks should they have to live with while they do it?
All I've seen from your idea so far has been something about nullsec alliances freezing you out, hisec suffering gankers fleeing to nullsec and you being unable to follow them there. This makes no sense to me, it's not like you're prohibited from going out into our space and touching somebody.
As of yet, I haven't seen anything that really screams "This would be awesome and enable me to do things I can't do otherwise. Let's do this." In short, this is your idea, sell it to us.
Temba Ronin wrote:Correct me if i am wrong but isn't that exactly how the first Titan was tackled .... by a single ship with a warp scrambling module and ONE bold pilot? Last I checked, the titan was decloaked because one guy saw where the titan cloaked and burned towards him. The actual tackling wasn't done by a warp scrambling module, since iirc the titans and motherships were immune to that module. You needed, then just as now, a hic or a dic for that. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
10
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:39:00 -
[147] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Stahlregen wrote:Come on dude, gates are completely different to bridges- even you should know this so you'll have to excuse me if I am unable to grasp the argument you are trying to make here. There's nothing stopping you from ganking nullsec players just as there is nothing stopping me from ganking people in empire. Again what is it about bridges that makes this impossible for you?
King of Space Mittani's stance on the reiteration of nullsec is a far cry from your proposal of further uninformed, knee-jerk nullsec nerfs that you can't even make a solid argument for- which is exactly what rallied this CSM to power in the first place. Perhaps this is indeed a case of my ignorance shining brightly but i was under the impression that without a password or being in the corp/ alliance that placed the JB you could not use it. I would like to be able to hack past that to further my criminal enterprises and gank players in their haulers, shuttles, and pods in their Null space home systems .... because ANYWHERE you undock in EVE should be dangerous ....... this is a bad idea? Do you understand that jump bridges are in deathstar pos's 1. its a module by the POS owner, so why should you get to use it? 2. Its got a ton of guns, stand near enough for 5-10 seconds you dead 3. being close enough to hack it (can't use modules while cloaked), or use it would decloak you, going to point 2, the guns. Why would being able to use bridge between two systems help you that much, assuming all of the above does not stop you in first place, you go from two very predictable points that likely have eyes in. You save time going that direction but that's about it. To go to nullsec of a particular alliance you would first need to travel though many other regions, some empire, some low, and maybe other nullsec you don't get their bridges for a while. Furthermore, going a predictable path of a bridge they would know where you were going could camp you down with one hictor, how will escaping work out with a big warp disrupt bubble around you and a zillion pos guns locking as you either plan on using a bridge or use one. Nullsec is plenty dangerous with people who know their things and do roam it, they are already doing it. Do you want to have a class on how to do a roam? Need some professionals to hold your hand? ^^^^^^ If you could do that while in your shuttle or perhaps in your pod all the better please! Do not discount strategy and tactics ...... i'm a patient sort of guy ..... after being in your system for a long time your many eyes will wander and lose focus ..... then i get to make my next move.
Or I could travel as I do currently in gates with a insured hurricane fit for pvp with autocannons or covert ops ship, or anything with cloaks, and utilize a scout.
Do you plan on attacking people as a one man army in your NPC corp, or will others in it join with you? If your very patient are you going to wait for the never for CCP to let in cloaked hacking, or are you going to do it now as others do? The goons, hint hint bad people who hurt gallente ice minors live in the region dekline and the hub is VFK. You can use adjacent NPC gurista or other space as a nearby bases for attacks. You go now, go stop bad people and save ice minors, save eve online, blow up deathstar and you win 'the game'. |
Rer Eirikr
Stargazer Exploration Company Transmission Lost
59
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 21:41:00 -
[148] - Quote
Yes let's circumvent all JB defenses with a module you can use while cloaked...
If you really wanna **** with Null so bad become a spy and Awox ****. You've said it yourself, you're a HighSec pilot, come out and live here for awhile, learn the ropes. I appreciate the enthusiasm for blowing **** up but this idea is bad for a multitude of reasons, primarily for me being you're taking an act of player created content (espionage) and making it into a module :/
Come and live out here for a few weeks, you'll see how easy it is to gank stuff, won't even need this idea. |
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
242
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 22:32:00 -
[149] - Quote
Props to Temba. At first I thought he was just a ******, but his success at derailing this thread has proven him to be a master troll.
I expected better of the rest of you, tho. o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1919
|
Posted - 2011.11.08 23:55:00 -
[150] - Quote
Just ignore the people you disagree with. This is a thread for me to discuss issues with actual constituents, not to have a slapfight with lunatics who have never used a jump bridge in their life. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:09:00 -
[151] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Just ignore the people you disagree with. This is a thread for me to discuss issues with actual constituents, not to have a slapfight with lunatics who have never used a jump bridge in their life. Forum Tears from the Chairman & lead fearless Goon.... thank you so much ...... and i never had to fire a shot! Proof positive the pen is mightier then the horde. Thank you so much! |
Stahlregen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 00:09:00 -
[152] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Just ignore the people you disagree with. This is a thread for me to discuss issues with actual constituents, not to have a slapfight with lunatics who have never used a jump bridge in their life.
Sorry dude, that was my fault for getting trolled. EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A VHS INTO THE SLOT. IT'S CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE MOVES ALONGSIDE THE MAIN CHARACTER, RIDDICK. I DO EVERY MOVE AND I DO EVERY MOVE HARD. MAKIN' WHOOSHING SOUNDS WHEN I SLAM DOWN SOME NECRO BASTARDS. NOT MANY CAN SAY THEY ESCAPED THE GALAXY'S MOST DANGEROUS PRISON. I CAN. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1931
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:36:00 -
[153] - Quote
Arkanon Nerevar wrote:I have a few questions mostly directed towards your position as the null-sec representative, there fairly interlinked questions so feel free to structure the answers as you see fit.
Q:do you think the coming supercapital changes are going to shift null battles away from super cap pilots being the most desired by the alliances
I don't think that the changes go far enough to prevent Titan guns from annihilating subcaps; they're a step in the right direction, but I'd like to see either an additional nerf to Titan tracking, or a boost to hictor capacitor.
Quote:Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"
I disagree. Most serious main-fleet doctrines in 60% of null are Pulse Abaddons. The other 30% are Alphafleets, with 10% random disorganized trash.
Battlecruiser fleets are just playtime, or specific suicide counters to supercaps.
Quote: Q:do you think the coming gallente changes are enough to make their ships viable across the board for null-sec life/battles
I'm not sure, I'm not an expert theorycrafter when it comes to fleet doctrines. I think you'd be more likely to see Rail Rokhs over Megas, because a Rail Mega is still inferior to a Pulse Abaddon in every way, but a Rail Rokh might beat out a Alpha Mael postpatch.
Quote:Q:some players (myself) have a strong inclination to want to fly just one factions ships, generally because of a combination of looks/mechanics/feel, do you think this kind of thought is applicable/viable in null-sec in general
It's an artificially-imposed restriction on your options as pilot and thus by definition suboptimal. Just like 'honor'.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1931
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:43:00 -
[154] - Quote
Quebber wrote:You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.
How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.
This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters.
It's impossible for me to tell who's a dedicated ratter and who's a 'bot', and it's not my job. I'm not paid by CCP to play GM. If you find a bot, click 'report bot' and the Security Team - who actually has access to logs and evidence - can sort things out. Alliance leaders have no evidence, just hearsay and endless finger-pointing.
Witch hunts accomplish nothing save feed the egos of the ignorant and self-righteous (that's you). The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1931
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:47:00 -
[155] - Quote
Venus Vermillion wrote:Oh great and powerful King of Space,
I have but a few small questions for you that I hope you will bless with answers.
1 - How does it feel to be so incredibly ~spacefamous~ that your name causes people to go on spy hunts? (The Mittani sends his regards.)
2 - You miss Prencleeve, right? I mean seriously.
3 - As your sponsoree, have I done you proud?
4 - Is it true that I'm actually your alt? Riverini seems to indicate that I am and I can't disprove it.
1. It's a little weird sometimes.
2. Not really!
3. Yes. But you should stop referring to yourself as a sponsoree, as it marks you as one of the unwashed masses.
4. I am the alts of many people! Apparently I talk to myself with sock puppets on the forums all day. Some guy in a NPC corp told me so. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1932
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:50:00 -
[156] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Last one, I promise: The Mittani wrote:sov war is based on staging systems, alliance contracts, and forward deployments. One moves into a staging area and sets up shop for ops; one doesn't bounce between the front and your homeland. Fleet combat alts stay at the front, isk-making alts remain home or in hisec. Ignorant cries of 'but but, homeland defense' are met with a smirk and a remark about jump clones.
This makes sense to me, even if it does not quite cover the (un-?)importance of supply lines in such a conflict. But then, I'm not an armchair general but an armchair armchair general, and I look at such things from a purely academic perspective as opposed to your practical one. Still, from what I understand, jump clones are the key to projecting power as a null point null entity. Do you think it is to the broader game's best interest that they can do that so effectively no matter the distance, or would you prefer alliances to suffer drawbacks the further they deploy from home? If it is the latter, would you like CCP to have a close look at jump clones, big wrench in hand?
You're really asking questions from a position of complete ignorance. Jump clones can be substituted for simple podjumping to offices, etc. Short version is: don't worry or ask ~deep searing questions~ about an aspect of gameplay that - as a solo player - you don't seem to have any knowledge of.
Jump clone are not a key to projecting power in nullsec. Having a fleet that obeys a tight doctrine is. vOv The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1932
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 05:56:00 -
[157] - Quote
MissyFire wrote:First and foremost; Great job on bringing more than an ounce of relevance to the CSM. And the quick stir to the politics of EVE.
My Question;
As a professional running a law practice myself and not having the time to really dedicate to EVE. I am now relegated to casual play time in high-sec. Do you feel EVE can remain committed to FiS for even the casual player or do you advocate more to the hard core player base.
Putting yourself in the casual/time limited players shoes, What do you think could be done better to attract and retain this kind of player?
Most of being a casual player in EVE involves thinking through setup, and/or being a mindless solo missionrunning drone.
For example, I hate the fact that most nullsec ops take a long time before a payoff, so lately I've been doing one of three things: gatecamping in a predetermined location, ganking pods and small ships in Jita, or blowing up barges in Gallente space.
To avoid the pain in the ass factor, I've got each team of characters set up with everything they need so I can simply log in and immediately play (or gank, as the case may be) without any fooling around.
I don't think there's a distinction between 'casual' and 'hardcore' in terms of sandbox content in EVE unlike WoW where there are very distinct divisions in content. Something that is in the sandbox can be used casually or in a 'hardcore' way. It depends on how you put the tools to use. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1933
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:05:00 -
[158] - Quote
Khadmos wrote:*snip: hella words* Am I just crazy, or would eve be far more interesting if null sec was actually a place where people lived, buying, selling, mining and manufacturing things?
Countless small things would need to be adjusted as well. For example, the access rights on mobile labs are currently useless. One outpost per system may not be enough, or outposts will need more research/manufacturing slots. Agents in player owned stations would be nice, better yet, allow sov owners to pay for missions or rat bounties (or add their own isk to rat bounties) in their systems and have the number of missions completed and rats killed give a benefit to the sov holders (tougher sov structures, cheaper maintenance costs, whatever).
Is CCP looking at doing anything like this to shake things up or are they quite happy with the current state of the game and sov warfare?
The idea of making nullsec more independent from Jita, and a place for civilizations to grow rather than merely flags on the map fueled by endless jump freighters from Empire is something we discussed at great length in May, as is in the May Summit minutes. This also ties into the CSM6 'Farms and Fields' discussions.
So basically it's something the CSM has been pushing for since our term began. Obviously I can't say what CCP is looking at or not, besides what's been made available in blogs and the minutes. NDA, etc.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1933
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 06:18:00 -
[159] - Quote
Steph Wing wrote:Dear mittens,
Which do you think had a greater impact on CCP's recent face-heel-turn: the CSM's media zergrush, or the drop in subscriptions?
If the latter, what effects do you think this use of such a "blunt instrument" will have on EVE's future?
I assume it was a combination of factors. I doubt the CSM's media push for sanity would have been listened to if CCP's revenues were soaring, but if there had been no media push I fear CCP might have assumed that more NeX dollies were the answer to declining subscriptions.
We can only hope that going forward CCP remembers that this is a spaceship game, and that their customers are kept happy by new spaceship content - as is evidenced by the outpouring of relief and announcements of resubbing from even the most bitter of bittervets upon the revelation of the Winter Expansion's features.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
239
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 09:42:00 -
[160] - Quote
Stahlregen wrote: Everywhere in EVE is dangerous. You're trying to say that the reward for months of effort and billions of isk expended to claim and hold space should be circumvented by a single ******* module on a single ******* ship just so you can avoid a couple of gate camps? It's ridiculous and flies in the face of the anti-solo gameplay that makes this game.
Hell, why shouldn't the pos you're trying to hack just blow you up the instant you uncloak? This is why it's a dumb idea, sorry it just is.
So people using jumpbridges and POS's because they "metagamed" the password and thus took advantage of all that hard work somebody else build up are just plain unfair? Shouldn't you go cry in a corner somewhere in stead of playing eve?
I was under the impression people could allready do all this, providing they "steal" the pasword by metagaming. Although now paswords will be eliminated.
edit: In order to stay on topic:
Mittani, what do you think about all the stuff that is coming out of CCP regarding eve these last few weeks. I find it amazing that a high number of features and ideas get implemented in record time while some of these things have been asked for years. Have they been stocking up on ideas and only now gotten enough people to actually implement them or is this all a big co+»ncidence a perfect "white swan event", with carbon being finished for the UI etc, etc. - [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
|
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
247
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 09:56:00 -
[161] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote: So people using jumpbridges and POS's because they "metagamed" the password and thus took advantage of all that hard work somebody else build up are just plain unfair? Shouldn't you go cry in a corner somewhere in stead of playing eve?
I was under the impression people could allready do all this, providing they "steal" the pasword by metagaming. Although now paswords will be eliminated.
You have to be blue to the alliance that controls the JB before you can use it, password or no.
And getting the password to the pos shields so you can get in and bump/kill/steal ships in it(or even funnier, hide from the owners in it) IS fair, because you are taking care of an intel screw up on the part of the owning entity. o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
104
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:01:00 -
[162] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote: You have to be blue to the alliance that controls the JB before you can use it, password or no.
btw currently there is no way to allow blues into a pos' forcefield without the use of a password right ?
|
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
72
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 13:20:00 -
[163] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote: You have to be blue to the alliance that controls the JB before you can use it, password or no.
btw currently there is no way to allow blues into a pos' forcefield without the use of a password right ? yes. and there is no need to change that.
Pos password is required to enter the force field. That is a good thing. But why JB required password, if the module itself is located outside of force field, is a mystery. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
JitaJane
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 14:12:00 -
[164] - Quote
That is that the fondling issue has little to do with your operations as CSM. Merely that the constituents may consider fondling boys to be a moral failing.... |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
241
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 14:15:00 -
[165] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote: And getting the password to the pos shields so you can get in and bump/kill/steal ships in it(or even funnier, hide from the owners in it) IS fair, because you are taking care of an intel screw up on the part of the owning entity.
I agree, I was being sarcastic. But ganking/trolling/harshness has to work both ways. And lets be honest, POS's paswords where a bit more secure then JB paswords but in practice they are ineffective and more annoying then a decent security measure.
- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1983
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 18:35:00 -
[166] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote: Mittani, what do you think about all the stuff that is coming out of CCP regarding eve these last few weeks. I find it amazing that a high number of features and ideas get implemented in record time while some of these things have been asked for years. Have they been stocking up on ideas and only now gotten enough people to actually implement them or is this all a big co+»ncidence a perfect "white swan event", with carbon being finished for the UI etc, etc.
It's not rocket science or a conspiracy.
They had a tiny skeleton crew (20ish) on EVE for years, with the vast majority of their employees working on Incarna, according to publicly released blogs during CSM5 and CSM6. After reallocating everyone to Flying in Space, suddenly we have content the customers actually want. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Laurici
The Priesthood The 0rphanage
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:40:00 -
[167] - Quote
Is GM Thunder correct in banning recruitment scamming and were the CSM consulted? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=31744&find=unread |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1984
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 20:58:00 -
[168] - Quote
It is not correct, and no, the CSM were not consulted. I think that instituting some kind of protection against scamming for newbies would be wise from a business perspective, somewhere below the 1-million sp level. However, most of the people who fall for recruitment scams are veteran player who should damn well know better, not newbies.
So here we see a policy apparently aimed at protecting newbies that offers no such protection, cuts off an honorable and noble profession, and coddles the weak, wealthy and ignorant. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 21:19:00 -
[169] - Quote
Ciar Meara wrote:Tallian Saotome wrote: And getting the password to the pos shields so you can get in and bump/kill/steal ships in it(or even funnier, hide from the owners in it) IS fair, because you are taking care of an intel screw up on the part of the owning entity.
I agree, I was being sarcastic. But ganking/trolling/harshness has to work both ways. And lets be honest, POS's paswords where a bit more secure then JB paswords but in practice they are ineffective and more annoying then a decent security measure.
Though without JB passwords, the owner can set a really secretive and complicated password to prevent any layman alliance member knowing.
when I was getting assets out of DRF, a tard corp and alliance I was hanging out in briefly had 'a spy' that 'leaked' the bridge password (mabey causing something stupid to explode). Apparently this causes a 'problem' because 1. tards store expensive ships in bridge pos's 2. bridge passwords are carefully guarded secrets, and not the same for large alliance for years. This created a purge of allot of members.... had to find another corp.
So.... storing ships on bridge pos is the stupidest thing to do, but people still do it, so this might make allot of missed chances now that people wanting to hide ships (capitals) in convent well known pos might do it on bridge POS and the password will not known to everyone and his mother. Might actually require a up to date spy. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
193
|
Posted - 2011.11.09 22:50:00 -
[170] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:It is not correct, and no, the CSM were not consulted. I think that instituting some kind of protection against scamming for newbies would be wise from a business perspective, somewhere below the 1-million sp level. However, most of the people who fall for recruitment scams are veteran player who should damn well know better, not newbies. So here we see a policy apparently aimed at protecting newbies that offers no such protection, cuts off an honorable and noble profession, and coddles the weak, wealthy and ignorant.
My CEO |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 13:16:00 -
[171] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I think that instituting some kind of protection against scamming for newbies would be wise from a business perspective, somewhere below the 1-million sp level.
I'm not sure how you could rationalise protecting newbies from scams while still allowing them to scam themselves. |
The Crimson Invaider
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
14
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:12:00 -
[172] - Quote
Also newbies generally have nothing to scam, protecting them anyway. Plus you don't want to scare them away to early buy making off with everything they have, whereas veteran players generally have a lot of stuff stashed away through years of grinding lvl4's.
I really like the removal of jb passwords, it makes navigation a little easier yet still providing smaller entities something to get easy kills from so its quite balanced. |
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 17:50:00 -
[173] - Quote
Dear Mittani,
My feeling on null-sec is that it is the overall driver of Eve Online in that most of the resources (or at least a large bulk of the resources), isk, and support are established to maintain empires there. What is your view on efforts to perhaps re-distributing that overall drive between low-sec and null-sec? If so, what would you like to see to make that happen once the null-sec sov issue is adequately dealt with? |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
216
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 19:45:00 -
[174] - Quote
That idea in like, page... 3? About hijacking ships doesn't pan out, but there is an idea there -- how about having Salvaging affect the drop rate of mods from PVP targets? A person good at salvaging would be better at recognizing that that Dark Blood Mega Pulse Laser would work just fine with a little polish and duct tape, for example.
Or, oh hey, maybe a small chance for a "ruined hull" to drop whenever a ship is destroyed, allowing people with big enough cargo holds to scoop those up and repair them via the crafting system at a station someplace. Would add an entire new dynamic to post-fleet ops, and give newbies and craft-centric players something to do -- instead of just cleaning up belt rats via Salvagers and Tractor Beams, a newbie grab a broken version of a Gurristas Saboteur and make a frigate out of it.
To say nothing about the dynamic that could add to faction spawns and the like. Get an officer spawn, luck out and have the ruined officer spawn's hull drop, and drag that sucker back to a station to repair it for yourself. |
Temba Ronin
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:05:00 -
[175] - Quote
Xython wrote:That idea in like, page... 3? About hijacking ships doesn't pan out, but there is an idea there -- how about having Salvaging affect the drop rate of mods from PVP targets? A person good at salvaging would be better at recognizing that that Dark Blood Mega Pulse Laser would work just fine with a little polish and duct tape, for example.
Or, oh hey, maybe a small chance for a "ruined hull" to drop whenever a ship is destroyed, allowing people with big enough cargo holds to scoop those up and repair them via the crafting system at a station someplace. Would add an entire new dynamic to post-fleet ops, and give newbies and craft-centric players something to do -- instead of just cleaning up belt rats via Salvagers and Tractor Beams, a newbie grab a broken version of a Gurristas Saboteur and make a frigate out of it.
To say nothing about the dynamic that could add to faction spawns and the like. Get an officer spawn, luck out and have the ruined officer spawn's hull drop, and drag that sucker back to a station to repair it for yourself. Glad some people can see that adding new dynamics that are fun and profitable are just as important as addressing "sucking chest wounds". I like your ideas about getting more out of faction drops and wrecks in general when you add the hijacking skill as a multiplier. Would be nice to get all the contents of a captured/ hijacked ship vs the percentage left after the boom!
Imagine dragging that faction or sleeper BS hull back to station and repairing it! Hijacking could enable a Zephyr pilot to hack a Sleeper ship, flying a sleeper BS might be nice. |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
217
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:21:00 -
[176] - Quote
Someone pointed out that a major component of the nullsec economy revolves around ship losses, so not sure if this is feasible. I would think that it would be an interesting alternate path for crafting-types to explore, however, and would definitely shake up the Tech 2 and Tech 3 ship markets. |
Razzor Death
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.10 20:47:00 -
[177] - Quote
hahahahahaha
I'm sorry to ruin the constructive thread but mother of god |
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
218
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 07:28:00 -
[178] - Quote
Razzor Death wrote:hahahahahaha I'm sorry to ruin the constructive thread but mother of god
And yet, he's still better than the AFK mission/miner bot running pubbies ruining the game. Different strokes for different folks. |
Tore Vest
Vikinghall
61
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 12:09:00 -
[179] - Quote
Dont you goonies + alts have your own forum ? Other than this ? |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
17
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 14:09:00 -
[180] - Quote
You wouldn't know me, although I've flown with you on occasion in the north. My problem with eve currently is that ... mining is dead. Not that I mine a lot anymore, it's just not a useful past time. I prefer pew pew a lot of the time anyhow, but sometimes I'd really just like to make a bunch of isk in bulk in my barge for a few days before going back to combat.
I put this proposal up earlier, I don't really expect it to get a lot of play. However, I think even if this idea in itself isn't taken on, something LIKE IT needs to be adopted as a fix for mining/industry in general in order to really wage war on the RMTers.
CCP said a long long time ago that they would wage war on these industries and yet they still thrive. This is obviously because of a lack of commitment by CCP to fix anything that's not PVP related or starbase related - Not to mention WIS.
I'm sure there aren't as many people that mine in EVE as there were 5 years ago when I started. The mining community often is made up of newer players that just "dont get it" yet or older players that just refuse to change but hold on to their playstyle no matter what.
As it is mining ships are feeble when attacked, meaning that every time one undocks the risk is higher than a combat ship of the same value. They sit for hours in the same place where combat ships often change systems or at least belts. Don't get me wrong, I think the amount of risk is fine for mining ships. The problem is the reward.
The risk and reward vector of this industry drastically needs changing to become a viable PLAYER DRIVEN instead of BOT DRIVEN industry again.
Please help. RR. Mining Proposal. |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2288
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 19:24:00 -
[181] - Quote
this thread is coming to a screeching halt on account of skyrim, will try to get a couple of ~serious replies~ out today though The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1077
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:18:00 -
[182] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:You wouldn't know me, although I've flown with you on occasion in the north. My problem with eve currently is that ... mining is dead. Not that I mine a lot anymore, it's just not a useful past time. I prefer pew pew a lot of the time anyhow, but sometimes I'd really just like to make a bunch of isk in bulk in my barge for a few days before going back to combat. I put this proposal up earlier, I don't really expect it to get a lot of play. However, I think even if this idea in itself isn't taken on, something LIKE IT needs to be adopted as a fix for mining/industry in general in order to really wage war on the RMTers. CCP said a long long time ago that they would wage war on these industries and yet they still thrive. This is obviously because of a lack of commitment by CCP to fix anything that's not PVP related or starbase related - Not to mention WIS. I'm sure there aren't as many people that mine in EVE as there were 5 years ago when I started. The mining community often is made up of newer players that just "dont get it" yet or older players that just refuse to change but hold on to their playstyle no matter what. As it is mining ships are feeble when attacked, meaning that every time one undocks the risk is higher than a combat ship of the same value. They sit for hours in the same place where combat ships often change systems or at least belts. Don't get me wrong, I think the amount of risk is fine for mining ships. The problem is the reward. The risk and reward vector of this industry drastically needs changing to become a viable PLAYER DRIVEN instead of BOT DRIVEN industry again. Facts - High end minerals have not grown in the past 5 years (There aren't new belts being added to the game). High end mineral values have decreased around 30% in the past 5 years and yet the player base has grown exponentially. The same amount of minerals for more demand but lower incomes for miners. The price of Plex has increased by 25% in the past 6 MONTHS. Soon RMTers will control most of the industry going on in New Eden. Please help. RR. (having issues linking the proposal so here it is in text) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=345889#post345889
Ah so you did post in the wrong thread. Please don't **** up my manifesto any more.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1541
|
Posted - 2011.11.11 21:51:00 -
[183] - Quote
Mining is dead due to the drone regions, full stop. |
tengen san
Triton-TC
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 00:57:00 -
[184] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Mining is dead due to the drone regions, full stop.
Isn't the word out drones getting stripped from all minerals by end of the year and receive a isk bonus instead?! |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
108
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 01:57:00 -
[185] - Quote
tengen san wrote:Weaselior wrote:Mining is dead due to the drone regions, full stop. Isn't the word out drones getting stripped from all minerals by end of the year and receive a isk bonus instead?! that's just an idea a dev said, he never said he would really do it, nor when if so. |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 03:38:00 -
[186] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Ah so you did post in the wrong thread. Please don't **** up my manifesto any more.
Not at all, your "manifesto" is just ignorant tripe and shoud be shown as such.
My work there is done.
|
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 13:52:00 -
[187] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:this thread is coming to a screeching halt on account of skyrim, will try to get a couple of ~serious replies~ out today though
I wonder if you can put skyrim down long enough to read this ?
|
Temba Ronin
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 15:00:00 -
[188] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:The Mittani wrote:this thread is coming to a screeching halt on account of skyrim, will try to get a couple of ~serious replies~ out today though I wonder if you can put skyrim down long enough to read this ? The longer our tearful CSM Chairman stays playing Skyrim the better, that way he is not here actively screwing up the game for everyone who freely chooses not to be a full time ganker. Let's hope it is so much fun he devotes all his free time to a fantasy game where he can loot and pillage without Concord limitations. The Chairman of the CSM becoming an avid full time player of Skyrim equals a win for the greater good of the greater body of players in EVE that he holds in utter contempt, don't hurry back Mr. Chairman. |
Solo Player
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 15:47:00 -
[189] - Quote
I wonder what lessons of gameplay wisdom Mittens will take back from Skyrim to be applied to EVE.
I'd imagine there's some stuff to be said for solo player content after all ;) |
Princess Cellestia
Friendship is Podding Test Alliance Please Ignore
98
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 16:22:00 -
[190] - Quote
Removing minerals from drones would be a very bad idea. Mining isnt dead because of the drone regions, only someone who has never mined in null would say this, mining is dead because its impossible to stay alive. Even with decent tank an entire mining fleet can be wiped out by 3-4 stealth bombers. You cant stay alive period. And when your mining ship is 200 mil for the hull alone, welp you're pretty ****** there. If you could keep your ship alive you could make bank in null, problem is once that industry index hits 1, you're guaranteed to have 3 or 4 twenty four hour cloaky camper jackasses in system just waiting for you. So no, mining will NEVER come back in null. Unless something is done to make null mining defensible in some way, only the completely insane, or the completely ******** will mine. And no one will buy it anyway because its easier to import everything. Even when mining was going full swing i could only get maybe 25% of the minerals I needed for subcap production, I dont think there's an alliance in existance that could mine enough minerals for a titan in a reasonable time. Last time I did the math it would take 3-4 years for one alliance to mine a titan in null. Just leave things how they are. You wanna mine, go to highsec or **** around in low. Otherwise, switch to industry or get your ass in a combat ship and get the hell in fleet.
Mittens, for the love of god, don't listen to any of these fucktards on this forum when it comes to industry. Please please please please. I have NEVER ONCE seen anything from any of these idiots that makes me think that they have ever done any real mining, built a ship, even looked into cap building, mined ice, researched a bp, or anything else mining or industry related. Its just the same **** of putting down any and every ******** thought that comes into their heads while not knowing a thing about what theyre talking about. |
|
Xython
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
221
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 16:40:00 -
[191] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Revolution Rising wrote:The Mittani wrote:this thread is coming to a screeching halt on account of skyrim, will try to get a couple of ~serious replies~ out today though I wonder if you can put skyrim down long enough to read this ? The longer our tearful CSM Chairman stays playing Skyrim the better, that way he is not here actively screwing up the game for everyone who freely chooses not to be a full time ganker. Let's hope it is so much fun he devotes all his free time to a fantasy game where he can loot and pillage without Concord limitations. The Chairman of the CSM becoming an avid full time player of Skyrim equals a win for the greater good of the greater body of players in EVE that he holds in utter contempt, don't hurry back Mr. Chairman.
Oh, don't you worry, the rest of us have enough contempt for idiotic pubbies and AFK Bot Minters that are ruining the game to make up the difference. |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 17:14:00 -
[192] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:I wonder what lessons of gameplay wisdom Mittens will take back from Skyrim to be applied to EVE.
I'd imagine there's some stuff to be said for solo player content after all ;)
Yeah strangely enough I took about 8 months off eve and rediscovered single player games... It was quite refreshing not to have my computer constantly abusing me ;)
He'll probably come back and ask for more dragons in 0.0.
|
Ashen Spiral
Roving Guns Inc. RAZOR Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.12 21:47:00 -
[193] - Quote
Ser Mittens,
What is your opinion of the attribute system? Some suggested changes include removing the ability to remap, removing attributes from skills altogether, or changing the effects of attributes to something more interesting. Do you favor any of these ideas in particular? Has there been any discussion regarding attributes between CSM6 and CCP? If not, would you be willing to bring it up as a future topic?
Relevant post from Jester's Trek: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2011/10/death-to-attributes.html |
Temba Ronin
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 03:42:00 -
[194] - Quote
Princess Cellestia wrote:Removing minerals from drones would be a very bad idea. Mining isnt dead because of the drone regions, only someone who has never mined in null would say this, mining is dead because its impossible to stay alive. Even with decent tank an entire mining fleet can be wiped out by 3-4 stealth bombers. You cant stay alive period. And when your mining ship is 200 mil for the hull alone, welp you're pretty ****** there. If you could keep your ship alive you could make bank in null, problem is once that industry index hits 1, you're guaranteed to have 3 or 4 twenty four hour cloaky camper jackasses in system just waiting for you. So no, mining will NEVER come back in null. Unless something is done to make null mining defensible in some way, only the completely insane, or the completely ******** will mine. And no one will buy it anyway because its easier to import everything. Even when mining was going full swing i could only get maybe 25% of the minerals I needed for subcap production, I dont think there's an alliance in existance that could mine enough minerals for a titan in a reasonable time. Last time I did the math it would take 3-4 years for one alliance to mine a titan in null. Just leave things how they are. You wanna mine, go to highsec or **** around in low. Otherwise, switch to industry or get your ass in a combat ship and get the hell in fleet.
Mittens, for the love of god, don't listen to any of these fucktards on this forum when it comes to industry. Please please please please. I have NEVER ONCE seen anything from any of these idiots that makes me think that they have ever done any real mining, built a ship, even looked into cap building, mined ice, researched a bp, or anything else mining or industry related. Its just the same **** of putting down any and every ******** thought that comes into their heads while not knowing a thing about what theyre talking about. Princess sadly the Chairman thinks all miners are wasting their time and not playing EVE. EVE is all combat all the time if you believe the posting from our Tearful Chairman and his loyal toadies. I just wonder if everyone followed their lead where would they get the ships to fly an ammo to shoot?
Most of the hive minded minions do not have the capacity to perform PI and think thru all the steps it takes a product to transform from raw material to marketable product, genetic victims of limited attention span it seems. Instead of figuring it out they hold disdain for their betters who can make things and enjoy PVP as well.
Our Tearful Chairman has said some players want to build their own empires in Null, and it sounded as if he supported the notion, but how can you build an empire when everyone who builds anything from anything other then salvage is shot to pieces?
Truth be told if Null is so superior to Empire space why don't the goons and their ganker pals just stay there and gank each other non-stop 23/ 7 365? Because without empire space Null collapses. If our Tearful Chairman wants to dispute this i challenge him to keep his vermin swarm out of High sec for 6 months. Show us their style of play can survive on it's own merits. Accept the challenge Head Goon or just dish out some insults like they are not your tears because YOU KNOW YOU NEED empire space an in empire space WE KNOW WE DO NOT NEED YOU.
The nuts and bolts that make up a player based economy is what is beyond the understanding of our Tearful Chairman and that is why he will be limited to this one devastating term as CSM Chairman. Thanks to their punitive Ice Miner interdiction they have awakened the "Carebear" majority and the goons and their hand picked high sec flunkies will see the power of majority in the coming election.
Math does not favor the loud, the goons are a political minority and they just need to be put back in their place. |
Temba Ronin
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 04:14:00 -
[195] - Quote
Mr. Chairman you have said two things that fall like a ton of bricks upon your credibility, #1 goons don't mine, #2 there are no mining bots in goon sov systems. These are easy statements for you to make because anyone trying to prove how false your statements are has a gauntlet of deadly systems to traverse to witness it. So your amazingly absurd statements stood unchallenged, until now.
You are the CSM Chairman, ask CCP to no longer respawn asteroid belts in Goon Sov systems with ores that can be mined keep the belts for ratting only. This should make your constituents jump with joy because none of them mine right? If you are unwilling to do this then please stop spinning the yarn that goons don't mine it's laughable. Put up or shut up. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
135
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 04:31:00 -
[196] - Quote
Hrm. 3 things.
1) Why do you keep adding the word "tearful" all the time? Do you even understand what the word means? 2) There are quite a few roaming gangs going through Deklein each day, actually. Have you tried going all the way up through the region, or are you just assuming it's "oh so deadly" if you're in a fast ship? A newbie ship, frigate or shuttle should do it just nicely. Please, do give us a detailed report of the findings you make on this trip. 3) Why don't you ask CCP if they can remove the asteroid belts from goonspace in a petition? Actually, please do so, and tell us if CCP responds with anything other than "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA no".
Seriously, your ideas are getting weirder and weirder by the minute. If they weren't as hilarious as they are right now, I'd ask you to stop, but given how hilarious they actually are, please continue. |
Temba Ronin
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 04:55:00 -
[197] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hrm. 3 things.
1) Why do you keep adding the word "tearful" all the time? Do you even understand what the word means? 2) There are quite a few roaming gangs going through Deklein each day, actually. Have you tried going all the way up through the region, or are you just assuming it's "oh so deadly" if you're in a fast ship? A newbie ship, frigate or shuttle should do it just nicely. Please, do give us a detailed report of the findings you make on this trip. 3) Why don't you ask CCP if they can remove the asteroid belts from goonspace in a petition? Actually, please do so, and tell us if CCP responds with anything other than "AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHA no".
Seriously, your ideas are getting weirder and weirder by the minute. If they weren't as hilarious as they are right now, I'd ask you to stop, but given how hilarious they actually are, please continue. Zim you are a loyal supporter to the throne I expect such comments from you, so please continue to speak for our Tearful Chairman he needs all the help he can get.
(Rumor has it a Dragon in Skyrim is roasting his toon there as we type) Maybe you should get 10 or 30 of your goons from Bat Country to save him. LOL just kidding he is probably having a great time looting and pillaging and destroying things. |
Temba Ronin
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 06:55:00 -
[198] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hrm. 3 things.
1) Why do you keep adding the word "tearful" all the time? Do you even understand what the word means?. tear-+ful/-êti(+Ö)rf+Öl/ Adjective: 1) Crying or inclined to cry. 2)Causing tears; sad or emotional ; GÇ£ a tearful farewellGÇ¥
Yes I know exactly what the word "Tearful" means but just as importantly I know you are living down to the definition of the word Goon in these threads like an automaton spouting the absurd party line.
goon/go-Pon/ Noun: 1) A silly, fooloish, or eccentric person. 2) A bully or thug, esp. one hired to terrorize or do away with opposition.
|
Nubs McIbis
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
3
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 09:27:00 -
[199] - Quote
You seem mad. |
Solo Player
68
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 10:28:00 -
[200] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:... you are living down to the definition of the word Goon in these threads like an automaton spouting the absurd party line...
I'm certainly not a friend and supporter of the Mittani, but this is really getting tiring. There is a proper subforum dedicated to bashing the Goons and getting bashed back in turn, you know. This is not it, and neither is it the Assembly Hall.
The Mittani has in this thread been arrogant and mildly abusive a couple times, but it is his thread and it serves its purpuse, which I can respect. I'm not sure your denigration of anything that smells of Goons here really serves any purpose at all.
I have seen some good posts from you elsewhere, constructive thoughts on some issue or other. Things worth discussing. Why don't you keep it there?
BTW, sorry if I'm singling you out unfairly - but you do post alot...
|
|
Tarquin Fintin-Olay BiscuitBarel
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 10:40:00 -
[201] - Quote
okay, who else has ended up skipping over Temba's crapposting? i started at around about page 5
p.s. Temba, u mad bro? |
Temba Ronin
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 17:41:00 -
[202] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:... you are living down to the definition of the word Goon in these threads like an automaton spouting the absurd party line...
I'm certainly not a friend and supporter of the Mittani, but this is really getting tiring. There is a proper subforum dedicated to bashing the Goons and getting bashed back in turn, you know. This is not it, and neither is it the Assembly Hall. The Mittani has in this thread been arrogant and mildly abusive a couple times, but it is his thread and it serves its purpuse, which I can respect. I'm not sure your denigration of anything that smells of Goons here really serves any purpose at all. I have seen some good posts from you elsewhere, constructive thoughts on some issue or other. Things worth discussing. Why don't you keep it there? BTW, sorry if I'm singling you out unfairly - but you do post alot... Amazing that posting a definition of the word "Goon" is my "denigration of anything that smells of Goons", I did not select their name, i merely pointed out how some players have adopted it as their style of response in the forum threads. Any honest reader would be hard pressed to post a legitimate argument against either the content or the context of what i posted. Those readers with an axe to grind or brown nose points to earn are left with the argument of last resort available whenever the message is too powerful, ..... attack the messenger.
I expected such responses ..... because really ....... what else you got?
I understand completely if you are tired of reading, lots of players can't tolerate anything over a paragraph unless it's full of abbreviations. I'll try an accommodate those afflicted thusly in future posts. rotfl!
Also would you please direct me to some of the posts you have made chastising the goons and other like minded players for their constant and REAL denigration of "pubbies" and "carebears", names they feel free to attach to players that those players have not selected themselves, i'm sure you are consistent on this topic, right?
Or does your sensitivity begin an end with goons and their alts posting in this thread and many many others with the thinly veiled, short form, juvenile caliber insult of are you mad bro? Signature party line of those ill-equipted to make an intelligent response but nonetheless feel compelled to say something they think is witty.
|
Rer Eirikr
Stargazer Exploration Company Transmission Lost
66
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 18:49:00 -
[203] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Signature party line of those ill-equipted to make an intelligent response but nonetheless feel compelled to say something they think is witty.
Dude, we get it, you're sick of Goon posts, but this is literally all you've been doing throughout this (past) page. Mittens is playing Skyrim, big whoop. Mittens doesn't like miners, News at 11.
Either post a question of relevance or stop dribbling on about crap that honestly doesn't matter. So far this thread has been pretty informative, let's try to keep it that way. |
Sentinel Eeex
Perkone Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 20:05:00 -
[204] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Solo Player wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:... you are living down to the definition of the word Goon in these threads like an automaton spouting the absurd party line...
I'm certainly not a friend and supporter of the Mittani, but this is really getting tiring. There is a proper subforum dedicated to bashing the Goons and getting bashed back in turn, you know. This is not it, and neither is it the Assembly Hall. The Mittani has in this thread been arrogant and mildly abusive a couple times, but it is his thread and it serves its purpuse, which I can respect. I'm not sure your denigration of anything that smells of Goons here really serves any purpose at all. I have seen some good posts from you elsewhere, constructive thoughts on some issue or other. Things worth discussing. Why don't you keep it there? BTW, sorry if I'm singling you out unfairly - but you do post alot... Amazing that posting a definition of the word "Goon" is my "denigration of anything that smells of Goons", I did not select their name, i merely pointed out how some players have adopted it as their style of response in the forum threads. Any honest reader would be hard pressed to post a legitimate argument against either the content or the context of what i posted. Those readers with an axe to grind or brown nose points to earn are left with the argument of last resort available whenever the message is too powerful, ..... attack the messenger. I expected such responses ..... because really ....... what else you got? I understand completely if you are tired of reading, lots of players can't tolerate anything over a paragraph unless it's full of abbreviations. I'll try an accommodate those afflicted thusly in future posts. rotfl! Also would you please direct me to some of the posts you have made chastising the goons and other like minded players for their constant and REAL denigration of "pubbies" and "carebears", names they feel free to attach to players that those players have not selected themselves, i'm sure you are consistent on this topic, right? Or does your sensitivity begin an end with goons and their alts posting in this thread and many many others with the thinly veiled, short form, juvenile caliber insult of are you mad bro? Signature party line of those ill-equipted to make an intelligent response but nonetheless feel compelled to say something they think is witty.
Jesus, is that you?
|
Temba Ronin
24
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 20:19:00 -
[205] - Quote
Sentinel Eeex wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Solo Player wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:... you are living down to the definition of the word Goon in these threads like an automaton spouting the absurd party line...
I'm certainly not a friend and supporter of the Mittani, but this is really getting tiring. There is a proper subforum dedicated to bashing the Goons and getting bashed back in turn, you know. This is not it, and neither is it the Assembly Hall. The Mittani has in this thread been arrogant and mildly abusive a couple times, but it is his thread and it serves its purpuse, which I can respect. I'm not sure your denigration of anything that smells of Goons here really serves any purpose at all. I have seen some good posts from you elsewhere, constructive thoughts on some issue or other. Things worth discussing. Why don't you keep it there? BTW, sorry if I'm singling you out unfairly - but you do post alot... Amazing that posting a definition of the word "Goon" is my "denigration of anything that smells of Goons", I did not select their name, i merely pointed out how some players have adopted it as their style of response in the forum threads. Any honest reader would be hard pressed to post a legitimate argument against either the content or the context of what i posted. Those readers with an axe to grind or brown nose points to earn are left with the argument of last resort available whenever the message is too powerful, ..... attack the messenger. I expected such responses ..... because really ....... what else you got? I understand completely if you are tired of reading, lots of players can't tolerate anything over a paragraph unless it's full of abbreviations. I'll try an accommodate those afflicted thusly in future posts. rotfl! Also would you please direct me to some of the posts you have made chastising the goons and other like minded players for their constant and REAL denigration of "pubbies" and "carebears", names they feel free to attach to players that those players have not selected themselves, i'm sure you are consistent on this topic, right? Or does your sensitivity begin an end with goons and their alts posting in this thread and many many others with the thinly veiled, short form, juvenile caliber insult of are you mad bro? Signature party line of those ill-equipted to make an intelligent response but nonetheless feel compelled to say something they think is witty. Jesus, is that you? Rotfl |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 20:57:00 -
[206] - Quote
Orakkus wrote: My feeling on null-sec is that it is the overall driver of Eve Online in that most of the resources (or at least a large bulk of the resources), isk, and support are established to maintain empires there. What is your view on efforts to perhaps re-distributing that overall drive between low-sec and null-sec? If so, what would you like to see to make that happen once the null-sec sov issue is adequately dealt with?
I disagree with your basic assumption. Most of the resources, isk and population of the game are in hisec, though a large number of the 'hisec' population are the alts of wormholers, nullseccers, and lowsec types. One of the things that irks me about the game is that it's almost impossible to function in null/low/wspace without a supporting structure of hisec alts. I'd like to see the economies of null/low developed more such that the game revolves less around Jita, which is one of the primary focuses of the CSM6 'Farms and Fields' initiative.
In general, risk and reward should scale accordingly. Right now there is virtually no risk in hisec from missions and barely any in incursions, and they absolutely vomit forth reward. This is the fundamental imbalance of EVE; low and null should be buffed to a place where their rewards actually justify the risks.
Quote:On an additional note: Incrusions has thus far been widely accepted as a quality addition to Eve Online, is CCP looking to do something similar again, perhaps with other pirate groups?
I can't speak to what CCP wants to do (NDA), however I'm a big fan of the Incursion mechanic as it promotes socialization and human interaction, where mindless solo mission-running does not. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:00:00 -
[207] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:You wouldn't know me, although I've flown with you on occasion in the north. My problem with eve currently is that ... mining is dead.
I snipped a lot of words. The death of mining outside of hisec is correlated with the implementation of the Drone Regions, where gun-mining spewed an endless supply of high-end minerals into the economy.
The simple fix, which I advocate, is that drones should have bounties like all other rats and stop dropping alloys. Voila: mining for high-ends again has a purpose.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:06:00 -
[208] - Quote
Solo Player wrote:I wonder what lessons of gameplay wisdom Mittens will take back from Skyrim to be applied to EVE.
I'd imagine there's some stuff to be said for solo player content after all ;)
I've always wished that EVE could have some engaging solo PvE, but I just don't think CCP has it in them to pull it off. Even something arcade-like, such as a fighter going to a planet or inside of an asteroid (a la Descent) to blow up things would be much more entertaining than the 'warp in, ctrl-click target, hit f1' gameplay that much of EVE solo PvE boils down to.
The EVE PvE experience is mostly antiseptic and banal, rather than visceral and dynamic. The physical mechanics (ctrl click, f1) are much the same in PvP, but the addition of and unpredictability of humans (plus the hate and rage) adds the missing viscerality. Similarly, group PvE from Incursions uses human interaction to ascend past the banality.
The novelty of solo exploration PvE is the 'seeking' dynamic that's lacking in missions, where you still have to hunt down complexes and run them, but once you find the complex it's back to ctrl-click, f1, yawn. So I think the best hope we have is more exploration content/buffs, which is something CSM6 has pushed for and gotten a fair amount of traction on.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:10:00 -
[209] - Quote
Princess Cellestia wrote:Removing minerals from drones would be a very bad idea. Mining isnt dead because of the drone regions, only someone who has never mined in null would say this, mining is dead because its impossible to stay alive. Even with decent tank an entire mining fleet can be wiped out by 3-4 stealth bombers. You cant stay alive period. And when your mining ship is 200 mil for the hull alone, welp you're pretty ****** there. If you could keep your ship alive you could make bank in null, problem is once that industry index hits 1, you're guaranteed to have 3 or 4 twenty four hour cloaky camper jackasses in system just waiting for you. So no, mining will NEVER come back in null. Unless something is done to make null mining defensible in some way, only the completely insane, or the completely ******** will mine. And no one will buy it anyway because its easier to import everything. Even when mining was going full swing i could only get maybe 25% of the minerals I needed for subcap production, I dont think there's an alliance in existance that could mine enough minerals for a titan in a reasonable time. Last time I did the math it would take 3-4 years for one alliance to mine a titan in null. Just leave things how they are. You wanna mine, go to highsec or **** around in low. Otherwise, switch to industry or get your ass in a combat ship and get the hell in fleet.
Mittens, for the love of god, don't listen to any of these fucktards on this forum when it comes to industry. Please please please please. I have NEVER ONCE seen anything from any of these idiots that makes me think that they have ever done any real mining, built a ship, even looked into cap building, mined ice, researched a bp, or anything else mining or industry related. Its just the same **** of putting down any and every ******** thought that comes into their heads while not knowing a thing about what theyre talking about.
You're wrong.
I mined my ass off in 2005/2006 in Syndicate when the Swarm lived and died based on the prices of Zydrine, and Crokite was valuable enough that ops would be formed and defenses positioned to ensure that mining ops occured. The dynamic was interesting and dangerous, yet profitable enough that we'd do it despite the risk of being killed.
You're also wrong because you don't understand the concept of guards. Stealth bombers? Hurricane, please. Crying about AFK cloakers?
Nullsec requires profit to make mining worthwhile, and it should be dangerous enough to inspire people to run mining ops with guards. If you mine solo and whine about risk of being popped, that's because you're Doing It Wrong.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:13:00 -
[210] - Quote
Ashen Spiral wrote:Ser Mittens, What is your opinion of the attribute system? Some suggested changes include removing the ability to remap, removing attributes from skills altogether, or changing the effects of attributes to something more interesting. Do you favor any of these ideas in particular? Has there been any discussion regarding attributes between CSM6 and CCP? If not, would you be willing to bring it up as a future topic? Relevant post from Jester's Trek: http://jestertrek.blogspot.com/2011/10/death-to-attributes.html
I'd kind of like to see Learning Implants vanish. A lot of people avoid PvP on account of them. "Oh, I won't go on this op, my jump clone is on a timer and I'm in my Learning clone."
I think the attribute system vanishing entirely is something we'd never see, but removing learning boosts from implants (such that they become combat-only enhancements) might be a possibility.
However, this isn't really a major priority for me. I might bring it over beer in Islenskibarinn, but it's not going to be a summit topic and something I expend vast amounts of political capital on, like I have on supercaps. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:15:00 -
[211] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Mr. Chairman you have said two things that fall like a ton of bricks upon your credibility, #1 goons don't mine, #2 there are no mining bots in goon sov systems. These are easy statements for you to make because anyone trying to prove how false your statements are has a gauntlet of deadly systems to traverse to witness it. So your amazingly absurd statements stood unchallenged, until now.
You are the CSM Chairman, ask CCP to no longer respawn asteroid belts in Goon Sov systems with ores that can be mined keep the belts for ratting only. This should make your constituents jump with joy because none of them mine right? If you are unwilling to do this then please stop spinning the yarn that goons don't mine it's laughable. Put up or shut up.
You went from having an interesting idea about hijacking to mewling about goons. You also don't know jack about nullsec, goons, or nullsec mining. vOv
While you've been posting up a storm about how I'm 'Tearful', I've been selling supercaps - three in the last couple of days, between Skyrim bouts.
Would you like to buy one?
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2311
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 21:17:00 -
[212] - Quote
alright, back to FUS RO DAH~ The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1113
|
Posted - 2011.11.13 23:23:00 -
[213] - Quote
Mittens, I have a question
How can you claim, in good faith and with a straight face, to be a "sadist" when it's evident that even accepting the job requires a level of masochism that would raise eyebrows in the strictest of Parisien maison publiques?
(I guess what I'm asking is, did you remember to pick a safe word?) Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
James 315
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 01:12:00 -
[214] - Quote
First of all, The Mittani, I would like to thank you for your service.
The Mittani, most Eve players are in agreement that your term as Chairman of the CSM has been tremendously successful, and nearly all observers believe that you will coast to reelection, should you be willing to serve again. The same attitude prevails within the CCP team, according to a source familiar with the situation. As this individual told me, "The Mittani, simply by virtue of his being in office, greatly enhances the stature and credibility of the CSM."
In light of these facts, I would like you to answer the following:
How do you account for your effectiveness and popularity, and why do you think your message resonates with so many voters across the spectrum of the Eve community?
Thank you for your time. |
Max Kolonko
Worm Nation Ash Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 01:54:00 -
[215] - Quote
Hello Mittens
What is Your opinion on new Tier 3 BC's?
Do You think they have a chance of re-balancing large null-fleets composition? i.e. less BS, more T3/other small stuff to fight tier3 BC?
Or will they be ignored in large fleet fights, and used just for cheap hi-sec ganking? |
Sephira Galamore
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 14:37:00 -
[216] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:The idea of making nullsec more independent from Jita, and a place for civilizations to grow rather than merely flags on the map fueled by endless jump freighters from Empire is something we discussed at great length in May, as is in the May Summit minutes. This also ties into the CSM6 'Farms and Fields' discussions. Isn't your dependance on Jita self-inflicted? You can either be independant or economical, it is completely up to you. After colonizing a new land that has lots of riches but no conventional oil sources, you have to decide whether you want to do the economic thing, that is, exporting stuff you have and importing oil. Or be independant and inefficiently create oil from coal. In Eve terms that is: - Sell your ABCs, moongoo etc. to Empire dwellers and buy Veldspar or: - Mine Veldspar yourself
I think it is a bit presumptuous to ask for 'super veldspar' or other advantages, seeing how you already have the most profitable ressources at your hands.
Also, regarding the trade-hubs in HiSec... I thought in 0.0 everything is the players making. Alliance have no right to complain about a lack of a 0.0 market hub, if they dont' set one up, set up some Trade charta, secure the trade routes and get the cash flowing. If they don't do that and rather buy in Jita, apparently it's not worth it to them.
But thats just my opionion, beeing a rather passive observer of all this. |
Grozdan Boyadijev
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 15:46:00 -
[217] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote:The Mittani wrote:The idea of making nullsec more independent from Jita, and a place for civilizations to grow rather than merely flags on the map fueled by endless jump freighters from Empire is something we discussed at great length in May, as is in the May Summit minutes. This also ties into the CSM6 'Farms and Fields' discussions. Isn't your dependance on Jita self-inflicted? You can either be independant or economical, it is completely up to you. After colonizing a new land that has lots of riches but no conventional oil sources, you have to decide whether you want to do the economic thing, that is, exporting stuff you have and importing oil. Or be independant and inefficiently create oil from coal. In Eve terms that is: - Sell your ABCs, moongoo etc. to Empire dwellers and buy Veldspar or: - Mine Veldspar yourself I think it is a bit presumptuous to ask for 'super veldspar' or other advantages, seeing how you already have the most profitable ressources at your hands. Also, regarding the trade-hubs in HiSec... I thought in 0.0 everything is the players making. Alliance have no right to complain about a lack of a 0.0 market hub, if they dont' set one up, set up some Trade charta, secure the trade routes and get the cash flowing. If they don't do that and rather buy in Jita, apparently it's not worth it to them. But thats just my opionion, beeing a rather passive observer of all this.
From my experience, the issue is that the disadvantages to being indepent are so astronomical in comparison to being economic, to use your terms.
Due to the fact that mineral prices are extremely depressed (due mostly to a combination of bot and gun-mining), it's infinitely cheaper to pay the cost of importing large quantities of minerals for any production in null as opposed to actually mining. Also, since BPOs are only seeded in Empire space, you're reliant on importing BPOs or BPCs in the first place in order to produce. And with prices in Jita being as cutthroat as they are, the margins on importing most highly used items (ammo, mostly) are as good or better than producing them yourselves, and you have the benefit of getting them now as opposed to having to wait on your own production to finish, and you didn't even have to invest any SP in Industry skills to do it.
As it is, there's basically no reason to do any T1 production in null, and most T2 production is only cost effective at relatively large-scale levels.
|
Trusty Jutspezic
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 16:16:00 -
[218] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote: Isn't your dependance on Jita self-inflicted? You can either be independant or economical, it is completely up to you.
This is a false dichotomy. In nullsec you can either be economical or you can be driven out by alliances that are. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.14 23:37:00 -
[219] - Quote
What are your thoughts on the tier system of ships. Will teir 3 BC's outcompeate the tier 2's are replace them, making BC's even tougher and more like battleships.
I and others think the tier system should be eliminated entirely, and replaced with ships that are closer to the same power but in different areas and specializations. |
Max Kolonko
Worm Nation Ash Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 00:35:00 -
[220] - Quote
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:What are your thoughts on the tier system of ships. Will teir 3 BC's outcompeate the tier 2's are replace them, making BC's even tougher and more like battleships.
I and others think the tier system should be eliminated entirely, and replaced with ships that are closer to the same power but in different areas and specializations.
Lol Tier 3 BC's are way less tough than tier 2. They are glass canons, only usable against enemies that are unable to hit them (BS and bigger) |
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 04:21:00 -
[221] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:What are your thoughts on the tier system of ships. Will teir 3 BC's outcompeate the tier 2's are replace them, making BC's even tougher and more like battleships.
I and others think the tier system should be eliminated entirely, and replaced with ships that are closer to the same power but in different areas and specializations. Lol Tier 3 BC's are way less tough than tier 2. They are glass canons, only usable against enemies that are unable to hit them (BS and bigger)
NO! You mean they really are just Gank ships? :) --> hrm, CCP does seem to love Gankers, don't they? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
137
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 07:16:00 -
[222] - Quote
Death to all supercaps. |
Geertruida Zelle
Quantum Wake Enemy-Fleet
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 10:52:00 -
[223] - Quote
Dear Mittani.
Lookng at some of the eve-offline stats (ok, i know they are a bit blunt, but its all i have), it seems to me that eve's popularity peaked around and in the months after the time Eve was being marketed as a ruthless place - a la Causality
From your access to more accurate subs info, is my assumption correct and have CCP made this connection yet, or are they still heading in the wrong direction of a supersafe, cuddly, carebear sandbox and a semi-detached one for everyone else?
GZ |
Space Products Distribution
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 17:13:00 -
[224] - Quote
Dear Mittens,
If you start howling, will your puppy start howling too? Please try it and post a video!
-Spacey |
Orakkus
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.15 18:24:00 -
[225] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: I disagree with your basic assumption. Most of the resources, isk and population of the game are in hisec, though a large number of the 'hisec' population are the alts of wormholers, nullseccers, and lowsec types. One of the things that irks me about the game is that it's almost impossible to function in null/low/wspace without a supporting structure of hisec alts. I'd like to see the economies of null/low developed more such that the game revolves less around Jita, which is one of the primary focuses of the CSM6 'Farms and Fields' initiative.
Well, we'll have to agree to disagree then on the basic assumption. Seems to me that while the resources, isk, and population are the most in high-sec, much of their activities are still influenced by what goes on in null-sec. The rest of your point, however, I've tried to find out more about because I think you are absolutely correct. Null-sec has become too dependant on High-sec, either because of ease, or efficiency, or by game mechanics. How specific has your "Farms and Fields" initiative become? I did notice the Assembly Hall post on it: "Summit Topic "Farms and Fields", but it seemed more of a general think tank to come up with ideas. So, without crossing the NDA, how far into development is a plan for a workable "Farms and Field" rollout?
The Mittani wrote: In general, risk and reward should scale accordingly. Right now there is virtually no risk in hisec from missions and barely any in incursions, and they absolutely vomit forth reward. This is the fundamental imbalance of EVE; low and null should be buffed to a place where their rewards actually justify the risks.
I agree that this is the current status of the game, however, I do see a problem here at the individual pilot's level. Myself, I have been in 0.0 and kicked out of 0.0 over and over. Often, my high-sec activities allowed me to make those initial forays into the 0.0 life. I don't see how a new corp/alliance who doesn't have many friends can make that initial jump happen without having the necessary capital gained by things like taxes made from mission running and incursions. What you are proposing, seems to me, would actually make the jump harder because now the defenders are even more financially able to replace losses and keep focused on PVP. That being said, how do you ascertain that those changes won't be a problem for new corps/alliances trying to make that jump.
|
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:26:00 -
[226] - Quote
In null sec I find there is a lack of PvP that is quick to access.
I was part of the delve thunderdome and had fun but even then most roams where 30+ jumps from home and logging off early meant you hade to make that trip solo when you logged back on. So much time was spent.
Jumping to get to an area Jumping looking for a fight Jumping to get to a fight Sitting waiting for them to jump Jumping home thatGÇÖs assuming the moment I happen to log on the fleet was leaving.
I do not schedule my life around EvE...I play once my kids go to bed and stop when my wife goes to bed.
So even with a good alliance running lots of fleets in my time zone I would have to wait for a roaming fleet to form up or I would have missed the fleet and be resigned to running complexes. Not exactly something that makes me eager to log in and play EvE.(could complexes be any more boring?)
Then IF I did get a fleet we would spend the night jumping aroundGǪ.only for me to log out far from home. Next night attempt to make it back home alone or join a roaming fleet that may be closer. When atlas came to town it got even worse. Really long ops, with really long form ups, many jumps from home(multiple titan bridges), starting at highly specific times, all to get blue balled.
0.0 needs quicker PvP that is more accessible. If I play eve for 1-2h a night I should be able to shoot someone in the faceGǪor get shot. Requiring 4h of game time starting at a certain time to make a given fleet is simply not possible for most players.
So is there any drive behind the CSM to have quicker PvP in 0.0? Not all 0.0 players are from huge alliances and love the huge alliance ops.
Big fights are great and alliances need to have them, but day to day smaller scale skirmishes need to be taking place. These skirmishes need to be accessible in a 1-2h play slot. 0.0 needs to be fun!
Thanks I hope to shoot you soon.
We need more to do, not more to wear. Let me know when-áCCP has decent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
131
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 18:31:00 -
[227] - Quote
Quote:In general, risk and reward should scale accordingly. Right now there is virtually no risk in hisec from missions and barely any in incursions, and they absolutely vomit forth reward. This is the fundamental imbalance of EVE; low and null should be buffed to a place where their rewards actually justify the risks.
Buffing null may only be part of the solution. Introducing risk to mission runners would be great. More rats that tackle, smarter AI, and mission that require something diffrent.
This would also make these missions more intresting and fun. More challenging and intresting missions would vastly improve the game. Currently once you can do the blockade you may as well auto pilot through your missions because your safe. This is wrong and boring. I could not do level 4 missions because they are soul crushingly boring.
We need more to do, not more to wear. Let me know when-áCCP has decent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
21
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 20:46:00 -
[228] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:What are your thoughts on the tier system of ships. Will teir 3 BC's outcompeate the tier 2's are replace them, making BC's even tougher and more like battleships.
I and others think the tier system should be eliminated entirely, and replaced with ships that are closer to the same power but in different areas and specializations. Lol Tier 3 BC's are way less tough than tier 2. They are glass canons, only usable against enemies that are unable to hit them (BS and bigger)
battleships have no trouble hitting BC's. HACS with afterburners and aligned right, sometimes or take reduced damage.
Maybe capitals with guns might, and even then who knows.
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2335
|
Posted - 2011.11.16 21:45:00 -
[229] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Mittens, I have a question
How can you claim, in good faith and with a straight face, to be a "sadist" when it's evident that even accepting the job requires a level of masochism that would raise eyebrows in the strictest of Parisien maison publiques?
(I guess what I'm asking is, did you remember to pick a safe word?)
The only thing that suffers of mine when I go to Iceland is my liver. Beyond that, the balance of cruelty is with me on the giving end, and certain CCP executives on the receiving end.
Trebor's the masochistic one. Iceland is no country for old men. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 13:19:00 -
[230] - Quote
Mittens,
I fully agree with the "risk vs reward" principle, and I agree that there is little risk in hisec activities.
I am curious as to whether you think null, w-space or lowsec is currently most "risky"? My uninformed opinion (having not lived in null yet) is that much of null is actually pretty safe for residents (low populations, alliance control, intel channels etc), whereas much of lowsec (I have spent time in lowsec) is pretty risky (higher population density per QEN, plus regular roaming gangs of ebil piwates). And w-space depends on how well you control your statics (I have lived in w-space too), but if you're good at that you're also relatively safe.
And following on from that, where do you think attention most needs to be focussed to get the risk/reward balance right?
Thanks Z3 |
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 13:52:00 -
[231] - Quote
Zyrbalax III wrote:Mittens,
I fully agree with the "risk vs reward" principle, and I agree that there is little risk in hisec activities.
I am curious as to whether you think null, w-space or lowsec is currently most "risky"? My uninformed opinion (having not lived in null yet) is that much of null is actually pretty safe for residents (low populations, alliance control, intel channels etc), whereas much of lowsec (I have spent time in lowsec) is pretty risky (higher population density per QEN, plus regular roaming gangs of ebil piwates). And w-space depends on how well you control your statics (I have lived in w-space too), but if you're good at that you're also relatively safe.
And following on from that, where do you think attention most needs to be focussed to get the risk/reward balance right?
Thanks Z3
I think you're focusing too much on immediate personal risk (i.e. having your ship explode) and not enough on longer term, more abstract risks such as losing your space and access to all your assets, or even just being booted from corp. I have tens of billions of assets sat in stations I could easily lose the ability to dock in.
Not to mention the safety you're describing in 0.0 is provided by the hard work of other people. If they stop doing that work all the security just disappears. Thats a risk too. |
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
31
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 16:51:00 -
[232] - Quote
Hmm thanks that's a very good point. I guess nullsec sovereignty rules do make for a different/additional set of risks. I guess that's somewhat similar (but on a grander scale) to the risk w-space residents face (possibility of being evicted by a stronger corp).
I think it may still be possible to segregate things though; so holding nullsec sov brings some additional risks as you've described, but also brings (or should bring) benefits (rewards) not available elsewhere - access to moon goo, ability to upgrade systems etc. Maybe there should be more "long term" rewards for null sov to recognise the longer term risks, rather than rewarding null residents by short-term rewards (higher bounties, more valuable anoms etc)
And IF that's fair, my question would change to "for the same type of short-term activity, which areas hold the highest risks/ which areas should have the highest rewards?"
So does incursion running / missioning / ratting / mining etc hold most risk in hi / low / null, and which area should therefore get best rewards?
Or is this all just theoretical BS with no relevance / application at all?! |
The Original Alt
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 18:52:00 -
[233] - Quote
You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why? |
Stahlregen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 19:39:00 -
[234] - Quote
The Original Alt wrote:You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why?
If you think the high-sec experience is to exclusively mine ice and nothing else and that you're actually going to get a legitimate response using this line of questioning then you are deluded. EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A VHS INTO THE SLOT. IT'S CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE MOVES ALONGSIDE THE MAIN CHARACTER, RIDDICK. I DO EVERY MOVE AND I DO EVERY MOVE HARD. MAKIN' WHOOSHING SOUNDS WHEN I SLAM DOWN SOME NECRO BASTARDS. NOT MANY CAN SAY THEY ESCAPED THE GALAXY'S MOST DANGEROUS PRISON. I CAN. |
The Original Alt
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 20:58:00 -
[235] - Quote
Stahlregen wrote:The Original Alt wrote:You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why? If you think the high-sec experience is to exclusively mine ice and nothing else and that you're actually going to get a legitimate response using this line of questioning then you are deluded.
I was not addressing you. |
Stahlregen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
29
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 21:02:00 -
[236] - Quote
The Original Alt wrote:Stahlregen wrote:The Original Alt wrote:You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why? If you think the high-sec experience is to exclusively mine ice and nothing else and that you're actually going to get a legitimate response using this line of questioning then you are deluded. I was not addressing you.
I know you weren't sweetheart but it's the best response you're going to get. EVERY MORNING I WAKE UP AND OPEN PALM SLAM A VHS INTO THE SLOT. IT'S CHRONICLES OF RIDDICK AND RIGHT THEN AND THERE I START DOING THE MOVES ALONGSIDE THE MAIN CHARACTER, RIDDICK. I DO EVERY MOVE AND I DO EVERY MOVE HARD. MAKIN' WHOOSHING SOUNDS WHEN I SLAM DOWN SOME NECRO BASTARDS. NOT MANY CAN SAY THEY ESCAPED THE GALAXY'S MOST DANGEROUS PRISON. I CAN. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
22
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 21:24:00 -
[237] - Quote
Zyrbalax III wrote:Mittens,
I fully agree with the "risk vs reward" principle, and I agree that there is little risk in hisec activities.
I am curious as to whether you think null, w-space or lowsec is currently most "risky"? My uninformed opinion (having not lived in null yet) is that much of null is actually pretty safe for residents (low populations, alliance control, intel channels etc), whereas much of lowsec (I have spent time in lowsec) is pretty risky (higher population density per QEN, plus regular roaming gangs of ebil piwates). And w-space depends on how well you control your statics (I have lived in w-space too), but if you're good at that you're also relatively safe.
And following on from that, where do you think attention most needs to be focussed to get the risk/reward balance right?
Thanks Z3
Nullsec is safe because of force projection, and being 'exclusive'. To any threat the group can project force, so unlikely but the most dedicated will come. Along with stations being exclusive and the remoteness of npc stations, which is related to the power of a alliance to take and hold space.
A alliance may not face many threats all the time, but it still does not take away from the fact that they went the mile to take the space, and have forces to hold back threats.
The last time some gankers came in a ice mining system, their ships were blown up. So they might not come back, we don't play the solo game here, you touch the bee hive you get swarmed.
I would say rewards should be scaled to how much investment it takes to get or hold it, and it's remoteness to empire space. Not a absolute risk or reward because ice mining in empire has become increasingly risky, though does that mean it should be buffed (I would say maybe not give concord insurance, gankers in high sec but beyond that).
Nullsec requires taking and holding stations, upgrading it so it is anything but suck, concord bills, so it should have something more redeeming for the fact that no level 4 agents exist to give away missions for isk and lp and a steady stream of rats to shoot. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
159
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 22:42:00 -
[238] - Quote
The Original Alt wrote:You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why? What part of "high security space" is being destroyed, again? |
May Zonday
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2011.11.17 23:10:00 -
[239] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:The Original Alt wrote:You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why? What part of "high security space" is being destroyed, again? Hulks and Macks.
Wait. |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
848
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 00:58:00 -
[240] - Quote
~my esteemed CEO~,
Do you believe that CCP's approach to supercapital balancing was appropriate? Could they have done more, or do you feel that their approach was heavy-handed?
(idgaf about underpowered SCs, d2ascaps) |
|
Alberio
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
20
|
Posted - 2011.11.18 15:57:00 -
[241] - Quote
Dear Mittani,
If you could be a candy bar, which one would you be, and why?
Thanks, |
WarFireV
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 06:27:00 -
[242] - Quote
Dear Mittiani,
Sleep with marry or kill? Vuk Lau, Sir Molle, Evil Thug.
Also
Thieve guild or mage's guild? |
Vandiilo
Newtons Cradle
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 16:22:00 -
[243] - Quote
Mr. Chairman, How do you get so many kills per match in World of Tanks? I noticed you getting 4-6 kills per match. What is your strategy? Do you hang near the base and pick people off as they approach? Or do you have a favorite sniping position for each map? Is there anything CCP could learn from other indie companies like Wargaming.net? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 20:50:00 -
[244] - Quote
James 315 wrote:First of all, The Mittani, I would like to thank you for your service.
The Mittani, most Eve players are in agreement that your term as Chairman of the CSM has been tremendously successful, and nearly all observers believe that you will coast to reelection, should you be willing to serve again. The same attitude prevails within the CCP team, according to a source familiar with the situation. As this individual told me, "The Mittani, simply by virtue of his being in office, greatly enhances the stature and credibility of the CSM."
In light of these facts, I would like you to answer the following:
How do you account for your effectiveness and popularity, and why do you think your message resonates with so many voters across the spectrum of the Eve community?
Thank you for your time.
It's impossible to answer such a flattering question without seeming declasse. I'd say that I'm a known quantity and had a high profile before I came to the CSM, which brings a level of gravitas to my arguments that "random chick with a blog" representatives like Ankh did not have.
Also, everyone knows I'm obsessed with power. If I say there's power to be had in the CSM, that alone is enough to give the body credibility in the eyes of most of EVE's operators. The opinions of random NPC alts or low-information voters, like in real life, don't matter much.
I also couldn't be as effective as I am if the other people on CSM6 weren't as sound. Because nullsec took action after CSM5, we have a solid crop of intelligent reps who understand the basics of political action. You don't learn much about politics grinding missions in hisec. So that's been a big help. I don't think I could have pulled off much alone if I was on a CSM full of drooling solo missioners. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 20:52:00 -
[245] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Hello Mittens
What is Your opinion on new Tier 3 BC's?
Do You think they have a chance of re-balancing large null-fleets composition? i.e. less BS, more T3/other small stuff to fight tier3 BC?
Or will they be ignored in large fleet fights, and used just for cheap hi-sec ganking?
I'm not really a fleet composition expert, I'll just go with whatever my FCs tell me once the stats settle down. The Tornado looks interesting.
I don't think you're going to see fleet comps revolving around the t3s often, as they presently are set up, because their tanks are so weak. Most null warfleets involve significant amount of logistics repping, and that will only matter more in a TiDi environment. But who knows - I'm a spy guy and a political leader, not a EFT wizard.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 20:58:00 -
[246] - Quote
Vandiilo wrote:Mr. Chairman, How do you get so many kills per match in World of Tanks? I noticed you getting 4-6 kills per match. What is your strategy? Do you hang near the base and pick people off as they approach? Or do you have a favorite sniping position for each map? Is there anything CCP could learn from other indie companies like Wargaming.net?
It depends on the tank. By going hull-down in a low-tier match and being cautious, you can get Top Guns even with a Leichtractor - which is incredibly fun. Getting 10 kills with a Hotchkiss is more about the Hotchkiss being awesome than any of my skill.
Beyond that I tend to favor German tanks with accurate, high penetration guns. I have great luck with the Panther with the long 100. I wouldn't call myself an ~expert~ WoT player, but being cautious and not rushing into your enemy's guns is key, as is waiting to see where your team goes before moving from the starting position. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:03:00 -
[247] - Quote
Sephira Galamore wrote: Isn't your dependance on Jita self-inflicted? You can either be independant or economical, it is completely up to you. After colonizing a new land that has lots of riches but no conventional oil sources, you have to decide whether you want to do the economic thing, that is, exporting stuff you have and importing oil. Or be independant and inefficiently create oil from coal. In Eve terms that is: - Sell your ABCs, moongoo etc. to Empire dwellers and buy Veldspar or: - Mine Veldspar yourself
I think it is a bit presumptuous to ask for 'super veldspar' or other advantages, seeing how you already have the most profitable ressources at your hands.
Also, regarding the trade-hubs in HiSec... I thought in 0.0 everything is the players making. Alliance have no right to complain about a lack of a 0.0 market hub, if they dont' set one up, set up some Trade charta, secure the trade routes and get the cash flowing. If they don't do that and rather buy in Jita, apparently it's not worth it to them.
But thats just my opionion, beeing a rather passive observer of all this.
Not only is this a bad analogy, it ignores the overarching point of risk/reward imbalance in 0.0. Nullsec, as the riskiest territory, should offer the most profits from localized production. You also don't know what you're talking about, if you think that null has the 'most profitable resources' at its hands - technetium isn't exclusive to nullsec, and beyond that just about everything in null is less profitable than grinding L4s with a Tengu bot, thanks to Greyscale's anomaly nerf.
Null is little more than a high-risk novelty zone at the moment for people who like combat and feel a need to see their alliance's name on a map. That's bad for EVE, as we've seen in the last year or so.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:06:00 -
[248] - Quote
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:What are your thoughts on the tier system of ships. Will teir 3 BC's outcompeate the tier 2's are replace them, making BC's even tougher and more like battleships.
I and others think the tier system should be eliminated entirely, and replaced with ships that are closer to the same power but in different areas and specializations.
I think the tier system itself is mostly meaningless, as lower-tier ships often have different roles from higher-tier. The Typhoon is a different entity entirely from a Maelstrom. I think it's good for CCP to keep the ships differentiated in that way, though; a higher tier ship shouldn't overshadow/render obsolete a lower tier ship. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:08:00 -
[249] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Death to all supercaps.
Indeed, death to all supercaps. Supercaps are stupid ships that should never have been added to the game, and the best way to balance them is to find a completely noncombat role for the things, taking them off the battlefield entirely.
Sadly, I'll have to settle for several incremental nerfs, which is much easier to implement than an across-the-board re-imagining of their roles. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
tengen san
Triton-TC
4
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:14:00 -
[250] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
The only thing that suffers of mine when I go to Iceland is my liver. Beyond that, the balance of cruelty is with me on the giving end, and certain CCP executives on the receiving end.
Trebor's the masochistic one. Iceland is no country for old men.
No country for old man?
HaGǪ,sounds your ready now to have your first H+írkal then?! The stuff that separates the boy from the man! DonGÇÖt disappoint here, and yes, we want to see the vid.
|
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2353
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:23:00 -
[251] - Quote
Geertruida Zelle wrote:Dear Mittani. Lookng at some of the eve-offline stats (ok, i know they are a bit blunt, but its all i have), it seems to me that eve's popularity peaked around and in the months after the time Eve was being marketed as a ruthless place - a la CausalityFrom your access to more accurate subs info, is my assumption correct and have CCP made this connection yet, or are they still heading in the wrong direction of a supersafe, cuddly, carebear sandbox and a semi-detached one for everyone else? GZ
I haven't seen a subs chart since the May Summit, though we saw loss numbers at the June Summit. I'd be pretty curious to see a full graph in December to see Exactly How Bad Things Got. (mental note: ask xhagen about this)
I will refrain from predicting CCP's future course until the summit. I have heard some encouraging things, but we always hear encouraging noises; I need to get some of the principals drunk and watch their body language like a hawk and listen to their tones and how they pause awkwardly when I ask a question they can't answer, etc etc. There's a whole host of social information that you flat out cannot get until you can talk to someone face to face in an informal context.
An example: "So, did X person get demoted, or did they step down willingly?" You don't expect an actual /answer/ to this question - but the way they react to the question and how they choose to back away from it usually tells you everything you wanted to know and then some.
This nuance is partially why CSMing can be frustrating, as there's a lot of near-autistic EVE players for whom the concept of social nuance might as well be an alien language.
Anyway, to me, the connection between war and murder and EVE's success is clear. The major 'interest' peaks of EVE have been Istvaan and GHSC pulling off the first major heist and having it covered in PC Gamer, and later the three year genocidal drama of the Great War, which got a ton of repeated press. You don't have people signing up to EVE and saying 'yeah i heard i could mine rocks for hours in hisec in EVE so i came running!!!!'.
The question is if the higher-ups understand this. I don't doubt that Soundwave 'gets it', but he's not management; we have seen repeatedly that CCP goes off-course when upper management gets ~visions~, like Tyrannis or Incarna.
Short answer: vOv we'll see! The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:31:00 -
[252] - Quote
Space Products Distribution wrote:Dear Mittens,
If you start howling, will your puppy start howling too? Please try it and post a video!
-Spacey
She howls along with police sirens, but if you try to howl at her she just looks at you like you're crazy. I've tried, of course.
There's a bunch of videos of Malamutes howling at sirens on youtube, though; apparently this is normal! The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:32:00 -
[253] - Quote
The Original Alt wrote:You seem hell bent on destroying the experience of high security space to make null security space more appealing. Why?
Ask me again with an actual character rather than a throwaway NPC corp alt. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:42:00 -
[254] - Quote
Orakkus wrote: I did notice the Assembly Hall post on it: "Summit Topic "Farms and Fields", but it seemed more of a general think tank to come up with ideas. So, without crossing the NDA, how far into development is a plan for a workable "Farms and Field" rollout?
Some of the stuff we discussed in May at the Farms and Fields/Null Industrialization brainstorming session are beginning to show up in Crucible. Greyscale has admitted fault and even posted a mea culpa of sorts for the Anomaly Nerf; Crucible includes a lot of exploration improvements and tweaks, which was a focus at the brainstorming session as well. One could argue that the destructible customs offices are a step in the direction of Farms and Fields.
Beyond what's been publicly announced by CCP though, I can't comment. I suspect Farms and Fields will remain a major area of focus for the December Summit.
Quote:I agree that this is the current status of the game, however, I do see a problem here at the individual pilot's level. Myself, I have been in 0.0 and kicked out of 0.0 over and over. Often, my high-sec activities allowed me to make those initial forays into the 0.0 life. I don't see how a new corp/alliance who doesn't have many friends can make that initial jump happen without having the necessary capital gained by things like taxes made from mission running and incursions. What you are proposing, seems to me, would actually make the jump harder because now the defenders are even more financially able to replace losses and keep focused on PVP. That being said, how do you ascertain that those changes won't be a problem for new corps/alliances trying to make that jump.
Financial well-being and defensive ability are not correlated. Goonswarm ran around the galaxy and burnt down the richest ancien regime EVE has ever seen using rifters and hate, with essentially no reimbursement program or finance team. The NC was glutted with technetium income yet caved in like a rotten melon when the DRF came calling. What makes a person wealthy and what makes them good at combat are two wildly different skills. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:51:00 -
[255] - Quote
E man Industries wrote: So is there any drive behind the CSM to have quicker PvP in 0.0? Not all 0.0 players are from huge alliances and love the huge alliance ops.
Big fights are great and alliances need to have them, but day to day smaller scale skirmishes need to be taking place. These skirmishes need to be accessible in a 1-2h play slot. 0.0 needs to be fun!
Thanks I hope to shoot you soon.
Edit:
I sure you are aware of the above issue as you are attempting to set up a similar thunderdome of pvp-ness to address this via goonswarm. Pilots in every area of 0.0 space shoudl have access to good fights. not asking for cpp to change 0.0 or sov or anything as big fightd have there place but currently good fights are hard to come by.
I'm in a similar mental place; most of my pvp these days is ganking or gatecamping or World of Tanks. I don't like waiting for hours on major fleet ops to fight a fight; I'm lazy. This is a common problem for veterans, who have been playing for ages - this is also why vets end up in cap ships, because you can play a game in another window until it's cyno time, and then you either fight or die or go back to playing in another window. Less 'schlepping'.
It's extremely controversial and the CSM is divided on it, but personally I'd like to see some kind of an arena or instanced PvP setup which would allow professionals with busy lives to log in, blow some dudes up, and log off. The actual mechanics of such a device don't interest me much - it could be a gladiatorial arena with spectators who can place bets, a 'combat simulator', an arranged 4v4 team game, whatever.
The macro-level issue is what concerns me: the fact that, as a PvPer, it's very hard to get a PvP experience within a short time of logging in. Missionrunners and miners can boot up EVE and begin slaving away at their PvE in moments, PvPers not so much.
One of the reasons you see EVE's PvP population in BF3, LoL/HoN and WoT is precisely that they allow us to get PvP fixes on demand. It sure would be nice if we could get an on-demand PvP experience involving spaceships, too.
However, some are hostile to the very idea of arenas or instanced combat or even 'quick PvP'. I haven't focused on this as a 'CSM Issue' because it doesn't much matter if we get on-demand PvP or not while the Sucking Chest Wounds need to be patched. Once the game is not being driven off a cliff hopefully I can step back and push for stuff like this. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 21:58:00 -
[256] - Quote
Zyrbalax III wrote:Mittens,
I fully agree with the "risk vs reward" principle, and I agree that there is little risk in hisec activities.
I am curious as to whether you think null, w-space or lowsec is currently most "risky"? My uninformed opinion (having not lived in null yet) is that much of null is actually pretty safe for residents (low populations, alliance control, intel channels etc), whereas much of lowsec (I have spent time in lowsec) is pretty risky (higher population density per QEN, plus regular roaming gangs of ebil piwates). And w-space depends on how well you control your statics (I have lived in w-space too), but if you're good at that you're also relatively safe.
And following on from that, where do you think attention most needs to be focussed to get the risk/reward balance right?
Thanks Z3
Any time you say 'my uninformed opinion' and then deliver it, your opinion is highly likely to be laughed at by folks with actual experience in that area. If you'd lived in null and had all your **** trapped in a station, lost forever save for recapture or spies, you'd have a different view. Hell, some places in lowsec have /multiple stations/ in a single system! Wow!
I think null needs most of the risk/reward focusing at the moment. Lowsec needs an entire expansion devoted to radically revising it, rather than just a few small tweaks. But the purpose of Null in the design concepts is 'highest risk, highest reward' and then scaling down the risk from there.
W-space is also high-risk, high reward, but it's balanced much better. I defer to Two Step on w-space issues though, so I don't really opine much on it.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 22:14:00 -
[257] - Quote
Andski wrote:~my esteemed CEO~,
Do you believe that CCP's approach to supercapital balancing was appropriate? Could they have done more, or do you feel that their approach was heavy-handed?
(idgaf about underpowered SCs, d2ascaps)
If you gave me ultimate power over the fate of supercaps, I'd mash the delete button and remove all of them from the game entirely. They are dumb, one of the worst design decisions CCP has made. Mudflation is a basic concept in game design, and yet there were some devs who were ~shocked, shocked~ that we now have 50+ Titan fleets.
Actually, that's not true. I'd redesign them to have a completely noncombat role, since from a business perspective we're stuck with the accursed things. Titans could be bridges and leadership-bonus givers, sort of a mobile stargate/command nexus; Motherships could be more like 'Motherships' rather than supercarriers (a dumb name. a dumb ship. a dumb concept.) which act as mobile strategic bases with truly vast SMAs for fleet resupply.
Watching people with Raiden tickers cry about how 'Mittani got his way' with Crucible because of some minor EHP nerfs have no idea what they're talking about. If I had my way, supercaps wouldn't be a battlefield combat ship at all.
Death to all supercaps. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 22:18:00 -
[258] - Quote
Alberio wrote:Dear Mittani,
If you could be a candy bar, which one would you be, and why?
Thanks,
I'd be a flame-grilled New York Strip, medium-rare to rare, seared nicely. Candy is for fatties who enjoy soda and insulin shock.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2354
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 22:19:00 -
[259] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:Dear Mittiani,
Sleep with marry or kill? Vuk Lau, Sir Molle, Evil Thug.
Also
Thieve guild or mage's guild?
Marry all three of them, make it into an internet reality TV show, like Big Brother but with marriage and space-autocrats.
Thieves guild helps me steal everything in the Mage's Guild, then the Dark Brotherhood teaches me to kill all of them off. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
166
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 22:25:00 -
[260] - Quote
God damn, how many times haven't I said exactly that about having them as proper motherships for easier reshipping on the site which mustn't be named.
I'd unironically fap myself raw if that actually came to pass, especially if it was used as a forward staging area for deep incursions into enemy space or something. Anything, as long as it was used to make the tactical/strategic depth of EVE deeper.
Of course, someone's going to use it for nothing but shipping ships out from lowsec, and CCP'll get all nerfbatty. :frankfrank: |
|
Two step
Aperture Harmonics K162
430
|
Posted - 2011.11.19 23:12:00 -
[261] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Zyrbalax III wrote:Mittens,
I fully agree with the "risk vs reward" principle, and I agree that there is little risk in hisec activities.
I am curious as to whether you think null, w-space or lowsec is currently most "risky"? My uninformed opinion (having not lived in null yet) is that much of null is actually pretty safe for residents (low populations, alliance control, intel channels etc), whereas much of lowsec (I have spent time in lowsec) is pretty risky (higher population density per QEN, plus regular roaming gangs of ebil piwates). And w-space depends on how well you control your statics (I have lived in w-space too), but if you're good at that you're also relatively safe.
And following on from that, where do you think attention most needs to be focussed to get the risk/reward balance right?
Thanks Z3 Any time you say 'my uninformed opinion' and then deliver it, your opinion is highly likely to be laughed at by folks with actual experience in that area. If you'd lived in null and had all your **** trapped in a station, lost forever save for recapture or spies, you'd have a different view. Hell, some places in lowsec have /multiple stations/ in a single system! Wow! I think null needs most of the risk/reward focusing at the moment. Lowsec needs an entire expansion devoted to radically revising it, rather than just a few small tweaks. But the purpose of Null in the design concepts is 'highest risk, highest reward' and then scaling down the risk from there. W-space is also high-risk, high reward, but it's balanced much better. I defer to Two Step on w-space issues though, so I don't really opine much on it.
Thought I would jump in here to point out that w-space has even more risks, in that the POS you are living out of can be completely destroyed, and all your stuff blown up or stolen. The reward is certainly higher than most other activities though. CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog What does CSM 6 do? |
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
120
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 03:06:00 -
[262] - Quote
Two step wrote: Thought I would jump in here to point out that w-space has even more risks, in that the POS you are living out of can be completely destroyed, and all your stuff blown up or stolen. The reward is certainly higher than most other activities though.
yeah, i don't really get the issue with nullsec station taken by the enemies, as those can put their stuff on contract or on the market to get their money back. of course there will be loss doing that, but it's not the end of the world.
concerning supercap, i think one of the biggest problems to make them disappear is the structures grind ; the place were i saw the most of them was for killing sov structures, and their shitload of HP. so, before changing supercap to another role (and i like your ideas on this), wouldn't it be needed first to review the sov mechanics ? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 09:03:00 -
[263] - Quote
Personally I wouldn't be surprised if CCP are too invested in the current SOV system to do the changes that might be necessary, but I think the thing that has to be done is add some tug of war, or pendulum effect as CCP calls it, to not just enable, but encourage the use of smaller fleets to attack/defend in a strategic way. This could mean that feint attacks could decide the outcome of a day, and it could make spies more important beyond just providing fleet numbers and POS passwords, and I'd hope it could mean more use of 100v100 fights than 1000v1000 with literally trillions of isk on either side being on the field. |
Will Hunter
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.20 14:41:00 -
[264] - Quote
James 315 posting again!
i missed his caod threads, he made the old bob guard rage and cry |
Dr Mercy
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
39
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 00:10:00 -
[265] - Quote
What are EVE's current sucking chest wounds as you see them? How quickly should they be addressed? How soon will each one be addressed? How long should CCP spend on each issue? Are the solutions for each one already worked out and waiting to be implemented? How long until you estimate the are all solved? Have any previous sucking chest wounds been solved? What were they, who solved it and whom should we thank? Lastly, what gets focused on after they are all solved (or in the process of being solved)? |
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
89
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 07:32:00 -
[266] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Space Products Distribution wrote:Dear Mittens,
If you start howling, will your puppy start howling too? Please try it and post a video!
-Spacey She howls along with police sirens, but if you try to howl at her she just looks at you like you're crazy. I've tried, of course. There's a bunch of videos of Malamutes howling at sirens on youtube, though; apparently this is normal! Mine howls when cellphone starts ringing and im too far away to pick it right up.
Its actually quite fun, because it scares the **** out of those people who never seen it before. So when i have some guests at the house who never seen my mal before, i stage this to see the reaction on their faces
Question to mittens: do you think CCP will be able to keep up the tempo, and continue with the rate of improvements and fixes as we see them now for winter expansion? Because the amount they managed to do in a few month is impressibe. But im afraid after current crisis passes, they might change their focus to some other crap, as it was with WiS and WoT. Do you, as CSM, have some plan to keep their attention to the important things? For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
E man Industries
SeaChell Productions
140
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 16:07:00 -
[267] - Quote
The CSM pushed hard for Time Dialation.
What sort of projects would be for the next "psuh"
Sleeper AI to PvE content and more intresting PvE content in both empire and Null would make grinding at least nto so boring between roams.
Need more-ádecent content a casual player can access in a 1-2h play period that is actually fun and contributes to long term personal and corp goals. This applies to PvE and PvP. |
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 17:57:00 -
[268] - Quote
Drinking game:
Start at the beginning of the thread and take a drink every time MY CEO says "sucking chest wounds." Be sure to have emergency services on speed dial.
(We kid because we love.) |
Amber Green Thorn
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
11
|
Posted - 2011.11.21 20:22:00 -
[269] - Quote
I thought Twitter was bad..................... |
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 13:49:00 -
[270] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Any time you say 'my uninformed opinion' and then deliver it, your opinion is highly likely to be laughed at by folks with actual experience in that area. If you'd lived in null and had all your **** trapped in a station, lost forever save for recapture or spies, you'd have a different view. Hell, some places in lowsec have /multiple stations/ in a single system! Wow!
Yah fine, but I hope you'll at least give me credit for being open-minded and wanting to learn from people who know more than me.
Thank you (to you and the others who commented on my original post) for pointing out the risk of losing stuff in sov null stations / poses when they get conquered / destroyed.
Seems to me that's a different kind of risk though; the risk of making long-term investments, and the risk of being long term resident in what is fundamentally "insecure" space; I agree it's a kind of risk not faced (to the same extent) by lowsec / hisec residents (w-space being somewhat similar though).
Surely it makes sense though for those "longer term" risks to be rewarded in a a separate way (whether tangibly through isk or intangibly in some other way).
What I was originally trying to ask about (apparently not very clearly) was the comparative riskiness of doing similar activities in different parts of space. So, where is the most dangerous place to do mining? Probably w-space. So mining should get most reward in w-space. Where is the riskiest place to do PI? Post-Crucible, probably lowsec. So lowsec PI should have the best resource availability in game.
Now maybe the "long-term investment risk" in sov nullsec can be rewarded by boosting those day-to-day activities (system resources get better the longer you hold the system), but you haven't said anything to change my view that, for day-to-day activities, sov null is actually pretty safe.
TL;DR: balance risk / reward for individual activities based on where those activities themselves are most risky; but find a separate mechanism for rewarding the distinct longer term risks faced by null sov-holders.
|
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
152
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 20:38:00 -
[271] - Quote
Zyrbalax III wrote:The Mittani wrote:Any time you say 'my uninformed opinion' and then deliver it, your opinion is highly likely to be laughed at by folks with actual experience in that area. If you'd lived in null and had all your **** trapped in a station, lost forever save for recapture or spies, you'd have a different view. Hell, some places in lowsec have /multiple stations/ in a single system! Wow!
TL;DR: balance risk / reward for individual activities based on where those activities themselves are most risky; but find a separate mechanism for rewarding the distinct longer term risks faced by null sov-holders.
It's not just about risk.
What's more risky, running level 4s in a CNR or in a frigate? Should therefore the frigate be able to run them faster and/or get more rewards?
What's more risky, hauling ammo to sell in a 0.0 hub, or trading 10b worth of stable items with decent spread in Jita? Should the trader not be rewarded for their investment?
Risk is only one factor of profit. The other include initial investment costs, time spent (time spent logged in and time spent waiting for timers), skills required (in-game and out of game), number of people you need to deal with, number of people who will be using your service, and many more.
Being able to run 0.0 PvE content comes with either the incredible risk of stealing the anoms/complexes from someone else's space, or the huge initial investment of your alliance as a whole conquering the system. No other activity in EVE (maybe aside from supercapital building) requires a coordination of so many people over such long periods of time. After you own the space, it is reasonably safe, yes - but you have already paid the initial investment which should yield you profit. |
Didona Carpenito
Akimamur Industries
9
|
Posted - 2011.11.22 21:15:00 -
[272] - Quote
Did CCP run booster changes via the CSM?
What are your thoughts about boosters? |
Cidwm
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.23 22:36:00 -
[273] - Quote
Im loving this. Alot of very good questions dodged, or there posters insulted by the CSM chairman... Good show |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
35
|
Posted - 2011.11.24 14:03:00 -
[274] - Quote
Hi The Mittani
I know you are in favour of a WoW style customizable UI in EvE but I'd be interested in hearing your views on how it would affect the balance of power between the haves and have nots. A well organised group like GoonSwarm would have the resources and skills to create a UI that potentially gives them a huge advantage. Not to mention the risk of ending up with "Must Have" UI mods which provide so much of an advantage you're completely unable to compete without them (stuff like gladius and decursive). |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
178
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 13:58:00 -
[275] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Hi The Mittani
I know you are in favour of a WoW style customizable UI in EvE but I'd be interested in hearing your views on how it would affect the balance of power between the haves and have nots. A well organised group like GoonSwarm would have the resources and skills to create a UI that potentially gives them a huge advantage. Not to mention the risk of ending up with "Must Have" UI mods which provide so much of an advantage you're completely unable to compete without them (stuff like gladius and decursive).
Would you say that this is the case already with API enabled applications? |
Dr Mercy
Doctrine. FEARLESS.
41
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 15:20:00 -
[276] - Quote
Dr Mercy wrote:What are EVE's current sucking chest wounds as you see them? How quickly should they be addressed? How soon will each one be addressed? How long should CCP spend on each issue? Are the solutions for each one already worked out and waiting to be implemented? How long until you estimate the are all solved? Have any previous sucking chest wounds been solved? What were they, who solved it and whom should we thank? Lastly, what gets focused on after they are all solved (or in the process of being solved)?
Turns out you answered these in your most recent TTH column: http://www.tentonhammer.com/eve/spymaster/70 |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
32
|
Posted - 2011.11.25 16:09:00 -
[277] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
You're wrong.
I mined my ass off in 2005/2006 in Syndicate when the Swarm lived and died based on the prices of Zydrine, and Crokite was valuable enough that ops would be formed and defenses positioned to ensure that mining ops occured. The dynamic was interesting and dangerous, yet profitable enough that we'd do it despite the risk of being killed.
You're also wrong because you don't understand the concept of guards. Stealth bombers? Hurricane, please. Crying about AFK cloakers?
Nullsec requires profit to make mining worthwhile, and it should be dangerous enough to inspire people to run mining ops with guards. If you mine solo and whine about risk of being popped, that's because you're Doing It Wrong.
I concur, I used to have a little 5 man corp renting mining rights from TCF in wicked creek around this same time period. It used to work just fine. looking at current prices for high ends, it would no longer be feasible.
Mittani: Just to clarify, they are taking the minerals out of drones in the next update?
Also - can you get CCP to have a look at the mining taxation in stations and for corporations upon their members?
I have no hard ideas here specifically. However, I still think it would be great for larger alliances to find it profitable to allow small mining corps into their space to mine and pay tax. Likewise, running a mining corp has a huge gap of income there that non-mining corps get.
(I know both of these would probably require some hard out of the box thinking to change - but even with drones gone, the industry has always been the red headed bastard son of eve).
|
tengen san
Triton-TC
7
|
Posted - 2011.11.26 00:16:00 -
[278] - Quote
Largo Coronet wrote:Drinking game:
Start at the beginning of the thread and take a drink every time MY CEO says "sucking chest wounds." Be sure to have emergency services on speed dial.
(We kid because we love.)
Well, letGÇÖs rip the sucking chest wound toughly wide open, so we can continue drinking!
(Just kidding of course) |
Forum Chav
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.27 11:37:00 -
[279] - Quote
Been playing since 04, and tbh, nothing surprises me in EvE anymore. Most certainly not about Mittani. The only way to get over players like that is to simply know, that in RL, they are pencil-necked, socially inept inconsequential little people who, if ever offered outside would sh*t themselves so badly they'd need to tuck their trousers into their socks. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 21:17:00 -
[280] - Quote
Cidwm wrote:Im loving this. Alot of very good questions dodged, or there posters insulted by the CSM chairman... Good show
Indeed; the best thing about winning a space election is babbys with an entitlement complex who assume that I should abruptly begin suffering fools.
I'm back from the wilds of the Thanksgiving Holidays and the SWTOR beta weekend, time to catch up on a bunch of posts here. Took a bit off to recharge for war post-patch. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 21:26:00 -
[281] - Quote
Dr Mercy wrote:What are EVE's current sucking chest wounds as you see them? How quickly should they be addressed? How soon will each one be addressed? How long should CCP spend on each issue? Are the solutions for each one already worked out and waiting to be implemented? How long until you estimate the are all solved? Have any previous sucking chest wounds been solved? What were they, who solved it and whom should we thank? Lastly, what gets focused on after they are all solved (or in the process of being solved)?
Lag, Supercap Imbalance, lol hybrids, lack of Iterative Ship Balance, POS Misery, Risk/Reward, Dominion sov are the major sucking chest wounds. The good news is that Crucible has addressed a number of these. Obviously, I think this class of issue are the highest priority to fix, because they cause stagnation and subscription decline; CCP seems to agree, judging by Crucible.
Several of your questions are nitty-gritty and don't work through a NDA. "how soon, how quickly, how long, are they ready" etc.
We have to see about the solutions in Crucible, but they're directly aimed at Supercaps, POS Misery (fuel blocks, timers, corp bookmarks, bridge standings), Hybrids, some Risk/Reward unfucking (anom un-nerf, POCOs). That's a lot of triage work on CCP's part. The work was done by the entire remaining staff of the company, who are running around with their hair on fire trying to recover from the hubris overdose that nearly drove the company off a cliff, so thank 'those who remain' basically.
My next focus will be on Dominion Sov and Risk/Reward balance. We'll see how ~persuasive~ I can be, come the next release. A sov system fix will require a ton of work as it's awful.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 21:32:00 -
[282] - Quote
Red Templar wrote: Question to mittens: do you think CCP will be able to keep up the tempo, and continue with the rate of improvements and fixes as we see them now for winter expansion? Because the amount they managed to do in a few month is impressibe. But im afraid after current crisis passes, they might change their focus to some other crap, as it was with WiS and WoT. Do you, as CSM, have some plan to keep their attention to the important things?
I suspect that after the initial fires of Crucible bugfixing are finished, the line employees will get very drunk and then sleep for a week. At least I hope so, for their sake.
We don't really have 'some plan' to keep CCP's attention beyond our existing methods; pointing to subscriptions/logins, and if management goes off-rails again it's back to the media. I'm not too worried about CCP Reyk/Atlanta losing their focus, though I'm worried about DUST and Shanghai in general.
I'm going to Reyk next week for the next CSM summit so I'll have firsthand impressions of post-Crucible CCP. Until then, my speculation is pretty useless. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 21:40:00 -
[283] - Quote
Didona Carpenito wrote:Did CCP run booster changes via the CSM?
What are your thoughts about boosters?
Yes, in Skype, as part of a major pile of other things in the final sleep-deprived Crucible push. I seem to recall making vaguely approving noises. Boosters aren't really an 'issue', as so few people use them. Removing the penalties is probably a good call to spread their use, but the silly contraband system is more of an impediment to booster popularity than the stat penalties. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 21:41:00 -
[284] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Hi The Mittani
I know you are in favour of a WoW style customizable UI in EvE but I'd be interested in hearing your views on how it would affect the balance of power between the haves and have nots. A well organised group like GoonSwarm would have the resources and skills to create a UI that potentially gives them a huge advantage. Not to mention the risk of ending up with "Must Have" UI mods which provide so much of an advantage you're completely unable to compete without them (stuff like gladius and decursive).
A superior customized UI would give a competitive advantage, but they would be a major espionage target and rapidly proliferate across most of the competitive landscape, as well as open-sourced on eve files. The advantages of an openly-embeddable UI far outweigh the status quo's misery. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Derkata
1
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 23:35:00 -
[285] - Quote
What do you think of ECM vs the other types of EW?
If you say ECM is fine I'll assume you fly a Falcon
o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7 |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2426
|
Posted - 2011.11.28 23:51:00 -
[286] - Quote
Derkata wrote:What do you think of ECM vs the other types of EW?
If you say ECM is fine I'll assume you fly a Falcon
o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7o7
ECM is mostly a micro-level issue better opined on by a ~small scale pvp expert~ like Prom, one of our alts.
(Prom hates ECM and won't shut up about it, ever)
I don't think it's a Sucking Chest Wound or even a Major Gamebreaking Problem in terms of prioritization, though. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Thalilith Noraver
Shaula Nasl Kaitain JSC
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 03:24:00 -
[287] - Quote
Don't you think that war on bot miners is a bit of a Don Quixote mission? Fighting against windmills? Because I do. There will always be botters and you can't stop that - hell I doubt you can slow that down. Even if you run your own type of "Hulkageddon" for a whole year round you still will have botters. But - that is just my opinion although I'd love to know yours. And spare me answers 'it's fun to kill newbies' or 'I pwn carebears' as they not constructive and intelligent enough for me to have my eyes tainted with such. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2426
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 04:42:00 -
[288] - Quote
Thalilith Noraver wrote:Don't you think that war on bot miners is a bit of a Don Quixote mission? Fighting against windmills? Because I do. There will always be botters and you can't stop that - hell I doubt you can slow that down. Even if you run your own type of "Hulkageddon" for a whole year round you still will have botters. But - that is just my opinion although I'd love to know yours. And spare me answers 'it's fun to kill newbies' or 'I pwn carebears' as they not constructive and intelligent enough for me to have my eyes tainted with such.
You actually believe the Interdiction Zone is about 'stopping botting' rather than making money while wallowing in suffering?
Heh. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Thalilith Noraver
Shaula Nasl Kaitain JSC
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 20:39:00 -
[289] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
You actually believe the Interdiction Zone is about 'stopping botting' rather than making money while wallowing in suffering?
Heh.
Not really, I'm not that naive. You just mentioned it earlier. Also I'm wondering what is the ultimate goal of being a pain in the butt for HiSec ppl? Making them rage quit so you can 'own' the game for yourselves (I'm not generalizing now to one corp or alliance of pirates/goons/lowlifes)? What in your opinion people new to the game should do? (and no - I'm not mining for living in game - it's just generous curiosity). |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1274
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 21:19:00 -
[290] - Quote
Thalilith Noraver wrote:The Mittani wrote:
You actually believe the Interdiction Zone is about 'stopping botting' rather than making money while wallowing in suffering?
Heh.
Not really, I'm not that naive. You just mentioned it earlier. Also I'm wondering what is the ultimate goal of being a pain in the butt for HiSec ppl? Making them rage quit so you can 'own' the game for yourselves (I'm not generalizing now to one corp or alliance of pirates/goons/lowlifes)? What in your opinion people new to the game should do? (and no - I'm not mining for living in game - it's just generous curiosity).
It's more likely that the ice crusade is old fashioned terrorism tactics - remember it was started when the direction of the game was still very much in doubt. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Thalilith Noraver
Shaula Nasl Kaitain JSC
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 22:41:00 -
[291] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: It's more likely that the ice crusade is old fashioned terrorism tactics - remember it was started when the direction of the game was still very much in doubt.
I guess you're right. Good old fashioned terrorism. Worrying bit is the fact that one of the said 'terrorists' is now CSM ;) It might as well be the time I should set up longest possible skill to trian and not extend the plex for some time. Have a break, go play SWTOR. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1277
|
Posted - 2011.11.29 23:18:00 -
[292] - Quote
Mmmm remember that although terrorism is bad in the real world, like murder, theft, extortion and betrayal, it makes for an interesting and exciting game world. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Thalilith Noraver
Shaula Nasl Kaitain JSC
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 00:31:00 -
[293] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Mmmm remember that although terrorism is bad in the real world, like murder, theft, extortion and betrayal, it makes for an interesting and exciting game world. You missed my point mate. Game is a game, real life is real life. Yet still - game terrorist is representing whole of game population to CCP (unless I'm missing the point of CSM) not mentioning the fact - it was a joke... And still game should be fun. For some is blowing other's ships up and others like to mine and produce thingies. Im jus wondering what will happen if GS will eventually stop the flow of all minerals and ice to the market. Not mentioning people that will get tired being blown to pieces over and over and eventually make themselves a long break from game. At the end of a day CCP has to pay their bills and I'm quite sure most of goonies or similar don't pay for PLEXes with real money same as most of griefers. I don't know the stats but how many of the 35k - 40k players actually play in HiSec (I know real number is much lower as big chunk of that is alts) and try to make their game through mininr, missioning, and other 'carebear' activities (I really learned about carebears here in EVE few months ago when I started to play)? How many of them will be disgusted and rage quit? Is that the ultimate goal of griefers?
(And please don't make a laugh of me - as I said - I have started playing few months ago and game mechanic is still a bit of a mistery to me, although interesting material for psychiatrists and other people that like to observe how people react towards each other. And short game career s a good thing - I can always give it up without going through 'withdrawal syndrome' ;D). No man is wise enough nor good enough to be trusted with unlimited power. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1277
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 07:34:00 -
[294] - Quote
Thalilith Noraver wrote:Malcanis wrote:Mmmm remember that although terrorism is bad in the real world, like murder, theft, extortion and betrayal, it makes for an interesting and exciting game world. You missed my point mate. Game is a game, real life is real life. Yet still - game terrorist is representing whole of game population to CCP (unless I'm missing the point of CSM) not mentioning the fact - it was a joke... And still game should be fun. For some is blowing other's ships up and others like to mine and produce thingies. Im jus wondering what will happen if GS will eventually stop the flow of all minerals and ice to the market. Not mentioning people that will get tired being blown to pieces over and over and eventually make themselves a long break from game. At the end of a day CCP has to pay their bills and I'm quite sure most of goonies or similar don't pay for PLEXes with real money same as most of griefers. I don't know the stats but how many of the 35k - 40k players actually play in HiSec (I know real number is much lower as big chunk of that is alts) and try to make their game through mininr, missioning, and other 'carebear' activities (I really learned about carebears here in EVE few months ago when I started to play)? How many of them will be disgusted and rage quit? Is that the ultimate goal of griefers? (And please don't make a laugh of me - as I said - I have started playing few months ago and game mechanic is still a bit of a mistery to me, although interesting material for psychiatrists and other people that like to observe how people react towards each other. And short game career s a good thing - I can always give it up without going through 'withdrawal syndrome' ;D).
GS don't remotely have the means to stop all minerals and ice production, any more than the Red Brigade could have conquered Germany. What GS can and have done is to raise the consciousness of the proletariat (that's you) to be aware that what happens in 0.0 does matter to hi-sec. The unspoken subtext of the ice crusade was "Until 0.0 gets fixed, there's nothing worth doing there so we're going to **** up hi-sec too".
With the additional benefit that said proles have also been reminded that there is no entitlement to safety whatsoever, and that every player takes their turn in losing a ship sooner or later.
The idea of people being "disgusted and quit[ting]" because they lost a ship is ludicrous and hilarious to members of an organisation for whom ship loss is a daily reality. To them, the people who think like this are like that spoiled only child who runs off crying because he got run out in his first game of baseball. Not only do such people not deserve special preference, they don't even deserve not to be laughed at, no matter how badly hurt their feelings are. The bigger the fuss they make, the more laughable they are.
A ship is just a tool. If you lose it or it breaks, you get another one, maybe better for the job. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 09:41:00 -
[295] - Quote
Thalilith Noraver wrote:The Mittani wrote:
You actually believe the Interdiction Zone is about 'stopping botting' rather than making money while wallowing in suffering?
Heh.
Not really, I'm not that naive. You just mentioned it earlier. Also I'm wondering what is the ultimate goal of being a pain in the butt for HiSec ppl? Making them rage quit so you can 'own' the game for yourselves (I'm not generalizing now to one corp or alliance of pirates/goons/lowlifes)? What in your opinion people new to the game should do? (and no - I'm not mining for living in game - it's just generous curiosity). A lot of people complain that null-sec is stagnant. All space is owned by few alliances who refuse to shoot each other and grind structures for no other reason, than other people amusement.
But what really is stagnant is high-sec. Nothing changes there for years.
And in this light, ice interdiction, hulkageddons, etc are awesome. They poke people and make them move and see the other side of the game, which people would never see otherwise. Some people will cry, some will fight back, some will quit. But in the end its an player driven event, that would never happen otherwise.
And if you can get some cash while having fun. And kill some bots that we all hate so much... Then all the more reason to do this.
And i doubt there can be such a thing as "ultimate goal" in game like eve. Having fun is the only goal we will ever need here. For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
Thalilith Noraver
Shaula Nasl Kaitain JSC
0
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 12:46:00 -
[296] - Quote
Red Templar wrote: A lot of people complain that null-sec is stagnant. All space is owned by few alliances who refuse to shoot each other and grind structures for no other reason, than other people amusement.
I can not help you with that my friend. It is you and those 'stagnant' alliances that make the nullsec. You guys too sit there and grind those structures. You want moar fun - go and attack them. Take the whole of the null for yourself - see if this is possible? Kind of a challenge ;) Go and wage a big war that will influence WHOLE of the game. HiSec ppl will have to make ships for you and others. Those corps will get wrdeccd by the ones that do stuff for the other side. This way you may as well wage war that will cover whole of the universe not only null. And I'm quite sure that GS has all the means to actually make a war like that. That may cause coprs and alliances taking new blood into their ranks to fight for and sometimes die for them. You will have to get fresh blood too. And that may totally change the face of EVE. Also - it is you guys (not only GS - it applies to all NullSec ppl) that make the HiSec stagnant you try to make us move to the other side and see if we live with launching the attacks. Maybe some information and recruitment campaigns would work? Many of use haven't seen real PvP as we never had chance to see it. It is really hard to fight someone who has been in the game years and have all the necessary skills (both ingame and real life ones) and actually do any damage to him/her. And telling me that I have to learn by trying is not good enough. As loosing too many ships at the beginning may disencourage those that may be valuable asset once they have been trained with real life PvP skills. As you also know - PvP is rather pricey business. And those that are starting need ISK for it. And how are they suppose to get them first if not by mission running and harvesting resources which are used by all of the EVE population not only HiSec.
Something to think of. If I'm wrong then correct me. Also I didn't mean to offend in any way anyone. If I did by asking too many questions or by telling all of that then I'm sorry. Mistakes a rookie. No man is wise enough nor good enough to be trusted with unlimited power. |
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
42
|
Posted - 2011.11.30 16:32:00 -
[297] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:. Removing the penalties is probably a good call to spread their use, but the silly contraband system is more of an impediment to booster popularity than the stat penalties. Oh gods, the stupidity of the contraband system. Boss, let me give you an example to take to the CSM:
Over the past month or so, I've been building a Caldari Research Outpost for deployment in Goonspace. We've been lacking in research slots in our area, and I wanted to give back a bit to the alliance. Now, as part of the lengthy list of materials I need to build the thing, you need plutonium, which is NPC seeded in Caldari space. No big deal, just buy some and have it shipped...
Only you can't. You can't put plutonium in a courier contract. Why? Because it's contraband! In Amarr space. It doesn't matter than the stuff wasn't going anywhere NEAR Amarr space, it was still impossible to courier the stuff. I had to schlep the stuff personally back from Empire.
If nothing else, the system should be able to adjust for where something is going. If it's not contraband in either the departure and arrival destinations, then a courier contract should be possible. Let the shipper know what the possible consequences are so they can tailor their route, but otherwise it shouldn't be a big deal.
Or they can just ditch the contraband crap completely. No skin off my nose. |
Etienne Rossignol
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 08:29:00 -
[298] - Quote
Not to seem like a brown-noser, but I always liked this idea for dealing with contraband, boosters and lowsec generally.
Ever thought about pushing for it? |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
160
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 15:49:00 -
[299] - Quote
Dear Mittani,
As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
I don't know about you but there's no way I'm grinding my mission corp standings to +8.0 to get some jump clones for those times where I want to actually play.
Why can't we just get rid of learning implants, get +4 to all stats for free, and get remaps every month?
Oh and a bunch of new boosting implants to offset the loss of so much ''valuable content'' would be pretty cool.
I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
Velicitia
Open Designs
141
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 16:16:00 -
[300] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Dear Mittani,
As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
I don't know about you but there's no way I'm grinding my mission corp standings to +8.0 to get some jump clones for those times where I want to actually play.
Why can't we just get rid of learning implants, get +4 to all stats for free, and get remaps every month?
Oh and a bunch of new boosting implants to offset the loss of so much ''valuable content'' would be pretty cool.
you forgot 4. get in a corp that provides JC services.
IIRC one of them was named something along the lines of "Estel Arador Jump Clone Services"
edit -- it's Estel Arador Corp Services [EACS]
https://gate.eveonline.com/Corporation/Estel%20Arador%20Corp%20Services |
|
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
160
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 16:31:00 -
[301] - Quote
Anyhow, only being able to play 24 hours per 48 hours is still basically not playing. I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1299
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 20:48:00 -
[302] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Dear Mittani,
As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
I don't know about you but there's no way I'm grinding my mission corp standings to +8.0 to get some jump clones for those times where I want to actually play.
Why can't we just get rid of learning implants, get +4 to all stats for free, and get remaps every month?
Oh and a bunch of new boosting implants to offset the loss of so much ''valuable content'' would be pretty cool.
If you're going to go that far, why not just take it to the logical conclusion and propose that we get rid of stats altogether?
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Space Products Distribution
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 21:02:00 -
[303] - Quote
Plug in a single +3 for the primary attribute of whatever you're learning. It costs 8 mil and will get you 50% of the benefit of a full set of +4s.
Revisit the cost/benefit tradeoff in a few months when you're less of a newbie. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
161
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 22:59:00 -
[304] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:Dear Mittani,
As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
I don't know about you but there's no way I'm grinding my mission corp standings to +8.0 to get some jump clones for those times where I want to actually play.
Why can't we just get rid of learning implants, get +4 to all stats for free, and get remaps every month?
Oh and a bunch of new boosting implants to offset the loss of so much ''valuable content'' would be pretty cool.
If you're going to go that far, why not just take it to the logical conclusion and propose that we get rid of stats altogether?
You're right. Why the **** not? This isn't D&D. I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
Ravcharas
GREY COUNCIL Nulli Secunda
49
|
Posted - 2011.12.01 23:15:00 -
[305] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:E man Industries wrote: So is there any drive behind the CSM to have quicker PvP in 0.0? Not all 0.0 players are from huge alliances and love the huge alliance ops.
Big fights are great and alliances need to have them, but day to day smaller scale skirmishes need to be taking place. These skirmishes need to be accessible in a 1-2h play slot. 0.0 needs to be fun!
Thanks I hope to shoot you soon.
Edit:
I sure you are aware of the above issue as you are attempting to set up a similar thunderdome of pvp-ness to address this via goonswarm. Pilots in every area of 0.0 space shoudl have access to good fights. not asking for cpp to change 0.0 or sov or anything as big fightd have there place but currently good fights are hard to come by. I'm in a similar mental place; most of my pvp these days is ganking or gatecamping or World of Tanks. I don't like waiting for hours on major fleet ops to fight a fight; I'm lazy. This is a common problem for veterans, who have been playing for ages - this is also why vets end up in cap ships, because you can play a game in another window until it's cyno time, and then you either fight or die or go back to playing in another window. Less 'schlepping'. It's extremely controversial and the CSM is divided on it, but personally I'd like to see some kind of an arena or instanced PvP setup which would allow professionals with busy lives to log in, blow some dudes up, and log off. The actual mechanics of such a device don't interest me much - it could be a gladiatorial arena with spectators who can place bets, a 'combat simulator', an arranged 4v4 team game, whatever. The macro-level issue is what concerns me: the fact that, as a PvPer, it's very hard to get a PvP experience within a short time of logging in. Missionrunners and miners can boot up EVE and begin slaving away at their PvE in moments, PvPers not so much. One of the reasons you see EVE's PvP population in BF3, LoL/HoN and WoT is precisely that they allow us to get PvP fixes on demand. It sure would be nice if we could get an on-demand PvP experience involving spaceships, too. However, some are hostile to the very idea of arenas or instanced combat or even 'quick PvP'. I haven't focused on this as a 'CSM Issue' because it doesn't much matter if we get on-demand PvP or not while the Sucking Chest Wounds need to be patched. Once the game is not being driven off a cliff hopefully I can step back and push for stuff like this. I must admit I don't really like the idea of arenas. It seems kind of... WoWy. But on the other hand there's the neglected barely-living carcass of Factional Warfare that would be perfect for getting frankensteined into something that could provide some kind of decent on-demand pvp concept.
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
197
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 00:57:00 -
[306] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
A game is forcing me to make choices, and not just take the single minmaxed optimal path! Oh, the HORRORS! |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
28
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 01:33:00 -
[307] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months A game is forcing me to make choices, and not just take the single minmaxed optimal path! Oh, the HORRORS!
Do you pvp on the weekend or every day. Weekend warrior could accept a small drop in points for 1-2 days.
also millions, or hundreds of millions (you don't need to use 5s on each attrabute all the time, get two 3-4 of the skills you training the most). Millions on themselves are like nothing, they are like the common unit used to get any decent mods or ship. What do you PVP in a veletor? PVP usualy takes investment of tech 2 mods to win unless you rifter warrior, or some serious lolfits.
Anyway, if you expect to get podded every day, you doing crazy risks for a poor noob. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
161
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 01:42:00 -
[308] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months A game is forcing me to make choices, and not just take the single minmaxed optimal path! Oh, the HORRORS!
Name me a MMO where leveling a single skill to the final level takes months. Some of you guys have an eight year headstart on new players, and unlike the dreaded WOW which keeps making leveling easier for new players, there's simply no way to catch up for us, no matter how motivated we are. That, I can deal with. But seriously, in this game learning a level 5 battleship skill actually takes longer than learning real-life multivariable calculus.
Now, do we really want to encourage people to NOT take risks and spend years shooting defenseless NPC red dots and asteroids in highsec?
A game is forcing me to make choices. Please forgive me for wanting to chose the blasphemous minmaxed path of maximum fun and minimized boredom. Planning for the future, boredom now and riches later, is something that should stay confined to real life. I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
Velicitia
Open Designs
146
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 02:15:00 -
[309] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote: Name me a MMO where leveling a single skill to the final level takes months. Some of you guys have an eight year headstart on new players, and unlike the dreaded WOW which keeps making leveling easier for new players, there's simply no way to catch up for us, no matter how motivated we are. That, I can deal with. But seriously, in this game learning a level 5 battleship skill actually takes longer than learning real-life multivariable calculus.
you don't *HAVE* to get L5 Battleships (unless of course you're looking to get into a dread/carrier/super).
Having L4 across the board will put you AT MOST about 15% behind someone with L5 skills across the board in the same fit.
Let's take the Megathron for example, fitted with Neutron Blasters
5% damage per level of Battleships to large hybrids. 5% damage per level of Large Hybrid Turret 3% damage per level of Surgical Strike
so, 13% less with you having 4/4. The ROF bonuses and other things will play into this too, but I'm looking just at volley damage (because seriously, I don't want to really figure out what a 4% difference in ROF does throughout the course of an engagement).
so, that's ~60 days saved right there that you maybe used to increase your tanking abilities. Maybe you're sitting with a few L5s there, whereas the other guy only has L4s (because his gunnery has the L5s). assuming you were able to get the compensation skills to 5 ... you're looking at an extra 25% bonus to passive armour hardeners (like EANM) and an extra 15% to active (like DCU II)...
|
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
162
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 02:20:00 -
[310] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote: Name me a MMO where leveling a single skill to the final level takes months. Some of you guys have an eight year headstart on new players, and unlike the dreaded WOW which keeps making leveling easier for new players, there's simply no way to catch up for us, no matter how motivated we are. That, I can deal with. But seriously, in this game learning a level 5 battleship skill actually takes longer than learning real-life multivariable calculus.
you don't *HAVE* to get L5 Battleships (unless of course you're looking to get into a dread/carrier/super). Having L4 across the board will put you AT MOST about 15% behind someone with L5 skills across the board in the same fit. Let's take the Megathron for example, fitted with Neutron Blasters 5% damage per level of Battleships to large hybrids. 5% damage per level of Large Hybrid Turret 3% damage per level of Surgical Strike so, 13% less with you having 4/4. The ROF bonuses and other things will play into this too, but I'm looking just at volley damage (because seriously, I don't want to really figure out what a 4% difference in ROF does throughout the course of an engagement). so, that's ~60 days saved right there that you maybe used to increase your tanking abilities. Maybe you're sitting with a few L5s there, whereas the other guy only has L4s (because his gunnery has the L5s). assuming you were able to get the compensation skills to 5 ... you're looking at an extra 25% bonus to passive armour hardeners (like EANM) and an extra 15% to active (like DCU II)...
Way to answer specifically to a generic example. I'm not even planning to train battleships. I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
|
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 05:31:00 -
[311] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote: I must admit I don't really like the idea of arenas. It seems kind of... WoWy. But on the other hand there's the neglected barely-living carcass of Factional Warfare that would be perfect for getting frankensteined into something that could provide some kind of decent on-demand pvp concept.
Yeah I'll never go in a structured arena, and most of the people I know will also probably never go into a structured arena. But arena fights might be a necessary evil to slowly ease new players (or skittish carebears) into pvp.
But only as long as the arena rewards are only some Faction Warfare LP and whatever loot they can scoop. We don't want these structured arena fights interfering with our unstructured sandbox. |
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
272
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 05:50:00 -
[312] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:But seriously, in this game learning a level 5 battleship skill actually takes longer than learning real-life multivariable calculus.
It took you less than a month to learn advanced calculus, but your having trouble with eve?
Something sure doesn't add up here.
Edit: Fixing quotes. Why do you people nest them so retardedly far? o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
175
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 06:27:00 -
[313] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:But seriously, in this game learning a level 5 battleship skill actually takes longer than learning real-life multivariable calculus. It took you less than a month to learn advanced calculus, but your having trouble with eve? Something sure doesn't add up here. Edit: Fixing quotes. Why do you people nest them so retardedly far?
Actually it takes me one week before the finals. Final destination. d;D
I'm not having trouble with Eve, on the contrary, I'm being held back by artificial limitations. Kids these days and their entitlement, etc.
Now I'll just stop answering or we're going to derail this thread way past its intended purpose. I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
Red Templar
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
94
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 10:01:00 -
[314] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:[quote=Abdiel Kavash][quote=Krios Ahzek] Some of you guys have an eight year headstart on new players, and unlike the dreaded WOW which keeps making leveling easier for new players, there's simply no way to catch up for us, no matter how motivated we are. Yes some of the players played longer than others. But that doesnt give them much. Only broader choice of ships. And maybe a bit better tank/dps/whatever which in eve can always be mitigated by skill and imagination. 8 year old chars in battleship can be killed by a skilled guy in a frig. its not that uncommon.
And you are wrong that there is no way to catch up. There is. Buy a skilled character. Its officially allowed by CCP and completely safe. Earn some isk, sell your noobie char, buy yourself advanced char. Skill gap problem solved.
For Love. For Peace. For Honor.
For None of the Above.
For Pony! |
WarFireV
The Maverick Navy Against ALL Authorities
5
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 13:51:00 -
[315] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:The Mittani wrote:E man Industries wrote: So is there any drive behind the CSM to have quicker PvP in 0.0? Not all 0.0 players are from huge alliances and love the huge alliance ops.
Big fights are great and alliances need to have them, but day to day smaller scale skirmishes need to be taking place. These skirmishes need to be accessible in a 1-2h play slot. 0.0 needs to be fun!
Thanks I hope to shoot you soon.
Edit:
I sure you are aware of the above issue as you are attempting to set up a similar thunderdome of pvp-ness to address this via goonswarm. Pilots in every area of 0.0 space shoudl have access to good fights. not asking for cpp to change 0.0 or sov or anything as big fightd have there place but currently good fights are hard to come by. I'm in a similar mental place; most of my pvp these days is ganking or gatecamping or World of Tanks. I don't like waiting for hours on major fleet ops to fight a fight; I'm lazy. This is a common problem for veterans, who have been playing for ages - this is also why vets end up in cap ships, because you can play a game in another window until it's cyno time, and then you either fight or die or go back to playing in another window. Less 'schlepping'. It's extremely controversial and the CSM is divided on it, but personally I'd like to see some kind of an arena or instanced PvP setup which would allow professionals with busy lives to log in, blow some dudes up, and log off. The actual mechanics of such a device don't interest me much - it could be a gladiatorial arena with spectators who can place bets, a 'combat simulator', an arranged 4v4 team game, whatever. The macro-level issue is what concerns me: the fact that, as a PvPer, it's very hard to get a PvP experience within a short time of logging in. Missionrunners and miners can boot up EVE and begin slaving away at their PvE in moments, PvPers not so much. One of the reasons you see EVE's PvP population in BF3, LoL/HoN and WoT is precisely that they allow us to get PvP fixes on demand. It sure would be nice if we could get an on-demand PvP experience involving spaceships, too. However, some are hostile to the very idea of arenas or instanced combat or even 'quick PvP'. I haven't focused on this as a 'CSM Issue' because it doesn't much matter if we get on-demand PvP or not while the Sucking Chest Wounds need to be patched. Once the game is not being driven off a cliff hopefully I can step back and push for stuff like this. I must admit I don't really like the idea of arenas. It seems kind of... WoWy. But on the other hand there's the neglected barely-living carcass of Factional Warfare that would be perfect for getting frankensteined into something that could provide some kind of decent on-demand pvp concept.
I believe a good middle ground to this is to have more tournaments or have some sort of automated tournament. The idea would be to still have the large one every year or something like a championship tournament where the winners to get a new ship. Then have smaller ones where the winners just get something like 1Bill isk or a few faction cruiser blueprints to keep the same people from winning it over and over.
You could follow the same rules or go with a smaller setup something like a 6v6. Maybe even do a bi-monthly or ever 4 month tournament where the winner get 1 BPC from a past alliance tournament, seeing some more Imperial Apcos in game would be cool. I think the whole competitive PvP is very under looked at in Eve when it could be something big if given enough love. I mean just look at something like DOTA2 where they had a 2million dollar tournament. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
18
|
Posted - 2011.12.02 14:09:00 -
[316] - Quote
WarFireV wrote:
I believe a good middle ground to this is to have more tournaments or have some sort of automated tournament. The idea would be to still have the large one every year or something like a championship tournament where the winners to get a new ship. Then have smaller ones where the winners just get something like 1Bill isk or a few faction cruiser blueprints to keep the same people from winning it over and over.
You could follow the same rules or go with a smaller setup something like a 6v6. Maybe even do a bi-monthly or ever 4 month tournament where the winner get 1 BPC from a past alliance tournament, seeing some more Imperial Apcos in game would be cool. I think the whole competitive PvP is very under looked at in Eve when it could be something big if given enough love. I mean just look at something like DOTA2 where they had a 2million dollar tournament.
Oh heck, if CCP decided it was worthwhile, they could do much better than "Arena" combat .... they could create new "Player Incursions" or "PvP Missions" and repurpose some of the faction warfare mechanics perhaps ... all kinds of options, and they wouldn't necessarily have to break the current game system that much IMO.
Far from discouraging PVP, I think it would actually encourage it by providing a bridge into PvP for carebears, but I'm not a psychologist or game designer, nor do I have behavioral statistiics at my disposal (like CCP should) to tell whether this would really be the case or not. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
198
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 01:49:00 -
[317] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Oh heck, if CCP decided it was worthwhile, they could do much better than "Arena" combat .... they could create new "Player Incursions" or "PvP Missions" and repurpose some of the faction warfare mechanics perhaps ... all kinds of options, and they wouldn't necessarily have to break the current game system that much IMO.
Far from discouraging PVP, I think it would actually encourage it by providing a bridge into PvP for carebears, but I'm not a psychologist or game designer, nor do I have behavioral statistiics at my disposal (like CCP should) to tell whether this would really be the case or not.
How about... allow players to control systems, and allow them to challenge the system's owner to take over the system? There could be a designated structure that the defending team has to protect and the attackers have to destroy in order to take control.
Oh. Wait. |
Tasiv Deka
The Baseborn Syndicate
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 10:30:00 -
[318] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Takara Mora wrote:Oh heck, if CCP decided it was worthwhile, they could do much better than "Arena" combat .... they could create new "Player Incursions" or "PvP Missions" and repurpose some of the faction warfare mechanics perhaps ... all kinds of options, and they wouldn't necessarily have to break the current game system that much IMO.
Far from discouraging PVP, I think it would actually encourage it by providing a bridge into PvP for carebears, but I'm not a psychologist or game designer, nor do I have behavioral statistiics at my disposal (like CCP should) to tell whether this would really be the case or not. How about... allow players to control systems, and allow them to challenge the system's owner to take over the system? There could be a designated structure that the defending team has to protect and the attackers have to destroy in order to take control. Oh. Wait.
plus 2 internets to this one |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 11:08:00 -
[319] - Quote
Is the fix for drone regions in the works?
I figured it would be in this past patch, but still nothing.
Having watched eve progress for about 5-6 years now, I am amazed at how slowly things get done.
I remember when drones didn't use their MWD's correctly and all I had trained for was drone ships. It took them like 2 years to fix that.
Drone regions are allowing a bunch of people to mine who never trained for mining completely undermining the entire market and thus the entire character career path.
I understand eve is a PVP game, but I sincerely feel ships shooting each other gets a lot more of a look from CCP than other types of PVP. Every auction, every barter, or market interaction should be considered PVP.
I'm scratching my head while they seem to just be scratching themselves.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1316
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 11:29:00 -
[320] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:Is the fix for drone regions in the works?
I figured it would be in this past patch, but still nothing.
Having watched eve progress for about 5-6 years now, I am amazed at how slowly things get done.
I remember when drones didn't use their MWD's correctly and all I had trained for was drone ships. It took them like 2 years to fix that.
Drone regions are allowing a bunch of people to mine who never trained for mining completely undermining the entire market and thus the entire character career path.
I understand eve is a PVP game, but I sincerely feel ships shooting each other gets a lot more of a look from CCP than other types of PVP. Every auction, every barter, or market interaction should be considered PVP.
I'm scratching my head while they seem to just be scratching themselves.
Given Soundwave's interest in the topic, I think there's a good chance that the drone regions will be revisited in the summer expansion. I wholly agree with you that dronespace should not be the major source of minerals, but I would also be very disappointed to see drones become $GENERIC_BOUNTY_RAT_TYPE_09 Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
|
Tasiv Deka
The Baseborn Syndicate
8
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 11:38:00 -
[321] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Revolution Rising wrote:Is the fix for drone regions in the works?
I figured it would be in this past patch, but still nothing.
Having watched eve progress for about 5-6 years now, I am amazed at how slowly things get done.
I remember when drones didn't use their MWD's correctly and all I had trained for was drone ships. It took them like 2 years to fix that.
Drone regions are allowing a bunch of people to mine who never trained for mining completely undermining the entire market and thus the entire character career path.
I understand eve is a PVP game, but I sincerely feel ships shooting each other gets a lot more of a look from CCP than other types of PVP. Every auction, every barter, or market interaction should be considered PVP.
I'm scratching my head while they seem to just be scratching themselves.
Given Soundwave's interest in the topic, I think there's a good chance that the drone regions will be revisited in the summer expansion. I wholly agree with you that dronespace should not be the major source of minerals, but I would also be very disappointed to see drones become $GENERIC_BOUNTY_RAT_TYPE_09
split it to some degree i mean these are "rogue drones" you should get payed something for taking them out and in all honesty they drop a tad to much to make sense... hell even the high sec ones ive done to kill time have given me more isk in minerals than i can earn ratting. spent all that time looking for the edit signature button and now i cant think of anything |
St Ryan
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 15:41:00 -
[322] - Quote
Mr. King of Space,
Can we get a "Never Show This Message Again" option added to the Intergalactic News dialog boxes?
While I'm sure such content strokes the loins of many a role player, there's no reason the rest of us have to see it every damn time we pass through the system. For those of us living nearby, these messages quickly become tiresome.
blessed be thy brutix, St Ryan |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:25:00 -
[323] - Quote
Largo Coronet wrote:The Mittani wrote:. Removing the penalties is probably a good call to spread their use, but the silly contraband system is more of an impediment to booster popularity than the stat penalties. Oh gods, the stupidity of the contraband system. Boss, let me give you an example to take to the CSM: Over the past month or so, I've been building a Caldari Research Outpost for deployment in Goonspace. We've been lacking in research slots in our area, and I wanted to give back a bit to the alliance. Now, as part of the lengthy list of materials I need to build the thing, you need plutonium, which is NPC seeded in Caldari space. No big deal, just buy some and have it shipped... Only you can't. You can't put plutonium in a courier contract. Why? Because it's contraband! In Amarr space. It doesn't matter than the stuff wasn't going anywhere NEAR Amarr space, it was still impossible to courier the stuff. I had to schlep the stuff personally back from Empire. If nothing else, the system should be able to adjust for where something is going. If it's not contraband in either the departure and arrival destinations, then a courier contract should be possible. Let the shipper know what the possible consequences are so they can tailor their route, but otherwise it shouldn't be a big deal. Or they can just ditch the contraband crap completely. No skin off my nose.
The contraband system is a relic of some original code when the game was first launched; I don't think it's ever contributed to meaningful gameplay, and is a significant reason why boosters aren't used much - not the penalties, which can be reduced through skills.
I support the removal/revamping of contraband. I don't think changing boosters to make them have less penalties will make a difference in their use, as that's not why they're unused presently.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:27:00 -
[324] - Quote
Etienne Rossignol wrote:Not to seem like a brown-noser, but I always liked this idea for dealing with contraband, boosters and lowsec generally. Ever thought about pushing for it?
The Corruption expansion would require an entire feature cycle to implement, due to all the new code. Should lowsec become the focus for a feature push, I'd probably pitch the idea - but as I'm not too much of a lowsec guy, I wouldn't ram it down people's throats. I don't think lowsec should be prioritized over more significant feature-level fixes, though, until risk/reward and the fundamental stagnation of nullsec warfare is addressed. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:31:00 -
[325] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote:Dear Mittani,
As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
I don't know about you but there's no way I'm grinding my mission corp standings to +8.0 to get some jump clones for those times where I want to actually play.
Why can't we just get rid of learning implants, get +4 to all stats for free, and get remaps every month?
Oh and a bunch of new boosting implants to offset the loss of so much ''valuable content'' would be pretty cool.
From your later posts in this thread, it's apparent that you're what we call a 'hypersensitive plaintiff'. The idea of not having the absolute maximum sp per hour drives you up a wall. You're a tiny minority, and your opinions shouldn't drive gameplay.
That said, despite your extreme position in later posts, I do think that learning implants are a general hinderance to the willingness of players to PvP, which is a shame. I've seen this issue come up more and more in the last few months from a number of sources and demographics in the game, and I agree; I do think that attribute boosts should be removed from implants, giving them a purely combat/functional purpose.
This makes sense from a subscriber perspective, as well. CCP would benefit from their customers being more willing to PvP, as PvP is a more engaging type of gameplay in the long-term than playing it safe. Veteran players tend to be PvP types, because the PvP in EVE is unique to MMOs; the PvE in EVE is drab and not unique at all.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:34:00 -
[326] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: If you're going to go that far, why not just take it to the logical conclusion and propose that we get rid of stats altogether?
Stats provide some degree of immersion. They could be removed and skill training normalized without any particular impact on gameplay, but I think "remove attribute boosts from implants" is an easier first step than a sweeping attribute removal.
Political change is often an incremental process as it must be done over the opposition of various parties. I can probably sell 'remove attributes from implants' much more easily than I can sell 'remove it all, revolutionize the structure' - even if the latter makes more objective sense. Humans. vOv The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:40:00 -
[327] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:Is the fix for drone regions in the works?
I figured it would be in this past patch, but still nothing.
Having watched eve progress for about 5-6 years now, I am amazed at how slowly things get done.
I remember when drones didn't use their MWD's correctly and all I had trained for was drone ships. It took them like 2 years to fix that.
Drone regions are allowing a bunch of people to mine who never trained for mining completely undermining the entire market and thus the entire character career path.
I understand eve is a PVP game, but I sincerely feel ships shooting each other gets a lot more of a look from CCP than other types of PVP. Every auction, every barter, or market interaction should be considered PVP.
I'm scratching my head while they seem to just be scratching themselves.
Things get done slowly within CCP because it was a company without a 'normal' management structure, if 'normal' is what you'd find at IBM in the US, a company that then expanded far beyond its core size and then began working on multiple unrelated projects without proper oversight, meanwhile neglecting its core product/customers.
Things seem to be getting a bit better now. We'll know more once the summit begins on Wednesday.
Gunmining in the drone regions is entirely the reason why mining has been devalued as a profession. I firmly support and advocate for a shift to bounties on Drone Region rats instead of alloys; this will stop the unceasing flow of highend minerals into the market, raise their prices, and make mining A/B/C worthwhile once more. Belts will have more miners - or have miners at all - and then we can murder them and read their whine threads on eve-o about how vile and cruel we are.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:43:00 -
[328] - Quote
St Ryan wrote:Mr. King of Space,
Can we get a "Never Show This Message Again" option added to the Intergalactic News dialog boxes?
While I'm sure such content strokes the loins of many a role player, there's no reason the rest of us have to see it every damn time we pass through the system. For those of us living nearby, these messages quickly become tiresome.
blessed be thy brutix, St Ryan
Sounds like a simple UI fix. If only I knew a UI coder who could do such a thing~
I'll poke Punkturis about it. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 20:49:00 -
[329] - Quote
Would you advocate null power blocks to participate in player events? Could you expand a bit on how you feel about player events? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2465
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 21:35:00 -
[330] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Would you advocate null power blocks to participate in player events? Could you expand a bit on how you feel about player events?
Blocs do what blocs do, regardless of a CSM opinion. What do you mean 'player events', exactly? The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
200
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 22:10:00 -
[331] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Would you advocate null power blocks to participate in player events? Could you expand a bit on how you feel about player events? Player events are the daily life in 0.0. Perhaps you mean CCP events? |
Max Kolonko
Worm Nation Ash Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 22:27:00 -
[332] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Would you advocate null power blocks to participate in player events? Could you expand a bit on how you feel about player events? Player events are the daily life in 0.0. Perhaps you mean CCP events? lol :) |
Revolution Rising
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
34
|
Posted - 2011.12.03 22:55:00 -
[333] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Given Soundwave's interest in the topic, I think there's a good chance that the drone regions will be revisited in the summer expansion. I wholly agree with you that dronespace should not be the major source of minerals, but I would also be very disappointed to see drones become $GENERIC_BOUNTY_RAT_TYPE_09
Look, I'm totally down for them to go ahead and ruin some other part of the eve market with their drone regions (which given the disparity between empire and null populations and then drones as a % of the null space altogether is probably about 5% of the player base at most) with some other game breaking mechanic instead - which they can think up whenever and however they choose.
I find it disappointing in the extreme that this has gone on for so long. As it is I have 5 toons and am not even playing presently except for skill changes because I know I'll be bored in a week without being able to run a decent R&D corp - mining being the main member activity I'd like to see.
I'm not not playing because I don't like PVP. It's just the context I find I have to PVP in.
Either I join a 0.0 corp/alliance who is PVPing over vast amounts of space and I find that utterly boring without being able to do the activities in that space I like to do - kinda hard to explain. Finding myself a nameless number among thousands isn't really what I want my gaming experience to become.
|
Max Kolonko
Worm Nation Ash Alliance
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 00:34:00 -
[334] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote:Malcanis wrote: Given Soundwave's interest in the topic, I think there's a good chance that the drone regions will be revisited in the summer expansion. I wholly agree with you that dronespace should not be the major source of minerals, but I would also be very disappointed to see drones become $GENERIC_BOUNTY_RAT_TYPE_09
Look, I'm totally down for them to go ahead and ruin some other part of the eve market with their drone regions (which given the disparity between empire and null populations and then drones as a % of the null space altogether is probably about 5% of the player base at most) with some other game breaking mechanic instead - which they can think up whenever and however they choose. I find it disappointing in the extreme that this has gone on for so long. As it is I have 5 toons and am not even playing presently except for skill changes because I know I'll be bored in a week without being able to run a decent R&D corp - mining being the main member activity I'd like to see. I'm not not playing because I don't like PVP. It's just the context I find I have to PVP in. Either I join a 0.0 corp/alliance who is PVPing over vast amounts of space and I find that utterly boring without being able to do the activities in that space I like to do - kinda hard to explain. Finding myself a nameless number among thousands isn't really what I want my gaming experience to become.
Try WH space, thats where all the FUN is taking place (i.e. small scale PVP) |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
104
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 09:02:00 -
[335] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Would you advocate null power blocks to participate in player events? Could you expand a bit on how you feel about player events? Blocs do what blocs do, regardless of a CSM opinion. What do you mean 'player events', exactly?
Hulkageddon "Bring Me The Head Of Kirith Kodachi." Death Race
... just to name a few. Basically events that usually involve the actual players hosting them and such things. |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
51
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 16:58:00 -
[336] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:The Mittani wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Would you advocate null power blocks to participate in player events? Could you expand a bit on how you feel about player events? Blocs do what blocs do, regardless of a CSM opinion. What do you mean 'player events', exactly? Hulkageddon "Bring Me The Head Of Kirith Kodachi." Death Race ... just to name a few. Basically events that usually involve the actual players hosting them and such things. Anything that gets players interacting and doing things either together, or for bragging rights is a good thing. Player driven events do this wonderfully, and I suspect that mittens would agree. Bring on the player driven content. |
Wolodymyr
Mando'a Navy Controlled Chaos
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 19:28:00 -
[337] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Gunmining in the drone regions is entirely the reason why mining has been devalued as a profession/ What about botting? (Either drone ratting bots, or regular mining bots) Fixing the drone rats would definitely help, but do you think that being more aggressive with bots would help miners more? |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
223
|
Posted - 2011.12.04 22:12:00 -
[338] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote:Dear Mittani,
As a newbie I'm currently at the point where I can either: -Train skills ludicrously slower than everyone else -Get podded with millions in learning implants every day (something which I can't afford forever) -Not play this game except to change skills for the next six months
I don't know about you but there's no way I'm grinding my mission corp standings to +8.0 to get some jump clones for those times where I want to actually play.
Why can't we just get rid of learning implants, get +4 to all stats for free, and get remaps every month?
Oh and a bunch of new boosting implants to offset the loss of so much ''valuable content'' would be pretty cool.
From your later posts in this thread, it's apparent that you're what we call a 'hypersensitive plaintiff'. The idea of not having the absolute maximum sp per hour drives you up a wall. You're a tiny minority, and your opinions shouldn't drive gameplay.
While I am not a certified space psychiatrist and therefore am unable to diagnose myself, I have to viscerally disagree with your analysis. I played for weeks without implants after the first time I got podded in 0.0, and still do whenever I decide to go on an educative dying spree. This might not be readily apparent from reading a small sample of my posting, as I tend to exaggerate my position during e-arguments for comedy reasons.
Nevertheless, it would be fun to train faster and I see no reason not to lobby for the greater good of all newbies.
Wolodymyr wrote:The Mittani wrote:Gunmining in the drone regions is entirely the reason why mining has been devalued as a profession/ What about botting? (Either drone ratting bots, or regular mining bots) Fixing the drone rats would definitely help, but do you think that being more aggressive with bots would help miners more?
Well, how would YOU fix botting? Macros in MMOs have been around since Ultima Online, and there's no easy counter. You could have the bot police randomly start PMing miners to ask them if they are actually at the computer, but many legitimate miners are semi-AFK. Catching bots is hard unless they are poorly designed bots.
I live, I post, I slay. I am content. Alpha Flight --á an open-source initiative for newbies looking for PVP. Join channel ''Alpha Flight'' in game https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=40104 |
Adria Delphi
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 03:18:00 -
[339] - Quote
Krios Ahzek wrote: Nevertheless, it would be fun to train faster and I see no reason not to lobby for the greater good of all newbies.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
225
|
Posted - 2011.12.05 03:57:00 -
[340] - Quote
Adria Delphi wrote:Krios Ahzek wrote: Nevertheless, it would be fun to train faster and I see no reason not to lobby for the greater good of all newbies.
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players.
That's a nice quote alright, now would you kindly explain exactly why you think it applies to this particular case?
I live, I post, I slay. I am content.
|
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
239
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 12:48:00 -
[341] - Quote
Ravcharas wrote:I must admit I don't really like the idea of arenas. It seems kind of... WoWy. But on the other hand there's the neglected barely-living carcass of Factional Warfare that would be perfect for getting frankensteined into something that could provide some kind of decent on-demand pvp concept. There's absolutely no problem of having arenas where people can match skills against others in controlled circumstances. Hell, CCP could allow people to even place bets on who would win, once they finish off WiS. Imagine having a hall of people watching a large viewscreen showing the 1v1, 2v2, 4v4 arena action. All this would do is make EVE as a universe deeper, and I see absolutely no problem with that.
The only thing which should absolutely not happen is "arenas" for taking/losing SOV, taking moons, etc.
Unless, of course, you could bet the sovereignty of a system on a fight in the arenas. vOv |
Blake Zacary
Volatile Technology Industry and Investments
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 16:03:00 -
[342] - Quote
My question is mainly about blobs.... The game seems to be heading in a direction again where we have no counter at all to massive blobs.With Time Dilation and the way sov works it will end up like it did a little while back,where null eventually settles down and becomes very static and boring with space being held for years by Alliances with no real way to challenge their sov.
Personally I would love the end game to be epic.Where skills, imagination and tactics play a more important role than having loads of characters with average skills who only need to press F1 when told to do so.Imagine if you can wars,instead of being based on single focal points at a time are run over massive battle lines.Where you have both large battles and small battles raging along the 'battle front'.Using different tactics like guerrilla warfare, interception of enemy supply lines,disrupting the industrial side of the enemy(moons,pi) etc,etc.The potential list is endless and would open up some epic gameplay.
Now as I said the game is getting pushed towards massive blobs again and the old 'bring more' or 'you need more friends' isn't a valid argument to let the game go this way.Is the CSM really pushing for null to be this way or are positive steps being looked at to improve gameplay in null so it encourages more people to partake in it and lets all Alliances and Coalitions have a chance to play a role without having to piggy back onto a large blob just to play. |
Johan Krieger
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 16:50:00 -
[343] - Quote
Blake Zacary wrote:My question is mainly about blobs.... The game seems to be heading in a direction again where we have no counter at all to massive blobs.With Time Dilation and the way sov works it will end up like it did a little while back,where null eventually settles down and becomes very static and boring with space being held for years by Alliances with no real way to challenge their sov.
Personally I would love the end game to be epic.Where skills, imagination and tactics play a more important role than having loads of characters with average skills who only need to press F1 when told to do so.Imagine if you can wars,instead of being based on single focal points at a time are run over massive battle lines.Where you have both large battles and small battles raging along the 'battle front'.Using different tactics like guerrilla warfare, interception of enemy supply lines,disrupting the industrial side of the enemy(moons,pi) etc,etc.The potential list is endless and would open up some epic gameplay.
Now as I said the game is getting pushed towards massive blobs again and the old 'bring more' or 'you need more friends' isn't a valid argument to let the game go this way.Is the CSM really pushing for null to be this way or are positive steps being looked at to improve gameplay in null so it encourages more people to partake in it and lets all Alliances and Coalitions have a chance to play a role without having to piggy back onto a large blob just to play.
The only way you could have multiple battles going on at the same time is if one of the Alliances split their forces (which is stupid) and attacked multiple things at the same time. Even then, the defending alliance would most likely just take their blob and wipe out each smaller attacking fleet with ease.
If it were to happen, you would have to have more FC's and your logistics team would have to work harder to keep multiple staging systems stocked with war supplies. No one wants to have to fly 20 jumps to get a new battleship just so they can have their small gang ~elite PvP~.
Then, if all that could magically happen, both alliances would still have to agree to use that style of warfare, which I doubt they would.
CCP has pretty much no control over how many people gang up to fight each other. The ONLY way that blobs are going to disappear is if alliances agree they want to have small gangs instead of blobs. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
204
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 17:10:00 -
[344] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:There's absolutely no problem of having arenas where people can match skills against others in controlled circumstances. Hell, CCP could allow people to even place bets on who would win, once they finish off WiS. Imagine having a hall of people watching a large viewscreen showing the 1v1, 2v2, 4v4 arena action. All this would do is make EVE as a universe deeper, and I see absolutely no problem with that.
There is one such arena already, it's called Sisi. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 17:42:00 -
[345] - Quote
I think you'll find that the reason the game is being pushed ever further towards bigger and bigger blobs is because the SOV system basically requires it. You either overpower the enemy once every 2nd day or so, or all your progress is reset.
If the SOV system had been much more dynamic and allowed multiple systems to be under attack, smaller fleets could be incentivized into being used, instead of today's situation where one fuckoff fleet smashes into another fuckoff fleet until either all the timers are smashed through, or you're repelled. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 17:44:00 -
[346] - Quote
Abdiel Kavash wrote:Lord Zim wrote:There's absolutely no problem of having arenas where people can match skills against others in controlled circumstances. Hell, CCP could allow people to even place bets on who would win, once they finish off WiS. Imagine having a hall of people watching a large viewscreen showing the 1v1, 2v2, 4v4 arena action. All this would do is make EVE as a universe deeper, and I see absolutely no problem with that. There is one such arena already, it's called Sisi. You're not getting the point. |
Blake Zacary
Volatile Technology Industry and Investments
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 17:46:00 -
[347] - Quote
Johan Krieger wrote:Blake Zacary wrote:My question is mainly about blobs.... The game seems to be heading in a direction again where we have no counter at all to massive blobs.With Time Dilation and the way sov works it will end up like it did a little while back,where null eventually settles down and becomes very static and boring with space being held for years by Alliances with no real way to challenge their sov.
Personally I would love the end game to be epic.Where skills, imagination and tactics play a more important role than having loads of characters with average skills who only need to press F1 when told to do so.Imagine if you can wars,instead of being based on single focal points at a time are run over massive battle lines.Where you have both large battles and small battles raging along the 'battle front'.Using different tactics like guerrilla warfare, interception of enemy supply lines,disrupting the industrial side of the enemy(moons,pi) etc,etc.The potential list is endless and would open up some epic gameplay.
Now as I said the game is getting pushed towards massive blobs again and the old 'bring more' or 'you need more friends' isn't a valid argument to let the game go this way.Is the CSM really pushing for null to be this way or are positive steps being looked at to improve gameplay in null so it encourages more people to partake in it and lets all Alliances and Coalitions have a chance to play a role without having to piggy back onto a large blob just to play. The only way you could have multiple battles going on at the same time is if one of the Alliances split their forces (which is stupid) and attacked multiple things at the same time. Even then, the defending alliance would most likely just take their blob and wipe out each smaller attacking fleet with ease. If it were to happen, you would have to have more FC's and your logistics team would have to work harder to keep multiple staging systems stocked with war supplies. No one wants to have to fly 20 jumps to get a new battleship just so they can have their small gang ~elite PvP~. Then, if all that could magically happen, both alliances would still have to agree to use that style of warfare, which I doubt they would. CCP has pretty much no control over how many people gang up to fight each other. The ONLY way that blobs are going to disappear is if alliances agree they want to have small gangs instead of blobs. You seem very negative towards change.You honestly don't think the current end game is as epic as it could be ? Like I said just now it's being pushed more and more towards larger blobs with absolutely no counter to this.I don't think cramming as many people into one system is the best way it can work.Giving us the tools to create more varied and fun content in null would add so much more to the game and hopefully would encourage more people to give null a try.Just now I don't believe the current way the game is heading does that.
I love big battles but I don't think they should be the only option that is open in null to actually do anything.I would love skills,tactics and imagination to be rewarded as well,rather than just being able to push F1 being the only tactic.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
243
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:05:00 -
[348] - Quote
Key words: descriptive sovereignty. |
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Fatal Ascension
277
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:15:00 -
[349] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:I think you'll find that the reason the game is being pushed ever further towards bigger and bigger blobs is because the SOV system basically requires it. You either overpower the enemy once every 2nd day or so, or all your progress is reset.
If the SOV system had been much more dynamic and allowed multiple systems to be under attack, smaller fleets could be incentivized into being used, instead of today's situation where one fuckoff fleet smashes into another fuckoff fleet until either all the timers are smashed through, or you're repelled. Whats stopping this now? CFC has enough people that we could easily keep 4-5 systems reinforced at any given time(and maybe even the intel resources to arrange for them all to come out at the same time to force a choice) and we don't, for a reason.
If we do this and our enemy doesn't, then they just crush the fleets one at a time, titan bridging to the next system we are attacking as soon as the first is crashed and taking on the rest. Without an I-Win button, the only counter for numbers is more numbers.
There is no mechanic preventing or causing either situation, other than the pure mechanics of warfare. When both sides have equal equipment, the side with more people wins, and in eve there is no such thing as a technological advantage, and at the bloc level if your fleet members aren't able to field strong ships, your already failing. o/`-á Lord, I want to be a gynecologist.. KY, rubber gloves, and a flashlight.-á o/` |
Johan Krieger
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
55
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:30:00 -
[350] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Lord Zim wrote:I think you'll find that the reason the game is being pushed ever further towards bigger and bigger blobs is because the SOV system basically requires it. You either overpower the enemy once every 2nd day or so, or all your progress is reset.
If the SOV system had been much more dynamic and allowed multiple systems to be under attack, smaller fleets could be incentivized into being used, instead of today's situation where one fuckoff fleet smashes into another fuckoff fleet until either all the timers are smashed through, or you're repelled. Whats stopping this now? CFC has enough people that we could easily keep 4-5 systems reinforced at any given time(and maybe even the intel resources to arrange for them all to come out at the same time to force a choice) and we don't, for a reason. If we do this and our enemy doesn't, then they just crush the fleets one at a time, titan bridging to the next system we are attacking as soon as the first is crashed and taking on the rest. Without an I-Win button, the only counter for numbers is more numbers. There is no mechanic preventing or causing either situation, other than the pure mechanics of warfare. When both sides have equal equipment, the side with more people wins, and in eve there is no such thing as a technological advantage, and at the bloc level if your fleet members aren't able to field strong ships, your already failing.
Exactly my point. It's the players who decide how the battles are going to work, not CCP.
Short of CCP limiting the amount of people that can be in system I really don't think there is anything they can really do to change how warfare works. It will have to be the players who decide how they feel like playing the game. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1225
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:33:00 -
[351] - Quote
Blake Zacary wrote:I love big battles but I don't think they should be the only option that is open in null to actually do anything.I would love skills,tactics and imagination to be rewarded as well,rather than just being able to push F1 being the only tactic.
You'll find that it takes quite a level of skill, tactics and imagination to manage a fleet of 200+ battleships. |
Dunbar Hulan
The Flaming Sideburn's Art of War Alliance
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 18:42:00 -
[352] - Quote
Can you outline why you would be worth voting for in the next election ? Outline what you feel you have achieved for the EVE community in your role as a CSM. And as a follow up, can you outline what your thoughts are on the future role of Null sec and in particular, NPC null (Where I live.)
-áThe Sideburns- Always Outnumbered- Never Outgunned. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
173
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:05:00 -
[353] - Quote
Andski wrote:Blake Zacary wrote:I love big battles but I don't think they should be the only option that is open in null to actually do anything.I would love skills,tactics and imagination to be rewarded as well,rather than just being able to push F1 being the only tactic.
You'll find that it takes quite a level of skill, tactics and imagination to manage a fleet of 200+ battleships.
... but the fleet commander .... he held it together
:i was there: |
Blake Zacary
Volatile Technology Industry and Investments
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:44:00 -
[354] - Quote
Andski wrote:Blake Zacary wrote:I love big battles but I don't think they should be the only option that is open in null to actually do anything.I would love skills,tactics and imagination to be rewarded as well,rather than just being able to push F1 being the only tactic.
You'll find that it takes quite a level of skill, tactics and imagination to manage a fleet of 200+ battleships. Maybe for one guy but the other 199 just need basic skills and know how to align,warp to,jump and lets not forget the most complex one of all pressing F1.Not really a good advert to encourage people to stay long term in the game to train up better skills,increase their experience and think out the box on different tactics,as numbers are what gives the biggest rewards just now not what I listed before !
I'm not against blobs as such,I just don't think they should be the only real option in null and with no real counter except trying to bring even more people into the one grid.I can see null eventually becoming very static and boring like it was the other year,with Alliances holding the same sov for years.And no chance for anyone to build up their own empires and actually fight for something without having to beg for scraps from entrenched Alliances/Coalitions just to get into null.Is it really such a bad thing to want null to be more dynamic and changing with a wide range of content,that will encourage more people to try it out and hopefully attract more long term people into Eve in general.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
244
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 19:44:00 -
[355] - Quote
Tallian Saotome wrote:Whats stopping this now? CFC has enough people that we could easily keep 4-5 systems reinforced at any given time(and maybe even the intel resources to arrange for them all to come out at the same time to force a choice) and we don't, for a reason.
If we do this and our enemy doesn't, then they just crush the fleets one at a time, titan bridging to the next system we are attacking as soon as the first is crashed and taking on the rest. Without an I-Win button, the only counter for numbers is more numbers.
There is no mechanic preventing or causing either situation, other than the pure mechanics of warfare. When both sides have equal equipment, the side with more people wins, and in eve there is no such thing as a technological advantage, and at the bloc level if your fleet members aren't able to field strong ships, your already failing. Simple. If we split our forces over 2 or 3 systems, then worst case, the other guy will just defend one system a day, resetting all progress we've made as they save each system. There's nothing stopping this behavior, so the only thing an attacker really can do is devote all resources to one system at a time until it has been taken over, or attack more than i think 5 or 6 systems at a time. |
Derkata
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.07 23:53:00 -
[356] - Quote
The problem with setting up these kind of flanking attacks is the mobility and projection of power. It works in the real world when your army cant possibly cross the country in a day to defend both east and west borders. Traveling by gate takes time, but you could go from corner to corner in eve within the time needed to take over a system. Now factor in jump bridges and its even less time. Now factor in titans bridging from the spot of the defense and it would be easy for a fleet of 1000 to crush 5 separate fleets of 200 in short time.
In the real, and even in RTS games a small force used as distraction really gives you a hand up while another force hits hard on the other side but it simply isn't like that in eve. The Sov mechanics as they are right now and the ability of fleets to move prevent it. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
245
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 00:13:00 -
[357] - Quote
Yes, that's what I've been saying, and that's one of the main things I think should be implemented/enabled when/if CCP actually does improve nullsec SOV fighting. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
1368
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 09:37:00 -
[358] - Quote
Derkata wrote:The problem with setting up these kind of flanking attacks is the mobility and projection of power. It works in the real world when your army cant possibly cross the country in a day to defend both east and west borders. Traveling by gate takes time, but you could go from corner to corner in eve within the time needed to take over a system. Now factor in jump bridges and its even less time. Now factor in titans bridging from the spot of the defense and it would be easy for a fleet of 1000 to crush 5 separate fleets of 200 in short time.
In the real, and even in RTS games a small force used as distraction really gives you a hand up while another force hits hard on the other side but it simply isn't like that in eve. The Sov mechanics as they are right now and the ability of fleets to move prevent it.
Which is why I advocate changing the Titan jump bridge mechanism such that the Titan jumps to the cyno and takes any ships within, say, 5000m with it. Remote DD was ridiculously OP because it allowed the Titan to have a massive effect on the battlefield without committing anything except a disposable cyno ship, and remote bridging is OP in exactly the same way. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
247
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 10:24:00 -
[359] - Quote
Tbh I'm not convinced that's really the way to go. If any ship should do the whole jump to cyno to deliver fleet maneuvers, it would be the mothership, and for that to happen pilots would have to dock with it prior to jumping.
Actually, I just had an idea. Why not make it so you need two titans to initiate bridging? Source and destination titan. It can be argued that everything else which is bridging other ships than themselves needs a source and destination structure, why not titans. Bridging equipment is huge and requires a lot of fuel and power etc and all that jazz. That way you make it more dangerous to hotdrop something, and you avoid the problem where CCP would invariably just suck up everything in a radius of 5000m, including POS structures or the POS itself, and move it to the cyno system, along with AFK people. Otherwise you'd have a hell of a time taking a titan into POSes or station undocks and bridge AFK people into hostile space and leave them there just because you can.
Tbh I think the whole movement possibilities of fleets is less a problem the whole SOV system is, and I'd much rather CCP put effort into making that better, more dynamic and actually strategic with the possibility of feints and surprise attacks etc. |
Arkanon Nerevar
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 14:35:00 -
[360] - Quote
Dear Mittens, a few questions regarding Null life in general, as always i leave it to you to answer as you see fit.
1.On a number of occasions when talking with friends/aqquaintences about playing eve, i pitch the sandbox pvp as the main point (null-sec) to subscribing, this leads to the claims that eve endgame is controlled by giant douchebag conglomarats, that are united by the fact that they are all by nature, complete and utter ass-holes, im never quite sure what to say to that, so i ask the (in)famous Mittani for guidance.
2.Null corps have in general a VERY bad rap when it comes to a non multi-year vet applying, storys are abound of endless scams and dashed hopes, do you belive this rap is justified, that it is truly hard to "break into" Null and what impact it has on the state of Null life today.
3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null. Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter-Gallente capsuleer motto |
|
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 14:45:00 -
[361] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tbh I think the whole movement possibilities of fleets is less a problem the whole SOV system is, and I'd much rather CCP put effort into making that better, more dynamic and actually strategic with the possibility of feints and surprise attacks etc.
Okay you ************, I've had enough of this **** and I'm not going to take it any more.
Sov is short for sovereignty. It's an abbreviation, not an acronym, and capitalizing it makes you a bad person. Now that you know this, I sincerely hope that you turn your life around and stop being wrong on the internet.
Good day, sir. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
249
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 14:47:00 -
[362] - Quote
SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV SOV.
Enjoy. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
141
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 15:05:00 -
[363] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Which is why I advocate changing the Titan jump bridge mechanism such that the Titan jumps to the cyno and takes any ships within, say, 5000m with it. Remote DD was ridiculously OP because it allowed the Titan to have a massive effect on the battlefield without committing anything except a disposable cyno ship, and remote bridging is OP in exactly the same way.
Only if it works with all ships, friend or foe.
*warps supercap into middle of enemy fleet* *opens bridge* *sucks enemy fleet to bubbled cynogen on friendly deathstar*
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 18:21:00 -
[364] - Quote
Arkanon Nerevar wrote: 3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null.
These are ****** corps, but it should be their choice to be ****** corps and your choice to join said ****** corps if you want to. |
Krios Ahzek
Juvenis Iratus
265
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 21:12:00 -
[365] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Arkanon Nerevar wrote: 3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null.
These are ****** corps, but it should be their choice to be ****** corps and your choice to join said ****** corps if you want to.
I replaced every ****** in your post with ''smurf'' and it still didn't even make smurfing sense. But there's one they fear. They are told he is forahkiin, FORUMBORN~ |
Arkanon Nerevar
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.08 22:06:00 -
[366] - Quote
Yeep wrote:[quote=Arkanon Nerevar] These are ****** corps, but it should be their choice to be ****** corps and your choice to join said ****** corps if you want to.
Very eloquantly put, i must say Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter-Gallente capsuleer motto |
Uma Uma
Aliastra Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.11 11:12:00 -
[367] - Quote
Post-Crucible, what sucking chest wounds are you still trying to bandage? You'll say Sov, what else? Did the super nerf go far enough for you? |
Derkata
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 05:49:00 -
[368] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Tbh I'm not convinced that's really the way to go. If any ship should do the whole jump to cyno to deliver fleet maneuvers, it would be the mothership, and for that to happen pilots would have to dock with it prior to jumping.
Actually, I just had an idea. Why not make it so you need two titans to initiate bridging? Source and destination titan. It can be argued that everything else which is bridging other ships than themselves needs a source and destination structure, why not titans. Bridging equipment is huge and requires a lot of fuel and power etc and all that jazz. That way you make it more dangerous to hotdrop something, and you avoid the problem where CCP would invariably just suck up everything in a radius of 5000m, including POS structures or the POS itself, and move it to the cyno system, along with AFK people. Otherwise you'd have a hell of a time taking a titan into POSes or station undocks and bridge AFK people into hostile space and leave them there just because you can.
Tbh I think the whole movement possibilities of fleets is less a problem the whole SOV system is, and I'd much rather CCP put effort into making that better, more dynamic and actually strategic with the possibility of feints and surprise attacks etc.
Fleet movement is an issue because of the SOV. Fix the SOV system and that movement wont be an issue. If they cant fix the system though, limiting movement would be a nice bandage for the gunshot that is the SOV system. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
279
|
Posted - 2011.12.12 10:24:00 -
[369] - Quote
Derkata wrote:Fleet movement is an issue because of the SOV. Fix the SOV system and that movement wont be an issue. Huh? Elucidate.
Derkata wrote:If they cant fix the system though, limiting movement would be a nice bandage for the gunshot that is the SOV system. Again, huh? |
Derkata
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 04:43:00 -
[370] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Derkata wrote:Fleet movement is an issue because of the SOV. Fix the SOV system and that movement wont be an issue. Huh? Elucidate. Derkata wrote:If they cant fix the system though, limiting movement would be a nice bandage for the gunshot that is the SOV system. Again, huh?
Basically the only reason projection of power is an issue right now is because of the sov mechanics. The sov mechanics are the issue, but by making titan bridges shorter distance or some other caveat you can bandaid the issue until an appropriate solution and overhaul can be implemented.
It sounds right in my head. |
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 09:17:00 -
[371] - Quote
How would shorter titan bridges bandaid in any way, shape or form over the shittastic SOV mechanics? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2571
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:37:00 -
[372] - Quote
Wolodymyr wrote:The Mittani wrote:Gunmining in the drone regions is entirely the reason why mining has been devalued as a profession/ What about botting? (Either drone ratting bots, or regular mining bots) Fixing the drone rats would definitely help, but do you think that being more aggressive with bots would help miners more?
I think that there needs to be more emphasis from CCP on policing botting, yes. This is not a unique or controversial position. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2571
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:42:00 -
[373] - Quote
Blake Zacary wrote:My question is mainly about blobs.... The game seems to be heading in a direction again where we have no counter at all to massive blobs.With Time Dilation and the way sov works it will end up like it did a little while back,where null eventually settles down and becomes very static and boring with space being held for years by Alliances with no real way to challenge their sov.
Personally I would love the end game to be epic.Where skills, imagination and tactics play a more important role than having loads of characters with average skills who only need to press F1 when told to do so.Imagine if you can wars,instead of being based on single focal points at a time are run over massive battle lines.Where you have both large battles and small battles raging along the 'battle front'.Using different tactics like guerrilla warfare, interception of enemy supply lines,disrupting the industrial side of the enemy(moons,pi) etc,etc.The potential list is endless and would open up some epic gameplay.
Now as I said the game is getting pushed towards massive blobs again and the old 'bring more' or 'you need more friends' isn't a valid argument to let the game go this way.Is the CSM really pushing for null to be this way or are positive steps being looked at to improve gameplay in null so it encourages more people to partake in it and lets all Alliances and Coalitions have a chance to play a role without having to piggy back onto a large blob just to play.
This would be the CSM's 'Farms and Fields' initiative, to provide new small targets in 0.0 for non-bloc entities to target and interfere with; POCOs, for example, or moving moon harvesting arrays outside of POS shields so they can be disabled by small gangs, etc.
Your post is somewhat confused because it conflates two separate complaints - 'blobs' in fights, and 'something for smaller entities to do outside of station timer battles'. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2571
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:45:00 -
[374] - Quote
Dunbar Hulan wrote: Can you outline why you would be worth voting for in the next election ? Outline what you feel you have achieved for the EVE community in your role as a CSM. And as a follow up, can you outline what your thoughts are on the future role of Null sec and in particular, NPC null (Where I live.)
This isn't election season. I'm not running a campaign in this thread, I'm answering constituent issues. Make up your own mind.
There's already a ton of posts itt about nullsec and it's role. Specifically re: NPC nullsec, I'd like to see disableable station services on NPC null stations that regenerate fairly rapidly (within a day or two) if not repped by a player. Right now there's a major strategic imbalance between NPC nullsec, particularly in 'pocket NPC space' compared to conquerable null. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2571
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:48:00 -
[375] - Quote
Arkanon Nerevar wrote:Dear Mittens, a few questions regarding Null life in general, as always i leave it to you to answer as you see fit.
1.On a number of occasions when talking with friends/aqquaintences about playing eve, i pitch the sandbox pvp as the main point (null-sec) to subscribing, this leads to the claims that eve endgame is controlled by giant douchebag conglomarats, that are united by the fact that they are all by nature, complete and utter ass-holes, im never quite sure what to say to that, so i ask the (in)famous Mittani for guidance.
That's a selling point. We ran our most successful newbie drive ever based on the fact that in EVE, and only in EVE, can you be complete and utter assholes to other players.
Quote:2.Null corps have in general a VERY bad rap when it comes to a non multi-year vet applying, storys are abound of endless scams and dashed hopes, do you belive this rap is justified, that it is truly hard to "break into" Null and what impact it has on the state of Null life today.
Maybe among terrified hisec mission runners or conspiracy theorists. Most blocs take anyone with more than 5m sp as long as they can fly the right ships in fleet. Most null blocs don't scam.
Quote:3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null.
Doesn't matter to me: I can't control or decide what random corps do or do not do in null. Most organizations don't micromanage like that as it's dumb. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2571
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 16:50:00 -
[376] - Quote
Uma Uma wrote:Post-Crucible, what sucking chest wounds are you still trying to bandage? You'll say Sov, what else? Did the super nerf go far enough for you?
Titan tracking is still ludicrously OP, as I've said for a while. They can smack subcaps out of the sky with alaming impunity, as anyone who's fought a Titan blob recently will know.
Supercarriers seem better, though I'd like to see an outpost upgrade added that would allow them to dock like a regular ship, but only in outposts with the additional hangar, not NPC space.
Most of the sucking chest wounds are being addressed in Crucible. We're mostly at the 'fix neglected features' zone now - farms and fields, risk/reward balance, faction warfare tweaks, etc. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Salpun
Paramount Commerce
105
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 17:53:00 -
[377] - Quote
Thanks for the updates and this thread should have been started months ago |
Gilbaron
The Scope Gallente Federation
39
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 20:48:00 -
[378] - Quote
so, did you like what you saw at the csm december summit ? |
Dunbar Hulan
The Flaming Sideburn's Art of War Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 21:16:00 -
[379] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Dunbar Hulan wrote: Can you outline why you would be worth voting for in the next election ? Outline what you feel you have achieved for the EVE community in your role as a CSM. And as a follow up, can you outline what your thoughts are on the future role of Null sec and in particular, NPC null (Where I live.)
This isn't election season. I'm not running a campaign in this thread, I'm answering constituent issues. Make up your own mind. There's already a ton of posts itt about nullsec and it's role. Specifically re: NPC nullsec, I'd like to see disableable station services on NPC null stations that regenerate fairly rapidly (within a day or two) if not repped by a player. Right now there's a major strategic imbalance between NPC nullsec, particularly in 'pocket NPC space' compared to conquerable null.
Thanks for the response, you have helped to make my mind up. -áThe Sideburns- Always Outnumbered- Never Outgunned. |
Sara XIII
The Helljumpers
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 22:03:00 -
[380] - Quote
What's a good first step a new player can take to break up/destroy a big corporation or alliance?
Keep up the good work! |
|
Camios
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.13 22:15:00 -
[381] - Quote
A question for the chairman about sov warfare.
For some people the holy grail of game design for sov warfare would be a system that encourages both military entities to split their forces over many objectives. This would mean that each one of current huge fights would be replaced by a number of concurrent, smaller fights that can be handled more fluidly by our hardware, are more interesting (because )and are more fun.
In my opinion this goal should not be unreachable since, actually, wars in history have always been about striking in different places at the same time, usually along a wide frontline; in real life it does not sound so awkward to strike at the same time and fight over many objectives. A good game designer should be able to understand if, why, and how much EVE fails at replicating the conditions for these "distributed" fights to happen.
In conclusion, is CCP is researching along these lines for the future of sov warfare, and is CSM interested in this perspective?
P.S.: as a captatio benevolentiae (but also because it's due), I would like to say: good job CSM! |
J Kunjeh
81
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 05:35:00 -
[382] - Quote
Oh Mittens, you're such a pretentious douchebag. But I must say, this is a mighty fine thread you've created here. Now if only the rest of the CSM weren't so damn lazy and would do at least half of the outreach their Chairman does...
I also must say, as much of a douche as you are, you've been a rather effective Chairman and I'm happy to hear you'll be running again for CSM7. "The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5)-á |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.16 23:45:00 -
[383] - Quote
J Kunjeh wrote:Oh Mittens, you're such a pretentious douchebag. But I must say, this is a mighty fine thread you've created here. Now if only the rest of the CSM weren't so damn lazy and would do at least half of the outreach their Chairman does...
I also must say, as much of a douche as you are, you've been a rather effective Chairman and I'm happy to hear you'll be running again for CSM7.
LOL Exactly my thoughts. I dont like the guy, but he is delivering as chairman of CSM.
Though i will still vote for Trebor or Twostep for CSM 7 |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.17 23:46:00 -
[384] - Quote
Camios wrote: For some people the holy grail of game design for sov warfare would be a system that encourages both military entities to split their forces over many objectives. This would mean that each one of current huge fights would be replaced by a number of concurrent, smaller fights that can be handled more fluidly by our hardware, are more interesting (because )and are more fun.
Have you considered that perhaps the best system is one that allows both a distributed attack OR a single massive pitched battle based on the circumstances rather than just forcing people from one extreme to the other. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
309
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 00:15:00 -
[385] - Quote
He said encourages, not forces. |
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 00:18:00 -
[386] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:He said encourages, not forces.
Sometimes I stop reading posts at the first sentence too |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 00:43:00 -
[387] - Quote
Dear The Mittani,
Have You watched 2011 film "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"???
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340800/)
I have to say, after reading some of Yours "Sins" at tentonshammer I envision You as "Karla" (spy master of CCCP) who managed to infiltrate MI6's Circus (lets call it board of directors) and place a Mole in their ranks (main plot of movie is the search for the mole).
Karla never actually appear in the movie. Its a background character. Someone people talk about in whispers, even by his British counterparts. All the time people try to find who work for Karla, What Karla knows, what we know of Karla. etc...
If You haven't watched it Yet I urge You to do it, if You like good spy movies :) |
Kitfox Mikakka
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 07:58:00 -
[388] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:That's a selling point. We ran our most successful newbie drive ever based on the fact that in EVE, and only in EVE, can you be complete and utter assholes to other players.
I'm one of those newbies and I can confirm the rather hands-off approach CCP takes to things like scamming, ganking, lying, and general skullduggery is a big draw of the game compared to most other big name MMOs. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 15:33:00 -
[389] - Quote
Kitfox Mikakka wrote:The Mittani wrote:That's a selling point. We ran our most successful newbie drive ever based on the fact that in EVE, and only in EVE, can you be complete and utter assholes to other players. I'm one of those newbies and I can confirm the rather hands-off approach CCP takes to things like scamming, ganking, lying, and general skullduggery is a big draw of the game compared to most other big name MMOs.
Yes! More Goons pleaes! By all means, that's exactly the type of player that will ASSURE a great future for ALL of EVE ....
EVE Goonfleet Edition is just another small recruitment drive away :)
Naw, seriously, I may completely disagree with Bully / Be Bullied style of play, but indeed, it's a playstyle that is highly encouraged by not only the sandbox principle, but much more deeply than that, it actually feels like CCP PREFERS that style of play to all others ... queue the "Yes, you're playing in the wrong sandbox" posts now ... |
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
2
|
Posted - 2011.12.18 18:49:00 -
[390] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap.
This is why I now copy every post that I write before posting ;)
|
|
Camios
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
26
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 10:22:00 -
[391] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Lord Zim wrote:He said encourages, not forces. Sometimes I stop reading posts at the first sentence too
Well, mine was just a tought. As long as the game is playable and enjoyable I am for freedom and options, but it seems to me that anyway there's little place for this "distributed-fights-instead-of-single-massive-battle" thing in today's EVE. Moreover I think that a distributed fight situation would be more enjoyable, with more strategy and tactics involved, and (incontroverbily) less likely to trigger performance issues, so it should be preferred over a massive battle. I asked if sort of a flexible system that allows the EVE military doctrine to evolve in this direction is being studied by CCP or lobbied by the CSM.
|
Temba Ronin
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 15:58:00 -
[392] - Quote
Dear CSM Chairman since it is an indisputable fact that highsec ganking of players negatively impacts player retention, which in turns threatens the survival of EVE as a game we all can continue to play, I was curious as to if you would support a change in the killmail mechanics that would discourage highsec ganking of players whenever Concord action is triggered.
It would consist of this, the loss of the gank ship and it's value would count against the ganker but he would get no killmail for committing a crime and no addition to his kill versus loss isk ratio.
This way those who wish to pirate can have a more realistic experience, they are not credited for criminal activities as a reward but get to keep the loot their fellow pirates can grab from their victims wrecks and pirating as a profession remains profitable.
The hoodlums still can get all the carebear tears they claim to love so dearly but are restricted from pumping up their kill numbers with one sided combat encounters. This way killmails from this point forward will reflect those who really have the warrior spirit and not glorify the street corner gank thug.
That way if someone wants to earn killmails they can always engage in real pvp in lowsec, wormholes, nullsec, or declare war. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
146
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 16:29:00 -
[393] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Dear CSM Chairman since it is an indisputable fact that highsec ganking of players negatively impacts player retention, which in turns threatens the survival of EVE as a game we all can continue to play, I was curious as to if you would support a change in the killmail mechanics that would discourage highsec ganking of players whenever Concord action is triggered.
It would consist of this, the loss of the gank ship and it's value would count against the ganker but he would get no killmail for committing a crime and no addition to his kill versus loss isk ratio.
This way those who wish to pirate can have a more realistic experience, they are not credited for criminal activities as a reward but get to keep the loot their fellow pirates can grab from their victims wrecks and pirating as a profession remains profitable.
The hoodlums still can get all the carebear tears they claim to love so dearly but are restricted from pumping up their kill numbers with one sided combat encounters. This way killmails from this point forward will reflect those who really have the warrior spirit and not glorify the street corner gank thug.
That way if someone wants to earn killmails they can always engage in real pvp in lowsec, wormholes, nullsec, or declare war. lol |
Temba Ronin
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 16:43:00 -
[394] - Quote
Dear CSM Chairman since many profess to want more combat activities an opportunities in nullsec I am wondering if you would support a change in the Faction War mechanics that would enable Empire factions to declare war on player owned sov systems in nullsec that would become mission targets for players as individuals or as an incursion type fleet.
To more accurately reflect human nature it is unlikely that the Empires would ignore the increasing power of nullsec mega alliances without pushing back and grabbing more systems for themselves. Incursions into player owned sov space could be organized and rewarded like they are to repel the Sansha. Additionally the faction whose NPC corp members are the most numerous in the conquest of a player owned sov system would get to claim sov of the system and any player owned corp that participated in the conquest would be granted an office in an NPC station in the newly conquered null region.
This has many benefits, it gets npc corp members involved in faction warfare without limiting their ability to safely traverse Empire space, it gives player owned sov alliances something to do beyond attacking their smaller neighbors, it would create potentially huge battles on a more frequent basis, it gets a lot more people into having a stake in nullsec, and it would force the game to grow.
To get the fleet or mission runner to the player owned sov system a series of jump bridges accessible only to mission runners or incursion fleets could be established in dead space zones throughout lowsec and nullsec. If you really support more activity in nullsec and more people having an interest in nullsec i ask you to both support and help improve this idea.
Nullsec and EVE in general is on the precipice of stagnation an I believe making the game playing experience both more dangerous and rewarding will infuse a much needed dose of action based playability.
|
Temba Ronin
30
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 17:02:00 -
[395] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Dear CSM Chairman since it is an indisputable fact that highsec ganking of players negatively impacts player retention, which in turns threatens the survival of EVE as a game we all can continue to play, I was curious as to if you would support a change in the killmail mechanics that would discourage highsec ganking of players whenever Concord action is triggered.
It would consist of this, the loss of the gank ship and it's value would count against the ganker but he would get no killmail for committing a crime and no addition to his kill versus loss isk ratio.
This way those who wish to pirate can have a more realistic experience, they are not credited for criminal activities as a reward but get to keep the loot their fellow pirates can grab from their victims wrecks and pirating as a profession remains profitable.
The hoodlums still can get all the carebear tears they claim to love so dearly but are restricted from pumping up their kill numbers with one sided combat encounters. This way killmails from this point forward will reflect those who really have the warrior spirit and not glorify the street corner gank thug.
That way if someone wants to earn killmails they can always engage in real pvp in lowsec, wormholes, nullsec, or declare war. lol You haven't had a solo kill against anybody who could fight back in how long Scat? Ooohhh your pvp skills are soooo scary, lol. Thanks for proving my point. |
Jonathan Malcom
Test Alliance Please Ignore
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 22:10:00 -
[396] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:You haven't had a solo kill against anybody who could fight back in how long Scat? Ooohhh your pvp skills are soooo scary, lol. Thanks for proving my point.
Honouerable solo kills are indeed the mark of greatness in Eve.
|
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
13
|
Posted - 2011.12.19 23:05:00 -
[397] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Summary: Remove killmails from suicide ganking Allow NPC corps to take over player sov systems
Ah, no and no.
Killmails are simply a record of a kill, k/d ratio isn't everything. Besides, it's really not such a one-sided fight, at least not in favour of the ganker - the gankee gets unbeatable, irresistible NPCs spawning to fight with them.
NPC corps have no place in player sov systems, that's what NPC sov space is for and NPC corp players are welcome to move there already. |
Forum Fighter
Internet Tough Guys
23
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 01:33:00 -
[398] - Quote
Dear Goons,
Where will you head to after WN and Raiden spank you?
Freeport IRC space! Bearer of the 1600mm Tinfoil Hat -¬ |
May Zonday
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 04:53:00 -
[399] - Quote
Forum Fighter wrote:Dear Goons,
Where will you head to after WN and Raiden spank you?
Freeport IRC space!
Hold on, I'll answer that once we're done bathing in the blood of aborted Titans.
wait hahaha white noise can't afford that their russian masters sell off all their tech moon isk for caviar baths. |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
224
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 05:08:00 -
[400] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Dear CSM Chairman since many profess to want more combat activities an opportunities in nullsec I am wondering if you would support a change in the Faction War mechanics that would enable Empire factions to declare war on player owned sov systems in nullsec that would become mission targets for players as individuals or as an incursion type fleet.
One, you don't need to declare a war on anyone to shoot them in nullsec.
Two, what's stopping you from getting a few friends together and going on an "incursion" into any alliance owned space right now?
Do you people seriously need an NPC to tell you everything to do step by step? |
|
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1066
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 10:27:00 -
[401] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Dear CSM Chairman since it is an indisputable fact that highsec ganking of players negatively impacts player retention, Why do you have to go and crap all over the Chairman's nice thread like this? The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 11:47:00 -
[402] - Quote
I'm sure that if NPC corps or factions can wardec player entities, the reverse would also be true. I'm sure the little carebear forgot to think about that.
Personally I'd love the watch the nullsec vs highsec show :)
First to take jita gets a cookie ;P
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 12:44:00 -
[403] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:I'm sure that if NPC corps or factions can wardec player entities, the reverse would also be true. I'm sure the little carebear forgot to think about that.
Personally I'd love the watch the nullsec vs highsec show :)
First to take jita gets a cookie ;P
Are you really so delusional as to think you could defeat Concord and all the fleets of Empire space?
This is how the nullsec vs highsec show goes brainiac, all the gates from nullsec get interdicted by huge Empire Navy and Concord fleets, you get blasted every time you jump a gate into highsec by a military gate camp, those few who survive the initial gauntlet get blasted every time they approach a station by station guns and you aren't allowed to dock, all the while you get hunted relentlessly by Concord and the Empire Navies, the Militia, and all the carebears of highsec who significantly out number you an are now getting paid incursion like bounties from Concord to give you a free pod ride out of highsec.
You no longer get bounties for ratting back home in nullsec because those are paid by Concord/ The Empires and you are now at war with them.
You have to survive off of what you can build in nullsec and that is going to be damn hard since you shoot the miners and only your alts have industrial skills.
When you start to run out of supplies or your neighbor does and invades your system to steal your's you'll be easy pickings for the highsec Militias and your now desperate neighbors while you are mining to get materials to make ammo or power your pos. Remember cyno's don't work in highsec but they'll keep delivering the pain to you in nullsec with Empire Naval and Militia forces as well as your blood thirsty opportunistic neighbors.
Don't think you really want to see this show, nullsec vs highsec doesn't end well for nullsec. No cookie just a trip to your medical clone. |
Tasiv Deka
NOVA INDUSTRIES CO.
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 13:03:00 -
[404] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Ya Huei wrote:I'm sure that if NPC corps or factions can wardec player entities, the reverse would also be true. I'm sure the little carebear forgot to think about that.
Personally I'd love the watch the nullsec vs highsec show :)
First to take jita gets a cookie ;P
Are you really so delusional as to think you could defeat Concord and all the fleets of Empire space? This is how the nullsec vs highsec show goes brainiac, all the gates from nullsec get interdicted by huge Empire Navy and Concord fleets, you get blasted every time you jump a gate into highsec by a military gate camp, those few who survive the initial gauntlet get blasted every time they approach a station by station guns and you aren't allowed to dock, all the while you get hunted relentlessly by Concord and the Empire Navies, the Militia, and all the carebears of highsec who significantly out number you an are now getting paid incursion like bounties from Concord to give you a free pod ride out of highsec. You no longer get bounties for ratting back home in nullsec because those are paid by Concord/ The Empires and you are now at war with them. You have to survive off of what you can build in nullsec and that is going to be damn hard since you shoot the miners and only your alts have industrial skills. When you start to run out of supplies or your neighbor does and invades your system to steal your's you'll be easy pickings for the highsec Militias and your now desperate neighbors while you are mining to get materials to make ammo or power your pos. Remember cyno's don't work in highsec but they'll keep delivering the pain to you in nullsec with Empire Naval and Militia forces as well as your blood thirsty opportunistic neighbors. Don't think you really want to see this show, nullsec vs highsec doesn't end well for nullsec. No cookie just a trip to your medical clone.
i had a clever response typed out then decided he wasnt worth it... please shut up nullsec is far more organized then 95% of us highsec dwellers... CCP add another race of ships into the game... Not even the people just the ships... now i know there would be all sorts of copyright issues to iron out... but i want to fly an Irken Titan known as the "Massive"... Invader Zim is an amazing show. |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 13:23:00 -
[405] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Ya Huei wrote:I'm sure that if NPC corps or factions can wardec player entities, the reverse would also be true. I'm sure the little carebear forgot to think about that.
Personally I'd love the watch the nullsec vs highsec show :)
First to take jita gets a cookie ;P
Are you really so delusional as to think you could defeat Concord and all the fleets of Empire space? This is how the nullsec vs highsec show goes brainiac, all the gates from nullsec get interdicted by huge Empire Navy and Concord fleets, you get blasted every time you jump a gate into highsec by a military gate camp, those few who survive the initial gauntlet get blasted every time they approach a station by station guns and you aren't allowed to dock, all the while you get hunted relentlessly by Concord and the Empire Navies, the Militia, and all the carebears of highsec who significantly out number you an are now getting paid incursion like bounties from Concord to give you a free pod ride out of highsec. You no longer get bounties for ratting back home in nullsec because those are paid by Concord/ The Empires and you are now at war with them. You have to survive off of what you can build in nullsec and that is going to be damn hard since you shoot the miners and only your alts have industrial skills. When you start to run out of supplies or your neighbor does and invades your system to steal your's you'll be easy pickings for the highsec Militias and your now desperate neighbors while you are mining to get materials to make ammo or power your pos. Remember cyno's don't work in highsec but they'll keep delivering the pain to you in nullsec with Empire Naval and Militia forces as well as your blood thirsty opportunistic neighbors. Don't think you really want to see this show, nullsec vs highsec doesn't end well for nullsec. No cookie just a trip to your medical clone.
Concord won't do jack since we properly wardecced, they will pay rat bounties like always. I have no idea what u mean by "Fleets of Empire space" but if u mean the people that actually live in highsec.. allow me to chuckle...
Also, I'm afraid you will be surprised how vast null will close ranks if they get even half the chance to blob your arrogant highsec asses.
Now go back to your incursions before u make more of a fool of yourself.
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 13:27:00 -
[406] - Quote
i had a clever response typed out then decided he wasnt worth it... please shut up nullsec is far more organized then 95% of us highsec dwellers...[/quote]
You know this because you spend so much time in nullsec right? Of course you've talked with thousands of highsec players & nullsec players and made a critical analysis right?
Or is you you admire the afraid to undock alone swarm of juveniles .... nothing wrong with that .... unless of course you have a functional brain. EVE needs a balance between things that favor a spoiled minority versus the things that work for the greater good of all the players. Asking people politely to shut up will not help us find the balance the game needs to attract and retain players.
I enjoy this game and what to see it survive beyond the current goon csm6 version that delights in having new players leave the game discouraged. |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 13:50:00 -
[407] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Ya Huei wrote:I'm sure that if NPC corps or factions can wardec player entities, the reverse would also be true. I'm sure the little carebear forgot to think about that.
Personally I'd love the watch the nullsec vs highsec show :)
First to take jita gets a cookie ;P
Are you really so delusional as to think you could defeat Concord and all the fleets of Empire space? This is how the nullsec vs highsec show goes brainiac, all the gates from nullsec get interdicted by huge Empire Navy and Concord fleets, you get blasted every time you jump a gate into highsec by a military gate camp, those few who survive the initial gauntlet get blasted every time they approach a station by station guns and you aren't allowed to dock, all the while you get hunted relentlessly by Concord and the Empire Navies, the Militia, and all the carebears of highsec who significantly out number you an are now getting paid incursion like bounties from Concord to give you a free pod ride out of highsec. You no longer get bounties for ratting back home in nullsec because those are paid by Concord/ The Empires and you are now at war with them. You have to survive off of what you can build in nullsec and that is going to be damn hard since you shoot the miners and only your alts have industrial skills. When you start to run out of supplies or your neighbor does and invades your system to steal your's you'll be easy pickings for the highsec Militias and your now desperate neighbors while you are mining to get materials to make ammo or power your pos. Remember cyno's don't work in highsec but they'll keep delivering the pain to you in nullsec with Empire Naval and Militia forces as well as your blood thirsty opportunistic neighbors. Don't think you really want to see this show, nullsec vs highsec doesn't end well for nullsec. No cookie just a trip to your medical clone. Concord won't do jack since we properly wardecced, they will pay rat bounties like always. I have no idea what u mean by "Fleets of Empire space" but if u mean the people that actually live in highsec.. allow me to chuckle... Also, I'm afraid you will be surprised how vast null will close ranks if they get even half the chance to blob your arrogant highsec asses. Now go back to your incursions before u make more of a fool of yourself. You properly wardecced the Empires and Concord won't do jack ???? hahahahaha! You represent the clown sitting at home cleaning his rifle because he thinks its protection from a tyrannical government, a government that has an Army that has tanks and jet aircraft that would blow his silly ass away if they were indeed tyrannical. The CCP fleet of employees with only their max skills could walk thru any and every nullsec system and wipe your gang of hooligans from nullsec with little trouble. Watch the videos bro. Concord has instant targeting and massive firepower. Chuckle if that is what makes you feel good but in this match up your blobs get wiped from the field just like before CCP caved in to the nullsec tears and nerfed the supercaps to appease the tearful goon csm6 because their low brow strategy of swarm attacks couldn't succeed anymore. Now with the advantage swung back to mindless blob warfare they are once again finding targets other then highsec miners to shoot, fearless warriors that they are.
Just think things thru before you post them and you will not continue to look like the south end of a north bound mule. |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 13:51:00 -
[408] - Quote
Hey, here's an idea. Tell the guys in your NPC corp that you want them to go take over some system in nullsec.
Come back to us if you get any response other than "but I could lose my multibillion faction-fit navy raven! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:02:00 -
[409] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hey, here's an idea. Tell the guys in your NPC corp that you want them to go take over some system in nullsec.
Come back to us if you get any response other than "but I could lose my multibillion faction-fit navy raven! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" Hey here's a better idea ask the brave goons to only fight when they outnumber their opponent 10 to 1 instead of your normal heroic 20 to 50 to one and come back if you get any response other than "but i might lose a chance to get a kill board mention as a .001 percent damage dealer! nooooooooooooo!"
Bat Country is a glass house don't start to throw stones Zim. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
221
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:11:00 -
[410] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Hey, here's an idea. Tell the guys in your NPC corp that you want them to go take over some system in nullsec.
Come back to us if you get any response other than "but I could lose my multibillion faction-fit navy raven! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaa"
"But I could lose my Paladin!"
|
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
98
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:16:00 -
[411] - Quote
Kata Amentis wrote:The Mittani wrote: I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit.
Very true, the social side is by far the best thing about incursions. The isk is nice, but the social side takes away the boring grind of making isk.
Listening to one person call different sansha primaries is not really socializing. But I guess to some it is - or they don't want to admit its really just about the isk. Like you say the isk is nice.
I think CCP assumes people who play EVE are socially defunct. They are constantly assuming we need to "socialize" more and therefore mechanics that force even the most basic utterances are seen as superior to those that don't.
Why does ccp assume its subscribers are looking to a computer game to be their social network?
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:16:00 -
[412] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Hey here's a better idea ask the brave goons to only fight when they outnumber their opponent 10 to 1 instead of your normal heroic 20 to 50 to one and come back if you get any response other than "but i might lose a chance to get a kill board mention as a .001 percent damage dealer! nooooooooooooo!"
Bat Country is a glass house don't start to throw stones Zim. Hey, you're the one that's talking about NPC corps going into nullsec and taking over systems as a part of some sort of factional warfare. I'm just telling you to ask the people in NPC corps if they'd like to do this. I'd love to see hisec actually try to **** with nullsec, but I'm pretty certain that those in hisec aren't going to do what you want, no matter whether there's some mission or not, because they could lose their ships. |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:29:00 -
[413] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Hey here's a better idea ask the brave goons to only fight when they outnumber their opponent 10 to 1 instead of your normal heroic 20 to 50 to one and come back if you get any response other than "but i might lose a chance to get a kill board mention as a .001 percent damage dealer! nooooooooooooo!"
Bat Country is a glass house don't start to throw stones Zim. Hey, you're the one that's talking about NPC corps going into nullsec and taking over systems as a part of some sort of factional warfare. I'm just telling you to ask the people in NPC corps if they'd like to do this. I'd love to see hisec actually try to **** with nullsec, but I'm pretty certain that those in hisec aren't going to do what you want, no matter whether there's some mission or not, because they could lose their ships. That would be because you seem to not fundamentally understand the difference between choosing to risk your ship (as pve players do all day everyday) and having a swarm of juvenile acting brats flying throw away ships destroy your instrument for making isk for kicks. Pve players lose ships all the time and just replace them. We figure how to better fit or fight the ship so it does not happen the same way again. The myth that pve players are adverse to losing ships is nonsense! What is distasteful is losing a ship to a punk thug who enjoys having the game mechanics set up to support his limited thinking style of gameplay.
Lets raise the bar and improve the game. Why are the loudest proponents of PVP so afraid of fair fights? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:35:00 -
[414] - Quote
So, have you asked them yet? |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 14:45:00 -
[415] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So, have you asked them yet? Is that your way of ignoring the fact that your false on it's face assertions that PVE players are afraid to risk ships doesn't hold up to the simple fact that PVE players risk their ships twice as often as goons flying in their safe Alliance enclaves surrounded by blue toadies? PVE players are targeted by NPC threats and gank threats everyday. How much risk are you under surrounded by your swarm? |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:06:00 -
[416] - Quote
No. It's my way of asking you if you've asked how enthusiastic your NPC brethren were of invading any nullsec.
I've flown in wormhole systems, nullsec, lowsec and hisec for well over 3 years, I've never gotten ganked in hisec. I have, however, gotten ganked more than once in nullsec and lowsec.
Also heh, "NPC threats". Right. |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:08:00 -
[417] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Lord Zim wrote:So, have you asked them yet? Is that your way of ignoring the fact that your false on it's face assertions that PVE players are afraid to risk ships doesn't hold up to the simple fact that PVE players risk their ships twice as often as goons flying in their safe Alliance enclaves surrounded by blue toadies? PVE players are targeted by NPC threats and gank threats everyday. How much risk are you under surrounded by your swarm?
Well, I think you have a bit of a point here at least Temba ... PVE players do risk ships often (and lose them) .... ship loss isn't what's keeping carebears from PVP'ing.
When I talk to other hisec players about trying out some PVP though, their reaction is usually "Why, what's the point?" ... i.e. - you don't make much isk (without becoming a professional pirate and maybe not even then), and about the only thing you DO get from it, is lowered security status ..... and there's almost no way to get a "fair fight" (even if you can agree what that is) .... so it's likely not going to feel REWARDING to your ego either .... you'll likely lose due to neutral reppers, it'll devolve into docking games, or you'll so outgun the other guy that it'll be like taking candy from a baby. There's always suicide ganking .... but again ... there's really nothing anyone can do to stop a suicide gank (yeah, they can try tanking their hulk and "staying aligned" while mining (laughable), or keep buddies on hand to "defend" (but there's no real way even a fleet can defend against a suicide)) but where's the feeling of accomplishment?
In order to care about PVP, I pretty much have to step back to kindergarten and play a bully ... it's Bully or Be Bullied ... and NONE of these PVP scenarios will FEEL like an accomplishment ... so WHY should anyone care to PVP?
There's much more of a feeling of accomplishment to figuring out research and manufacturing chains, building cool stuff without losing isk, market PVP, building a killer set of standings & skills that let you anchor POS's & make isk on the market when no one else can ..... etc.
There needs to be more to it, before hisec carebears will care about PVP .... |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:09:00 -
[418] - Quote
A highsec wardec in eve between two player parties means that they can blow the **** out of eachother without Concord interfering.
It would only be logical that this would remain true when an empire faction wardecs a player faction, since Concord is an independant entity.
So ye.. concord wouldn't do anything.
I can't comment on the fictional NPC navies that might, or might not appear to come save your sorry arse from certain death.
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:11:00 -
[419] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:No. It's my way of asking you if you've asked how enthusiastic your NPC brethren were of invading any nullsec.
I've flown in wormhole systems, nullsec, lowsec and hisec for well over 3 years, I've never gotten ganked in hisec. I have, however, gotten ganked more than once in nullsec and lowsec.
Also heh, "NPC threats". Right. Never been ganked in highsec Zim? Let me know when you will visit again in a cargo hauler and i'll see if some of my PVE friends in highsec can give you the experience you've missed thus far. I spend my time skulking around null looking for the rarest target in all of EVE ..... a goon flying alone.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:19:00 -
[420] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Never been ganked in highsec Zim? Let me know when you will visit again in a cargo hauler and i'll see if some of my PVE friends in highsec can give you the experience you've missed thus far. I spend my time skulking around null looking for the rarest target in all of EVE ..... a goon flying alone. I fly cargo haulers around in hisec all the time, it's one of the few things my hisec alt does. Haul ****, manufacture ****, sell ****. No missions, I got bored of them.
But please, do tell us about these ~NPC threats~. |
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:37:00 -
[421] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:A highsec wardec in eve between two player parties means that they can blow the **** out of eachother without Concord interfering.
It would only be logical that this would remain true when an empire faction wardecs a player faction, since Concord is an independant entity.
So ye.. concord wouldn't do anything.
I can't comment on the fictional NPC navies that might, or might not appear to come save your sorry arse from certain death.
You are promising "Certain death" hahahahaha! at the hands of your friends perhaps you have been playing since 10/2009 and you still do not have a solo kill of anything that can shoot back Ya Huei! LOL the fierce wannabe warrior has me all nervous hahahaha!
I fly ships that shoot Ya Huei ... that might be trouble for you if you are alone ...... you do fly alone sometimes don't you? Not too scared to undock without your fellow packdogs are you?
Perhaps you could teach me a few things about PVP, i would sure appreciate the chance for a lesson from someone of YOUR skill level and accomplishments. I'm still very new at EVE so I'm looking for some pointers on quick kills in PVP, it would be great if you could help me out! |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:40:00 -
[422] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Ya Huei wrote:A highsec wardec in eve between two player parties means that they can blow the **** out of eachother without Concord interfering.
It would only be logical that this would remain true when an empire faction wardecs a player faction, since Concord is an independant entity.
So ye.. concord wouldn't do anything.
I can't comment on the fictional NPC navies that might, or might not appear to come save your sorry arse from certain death.
You are promising "Certain death" hahahahaha! at the hands of your friends perhaps you have been playing since 10/2009 and you still do not have a solo kill of anything that can shoot back Ya Huei! LOL the fierce wannabe warrior has me all nervous hahahaha! I fly ships that shoot Ya Huei ... that might be trouble for you if you are alone ...... you do fly alone sometimes don't you? Not too scared to undock without your fellow packdogs are you? Perhaps you could teach me a few things about PVP, i would sure appreciate the chance for a lesson from someone of YOUR skill level and accomplishments. I'm still very new at EVE so I'm looking for some pointers on quick kills in PVP, it would be great if you could help me out!
Ran out of arguments, now resorting to name calling
I win.
kkthxbai.
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 15:49:00 -
[423] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Ya Huei wrote:A highsec wardec in eve between two player parties means that they can blow the **** out of eachother without Concord interfering.
It would only be logical that this would remain true when an empire faction wardecs a player faction, since Concord is an independant entity.
So ye.. concord wouldn't do anything.
I can't comment on the fictional NPC navies that might, or might not appear to come save your sorry arse from certain death.
You are promising "Certain death" hahahahaha! at the hands of your friends perhaps you have been playing since 10/2009 and you still do not have a solo kill of anything that can shoot back Ya Huei! LOL the fierce wannabe warrior has me all nervous hahahaha! I fly ships that shoot Ya Huei ... that might be trouble for you if you are alone ...... you do fly alone sometimes don't you? Not too scared to undock without your fellow packdogs are you? Perhaps you could teach me a few things about PVP, i would sure appreciate the chance for a lesson from someone of YOUR skill level and accomplishments. I'm still very new at EVE so I'm looking for some pointers on quick kills in PVP, it would be great if you could help me out! Ran out of arguments, now resorting to name calling I win. kkthxbai. So sensitive my goodness! Lets apply his standard to his own posts ..... he started off by calling me a "little carebear" which means i had a victory ..... by his standards ..... as soon as he responded! Wonder if his double standard troubles him? Oh yeah 1 vs 1 is not his strong suit, duh how silly of me to forget. |
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:07:00 -
[424] - Quote
I have no desire to go on and on with you, if u have anything to add about your NPC empire vs nullsec wardec Idea, go and make them.
oh and :
"pro pvp tip" EVE isn't a 1 vs 1 game, you're doing it wrong.
|
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:11:00 -
[425] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:So sensitive my goodness! Lets apply his standard to his own posts ..... he started off by calling me a "little carebear" which means i had a victory ..... by his standards ..... as soon as he responded! Wonder if his double standard troubles him? Oh yeah 1 vs 1 is not his strong suit, duh how silly of me to forget. So hey, asked your NPC brethren about a sov invasion yet? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:18:00 -
[426] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:I have no desire to go on and on with you, if u have anything to add about your NPC empire vs nullsec wardec Idea, go and make them.
oh and :
"pro pvp tip" EVE isn't a 1 vs 1 game, you're doing it wrong.
Here we go with the old "It's a Sandbox" but "Anyone who doesn't play the way we do is doing it wrong" .... heheheh.
As for 1 v 1 not being "the right way to play" ... Is that why so many players consider Honorable Solo Kills the true test of PVP skill? |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:29:00 -
[427] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:I have no desire to go on and on with you, if u have anything to add about your NPC empire vs nullsec wardec Idea, go and make them.
oh and :
"pro pvp tip" EVE isn't a 1 vs 1 game, you're doing it wrong.
"pro man tip" if you can't fight 1 vs 1 you're doing it wrong and you will never be the last man standing!
Incursions into nullsec was proposed to invigorate the game. Although it might be cute to call me a little carebear i would rather be killed my a real live human vs a programmed rat any day of the week. I am surprised that the idea of injecting more pvp possibilities is poo pooed by the very people wailing about how highsec players need to come to nullsec to play the "real" EVE.
Einstein said it was the very definition of insanity to do the same thing over and over an expect a different outcome. Lets try some new ways to break the ice for players who rightly perceive that nullsec can be a fast way to lose a ship and get podded without a reasonable chance of making isk.
The least you can do is get them safely to the target zone in nullsec, i addressed that. Then you offer a long term enticement so they don't just fly to the next target like they do in Sansha Incursions, i addressed that. Finally you provide a way for survivors or victors to get safely back to highsec, i addressed that also.
Is it really such a horrible idea to have more people shooting at each other for higher stakes? I think trying to conquer a system held by vet players would be far more challenging then any other mission being offered to PVE players now. Sure i know i can get my friends and do it now blah blah blah, but what prevents us from trying something more attractive like bounties and claiming sov for a NPC Empire faction to get the mission runners who get shot at everyday from looking at nullsec as an opportunity instead of an obstacle? |
Jonathan Malcom
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
14
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:34:00 -
[428] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:...you seem to not fundamentally understand the difference between choosing to risk your ship (as pve players do all day everyday)...
I can't tell if you're being serious.
Temba Ronin wrote:Why are the loudest proponents of PVP so afraid of fair fights?
Because we understand that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've messed up somewhere.
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 16:55:00 -
[429] - Quote
Jonathan Malcom wrote:
Because we understand that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've messed up somewhere.
Hmmmm .... sad isn't it? ...
Maybe that's why so many of us feel like PVP is a waste of time ... |
Lord Zim
Bat Country Goonswarm Federation
316
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 17:21:00 -
[430] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Is it really such a horrible idea to have more people shooting at each other for higher stakes? I think trying to conquer a system held by vet players would be far more challenging then any other mission being offered to PVE players now. Sure i know i can get my friends and do it now blah blah blah, but what prevents us from trying something more attractive like bounties and claiming sov for a NPC Empire faction to get the mission runners who get shot at everyday from looking at nullsec as an opportunity instead of an obstacle? So, have you asked your NPC brethren about this idea? What did they say? |
|
Ya Huei
Imperial Collective
42
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:03:00 -
[431] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Ya Huei wrote:I have no desire to go on and on with you, if u have anything to add about your NPC empire vs nullsec wardec Idea, go and make them.
oh and :
"pro pvp tip" EVE isn't a 1 vs 1 game, you're doing it wrong.
Here we go with the old "It's a Sandbox" but "Anyone who doesn't play the way we do is doing it wrong" .... heheheh. As for 1 v 1 not being "the right way to play" ... Is that why so many players consider Honorable Solo Kills the true test of PVP skill?
This is a fair argument, but you are talking about a duel 1 vs 1 which just hardly ever happens in this game (at least I've never seen it occur spontaneously aside from people in corp duking it out.
PVP in EVE is so much more than just 2 guys shooting at eachother. The intel gathering, fleet composition, tactics, leadership, the metagame in general is what makes EVE interesting (at least to me)
one vs one duels are possible but are largely irrelevant when it comes to "real" pvp engagements in EVE today. |
Thredd Necro
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
83
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:09:00 -
[432] - Quote
Jonathan Malcom wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:Why are the loudest proponents of PVP so afraid of fair fights? Because we understand that if you find yourself in a fair fight, you've messed up somewhere.
Mhmm. There's a reason we have drones and artillery and snipers and things like that.
Ambush FTW!
Outside of some sort of regulated athletic contest the fight should be as UNFAIR as possible to the other guy. Human beings, who are almost unique in having the ability to learn from the experience of others, are also remarkable for their apparent disinclination to do so. - Douglas Adams |
Jonathan Malcom
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
15
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:34:00 -
[433] - Quote
Takara Mora wrote:Hmmmm .... sad isn't it? ...
Maybe that's why so many of us feel like PVP is a waste of time ...
Some consider winning worthwhile.
|
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 18:56:00 -
[434] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:I spend my time skulking around null looking for the rarest target in all of EVE ..... a goon flying alone.
I do regularly. I know plenty of Goons who do. Regularly. That's not the only thing you seem to be missing though.
TBH, reading through what you've been saying, I can't help but think you're the latest Emo TJ or Kalle Deimos (forum troll alts), particularly given the age of your character. That same factor could also be a sign that you really are just new, and if so perhaps it's more naivety than trolling.
So on the chance that it's naivety, I'll address some of your points:
Temba Ronin wrote:The myth that pve players are adverse to losing ships is nonsense! What is distasteful is losing a ship to a punk thug who enjoys having the game mechanics set up to support his limited thinking style of gameplay.
PvE, once mastered (eg, having read the missions guide on the eve-o wiki) is highly predictible and therefore easily beaten. The NPCs do the same things in the same scenarios. Even Incursions, while requiring player cooperation to beat, are still predictible. If you're regularly losing ships in PvE, you're doing it wrong.
Game mechanics don't support suicide ganking, they allow it. In fact, as I stated in my previous response to your idea (which I note you haven't addressed), the game mechanics spawn unbeatable irresistable NPCs to destroy a suicide ganker's ship, so all gankee has to do is survive long enough.
Temba Ronin wrote:Lets try some new ways to break the ice for players who rightly perceive that nullsec can be a fast way to lose a ship and get podded without a reasonable chance of making isk. Not everything is about making ISK. Sometimes it's about challenge, competition, fun, or simply beating the other guy. Making ISK is one appeal, there are so many others. If you're only measure of how good something is is "how much ISK will I make", you'll miss out on some of the best content that makes EVE a unique experience.
Temba Ronin wrote:I think trying to conquer a system held by vet players would be far more challenging then any other mission being offered to PVE players now. Sure i know i can get my friends and do it now blah blah blah, but what prevents us from trying something more attractive like bounties and claiming sov for a NPC Empire faction to get the mission runners who get shot at everyday from looking at nullsec as an opportunity instead of an obstacle?
Sov nullsec is an opportunity, and of course it has obstacles. It wouldn't be any damn fun if it didn't. I really don't see what your point is here.
Temba Ronin wrote:EVE needs a balance between things that favor a spoiled minority versus the things that work for the greater good of all the players.
All players currently have access to nullsec, whether that is through NPC nullsec, joining a corp in a nullsec alliance, having their corp join a nulslec alliance, or forming their own corp and going out to take space themselves. There is no "spoiled minority", just a risk/reward system which favours those who work together and are organised and persistent.
"The CCP fleet of employees with only their max skills could walk thru any and every nullsec system and wipe your gang of hooligans from nullsec with little trouble. ... Concord has instant targeting and massive firepower." (not putting this in block quotes because :CCP:)
The CCP fleet was designed to be destroyed. That's why they were carrying juicy loot to drop for players who destroyed them. Besides, if we took this point to its logical conclusion CCP could easily wipe out all players by means not generally available to players (eg GM tools). But what fun would that be.
CONCORD is a game mechanic designed to tip the advantage in favour of the "illegally" aggressed party by ensuring that the aggressing party is destroyed within a given timeframe. It is not a military force that takes or protects sov. It is a rediculous suggestion to have CONCORD factored in any legitimised player conflict (which your Incursions into nullsec would be). |
Tasiv Deka
NOVA INDUSTRIES CO.
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 21:02:00 -
[435] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: You know this because you spend so much time in nullsec right? Of course you've talked with thousands of highsec players & nullsec players and made a critical analysis right?
Or is you you admire the afraid to undock alone swarm of juveniles .... nothing wrong with that .... unless of course you have a functional brain. EVE needs a balance between things that favor a spoiled minority versus the things that work for the greater good of all the players. Asking people politely to shut up will not help us find the balance the game needs to attract and retain players.
I enjoy this game and want to see it survive beyond the current goon csm6 version that delights in having new players leave the game discouraged.
actually this last month i have been in nullsec quite a bit (Cloaks FTW) and the reason i say theyre more organized is ive been looking for a new corp and wouldnt you know more of the organized groups come from Null (or wormholes) then High, for example the people in Null actually have plans as to what they want to accomplish and at the same time the only type of organization I really saw within most High Sec corps were cookie cutter schedules of when they all go out and do the same thing. Now at the same time there were a few High Sec corps that were extremely well organized but once again like i said before about 95 % of them were unorganized jumbles of madness
Also while i am thinking about it you are right about one thing PVE is SO TOUGH AND DANGEROUS in mean you are totally right i have to go out and buy new ships all the time hell ive had to buy a Nav-Scorp and a Nav-Raven and i've lost oh wait neither of them.
now can you kindly STFU and by that i dont mean stop giving intelligent ideas i mean stop trying to troll, stop saying things that are just plain wrong or at the very least give proof as to why you think that... Have a GOOD DAY sir. CCP add another race of ships into the game... Not even the people just the ships... now i know there would be all sorts of copyright issues to iron out... but i want to fly an Irken Titan known as the "Massive"... Invader Zim is an amazing show. |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 22:19:00 -
[436] - Quote
Tasiv Deka wrote:Temba Ronin wrote: You know this because you spend so much time in nullsec right? Of course you've talked with thousands of highsec players & nullsec players and made a critical analysis right?
Or is you you admire the afraid to undock alone swarm of juveniles .... nothing wrong with that .... unless of course you have a functional brain. EVE needs a balance between things that favor a spoiled minority versus the things that work for the greater good of all the players. Asking people politely to shut up will not help us find the balance the game needs to attract and retain players.
I enjoy this game and want to see it survive beyond the current goon csm6 version that delights in having new players leave the game discouraged.
actually this last month i have been in nullsec quite a bit (Cloaks FTW) and the reason i say theyre more organized is ive been looking for a new corp and wouldnt you know more of the organized groups come from Null (or wormholes) then High, for example the people in Null actually have plans as to what they want to accomplish and at the same time the only type of organization I really saw within most High Sec corps were cookie cutter schedules of when they all go out and do the same thing. Now at the same time there were a few High Sec corps that were extremely well organized but once again like i said before about 95 % of them were unorganized jumbles of madness Also while i am thinking about it you are right about one thing PVE is SO TOUGH AND DANGEROUS in mean you are totally right i have to go out and buy new ships all the time hell ive had to buy a Nav-Scorp and a Nav-Raven and i've lost oh wait neither of them. now can you kindly STFU and by that i dont mean stop giving intelligent ideas i mean stop trying to troll, stop saying things that are just plain wrong or at the very least give proof as to why you think that... Have a GOOD DAY sir. By troll you mean saying things that you don't agree with? hahahaha i will not ask you to kindly STFU because even a broken clock whose hands never turn anymore is right twice a day ...... so i remain optimistic you may one day say something of value.
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 22:50:00 -
[437] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:I spend my time skulking around null looking for the rarest target in all of EVE ..... a goon flying alone. I do regularly. I know plenty of Goons who do. Regularly. That's not the only thing you seem to be missing though. TBH, reading through what you've been saying, I can't help but think you're the latest Emo TJ or Kalle Deimos (forum troll alts), particularly given the age of your character. That same factor could also be a sign that you really are just new, and if so perhaps it's more naivety than trolling. So on the chance that it's naivety, I'll address some of your points: Temba Ronin wrote:The myth that pve players are adverse to losing ships is nonsense! What is distasteful is losing a ship to a punk thug who enjoys having the game mechanics set up to support his limited thinking style of gameplay. PvE, once mastered (eg, having read the missions guide on the eve-o wiki) is highly predictible and therefore easily beaten. The NPCs do the same things in the same scenarios. Even Incursions, while requiring player cooperation to beat, are still predictible. If you're regularly losing ships in PvE, you're doing it wrong. Game mechanics don't support suicide ganking, they allow it. In fact, as I stated in my previous response to your idea (which I note you haven't addressed), the game mechanics spawn unbeatable irresistable NPCs to destroy a suicide ganker's ship, so all the gankee has to do is survive long enough. Temba Ronin wrote:Lets try some new ways to break the ice for players who rightly perceive that nullsec can be a fast way to lose a ship and get podded without a reasonable chance of making isk. Not everything is about making ISK. Sometimes it's about challenge, competition, fun, or simply beating the other guy. Making ISK is one appeal, there are so many others. If your only measure of how good something is is "how much ISK will I make", you'll miss out on some of the best content that makes EVE a unique experience. Temba Ronin wrote:I think trying to conquer a system held by vet players would be far more challenging then any other mission being offered to PVE players now. Sure i know i can get my friends and do it now blah blah blah, but what prevents us from trying something more attractive like bounties and claiming sov for a NPC Empire faction to get the mission runners who get shot at everyday from looking at nullsec as an opportunity instead of an obstacle? Sov nullsec is an opportunity, and of course it has obstacles. It wouldn't be any damn fun if it didn't. I really don't see what your point is here. All players currently have access to nullsec, whether that is through NPC nullsec, joining a corp in a nullsec alliance, having their corp join a nulslec alliance, or forming their own alliance and going out to take space themselves. There is no "spoiled minority", just players who take risks in a risk/reward system which favours those who work together and are organised and persistent, and players who don't. "The CCP fleet of employees with only their max skills could walk thru any and every nullsec system and wipe your gang of hooligans from nullsec with little trouble. ... Concord has instant targeting and massive firepower." (not putting this in block quotes because :CCP: ... 5 quotes, really?) The CCP fleet was designed to be destroyed. That's why they were carrying juicy loot to drop for players who destroyed them. Besides, if we took this point to its logical conclusion CCP could easily wipe out all players by other means also not generally available to players (eg GM tools). But what fun would that be. CONCORD is a game mechanic designed to tip the advantage in favour of the "illegally" aggressed party by ensuring that the aggressing party is destroyed within a given timeframe. It is not a military force that takes or protects sov. It is a ridiculous suggestion to have CONCORD factored in any legitimised player conflict (which your Incursions into nullsec would be). So let me see if i got this right .... you are a "Master" of PVE and don't do it anymore because it's predictable an easy ..... gankers who view their ships with the same regard most of us view our ammo are not supported by game mechanics that enable them to freely roam around highsec until they gank someone ...... and this game is not about the potential to make isk from the pve point of view but is about the risk vs reward myth you trotted out to lamely attempt to support your position .... and nullsec sov obstacles are the fun part of the game .... and the CCP fleet that stood against all comers until they started to self destruct themselves or shoot at each other, or foolishly charge outside of the range of their logi ships because they were supposed to be defeated by design discounts how easily they popped the ships in the player fleets right?
Could you please tell me how many Alliances you have run, how many nullsec systems YOU claimed sov for with your Alliances before you gave it all up to become a swarm member? Because i'm not convinced i am the one who is suffering from naivety in this particular conversation.
|
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 22:51:00 -
[438] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: By troll you mean saying things that you don't agree with? hahahaha i will not ask you to kindly STFU because even a broken clock whose hands never turn anymore is right twice a day ...... so i remain optimistic you may one day say something of value.
I think by troll he means somebody who makes (deliberately) fallacious statements, misrepresents what somebody says then calls them an idiot for saying what they haven't said, regularly contradicts themselves, says that somebody hasn't made any valid points while conveniently ignoring the many that they do, makes more insults than points, and the list goes on.
All of these things you have done, many on more than one occasion, which is why I am also calling you a troll. Of course, I would reference examples of where you have done these things but to be quite frank I'm just not that engaged with your trolling.
I am curious though - is the statement in your bio something that you support, or is it a trophy? By trophy I mean showing off the lengths somebody goes to to make a reasoned post in response to one of your trolls.
The person you attribute it to (Arla Selenis) doesn't return any results in an EVE character search btw (and the only Google result for that name is your EVE Gate bio). Is it a fake trophy? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 23:05:00 -
[439] - Quote
Jonathan Malcom wrote:Takara Mora wrote:Hmmmm .... sad isn't it? ...
Maybe that's why so many of us feel like PVP is a waste of time ... Some consider winning worthwhile.
If you consider taking candy from a baby ... winning ... |
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 23:08:00 -
[440] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Temba Ronin wrote: By troll you mean saying things that you don't agree with? hahahaha i will not ask you to kindly STFU because even a broken clock whose hands never turn anymore is right twice a day ...... so i remain optimistic you may one day say something of value.
I think by troll he means somebody who makes (deliberately) fallacious statements, misrepresents what somebody says then calls them an idiot for saying what they haven't said, regularly contradicts themselves, says that somebody hasn't made any valid points while conveniently ignoring the many that they do, makes more insults than points, and the list goes on. All of these things you have done, many on more than one occasion, which is also why I am also calling you a troll. Of course, I would reference examples of where you have done these things but to be quite frank I'm just not that engaged with your trolling. I am curious though - is the statement in your bio something that you support, or is it a trophy? By trophy I mean showing off the lengths somebody goes to to make a reasoned post in response to one of your trolls. The person you attribute it to (Arla Selenis) doesn't return any results in an EVE character search btw (and the only Google result for that name is your EVE Gate bio). Is it a fake trophy? You fit your definition very fine sir, the quote i put in my bio in my opinion fairly defuses the misplaced anger one might experience after an encounter with gutless ganking thugs. This is just a game. While you enjoy the applause of fellow swarm members and swarm wannabes ask yourself why you feel compelled to answer posts directed at other people? Is it because you think them not smart enough to answer for themselves or because you are so brilliant you can read thier mind and determine what they meant? Or could it be you are not feeling the love from your corp mates perhaps? No one else to chat with? I mean you are after all in a big Alliance with sov and being a master of so many elements of the game i would think you'd have little time for these forums tbh. |
|
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
24
|
Posted - 2011.12.20 23:09:00 -
[441] - Quote
Ya Huei wrote:Takara Mora wrote:Ya Huei wrote:I have no desire to go on and on with you, if u have anything to add about your NPC empire vs nullsec wardec Idea, go and make them.
oh and :
"pro pvp tip" EVE isn't a 1 vs 1 game, you're doing it wrong.
Here we go with the old "It's a Sandbox" but "Anyone who doesn't play the way we do is doing it wrong" .... heheheh. As for 1 v 1 not being "the right way to play" ... Is that why so many players consider Honorable Solo Kills the true test of PVP skill? This is a fair argument, but you are talking about a duel 1 vs 1 which just hardly ever happens in this game (at least I've never seen it occur spontaneously aside from people in corp duking it out. PVP in EVE is so much more than just 2 guys shooting at eachother. The intel gathering, fleet composition, tactics, leadership, the metagame in general is what makes EVE interesting (at least to me) one vs one duels are possible but are largely irrelevant when it comes to "real" pvp engagements in EVE today.
Agreed ... exactly. So .... meh ... what's the point to hisec PVP then?
Basically boils down to Bully or Be Bullied for ppl who don't have patience for deeper pursuits ... |
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 01:11:00 -
[442] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: You fit your definition very fine sir, the quote i put in my bio in my opinion fairly defuses the misplaced anger one might experience after an encounter with gutless ganking thugs. This is just a game. While you enjoy the applause of fellow swarm members and swarm wannabes ask yourself why you feel compelled to answer posts directed at other people? Is it because you think them not smart enough to answer for themselves or because you are so brilliant you can read thier mind and determine what they meant? Or could it be you are not feeling the love from your corp mates perhaps? No one else to chat with? I mean you are after all in a big Alliance with sov and being a master of so many elements of the game i would think you'd have little time for these forums tbh.
I respectfully request that you point out one example where I have done any of those things (fallacious statement, misrepresenting what somebody has said, contradict myself, assert your lack of valid points, or more insults than points). Hopefully you won't take my respectful request as a demand, like you did the last one, and in doing so provide another example of misrepresenting what I have said. I truly, genuinely, would like to see how you came to that conclusion (as I did with my last request of the same nature). Having been a Lecturer in Higher Education I feel compelled to address misconceptions and fallacies.
I also see no reason whatsoever to address a post directed at somebody else, especially when that post is another example of misrepresenting what somebody has said (as trolls do). That example being the assertion that when Tasiv said "troll", he/she meant "saying things that you don't agree with". Sure, you put a question mark at the end, but you phrased it as an assertion.
My interpretation of what he/she said was quite different. I do not consider Tasiv incapable of making his/her own response, nor do I believe myself to be so brilliant as to be able to read their mind to determine what he/she meant. I don't know about you, but I tend to use the words that people say/write to determine what they mean, however flawed that may be.
So I will make another respectful request, this time of Tasiv Deka - what are your thoughts on these two varied interpretations of your use of the word "troll"? |
Lord Orefinger
Real Life Super Heros Inc. Caped Vigilantes
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 04:13:00 -
[443] - Quote
The "type the persons name to not get your ship stolen" idea is ********; it would just be abused by people typing on non standard, non English keyboards. Cant type a o that looks like and but really is some messed up character you cant see because the person want you to type the name of standard named alt instead so he can steal your ship no matter how aware or able to type you are? Too bad you just lost your billion isk ship thanks to the power of a non-latin charset.
No thanks.
|
Temba Ronin
31
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 04:28:00 -
[444] - Quote
Lord Orefinger wrote:The "type the persons name to not get your ship stolen" idea is ********; it would just be abused by people typing on non standard, non English keyboards. Cant type a o that looks like and but really is some messed up character you cant see because the person want you to type the name of standard named alt instead so he can steal your ship no matter how aware or able to type you are? Too bad you just lost your billion isk ship thanks to the power of a non-latin charset.
No thanks.
Legit concern easily fixed ....
"Alert someone is trying to hijack your ship click on the icons that flash on your UI screen in the same sequence that they flash, alert someone is trying to hijack your ship!"
a random sequence of flashing icons would be universally understood and bots would have a hell of a time coming up with a work around.
|
Yeep
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
41
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 12:28:00 -
[445] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote: Could you please tell me how many Alliances you have run, how many nullsec systems YOU claimed sov for with your Alliances before you gave it all up to become a swarm member? Because i'm not convinced i am the one who is suffering from naivety in this particular conversation.
Hi I'm Yeep. I was a founding member of Goonfleet and a director for 3 years (and a CEO for a couple of weeks). I was heavily involved in organising and executing both fights and logistics for Syndicate, Outer Ring and Cloud Ring and to a lesser extent the Scalding Pass, Wicked Creek and Detorid campaigns.
You're still an idiot. |
Tasiv Deka
Applied Dynamics
12
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 13:19:00 -
[446] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Temba Ronin wrote: You fit your definition very fine sir, the quote i put in my bio in my opinion fairly defuses the misplaced anger one might experience after an encounter with gutless ganking thugs. This is just a game. While you enjoy the applause of fellow swarm members and swarm wannabes ask yourself why you feel compelled to answer posts directed at other people? Is it because you think them not smart enough to answer for themselves or because you are so brilliant you can read thier mind and determine what they meant? Or could it be you are not feeling the love from your corp mates perhaps? No one else to chat with? I mean you are after all in a big Alliance with sov and being a master of so many elements of the game i would think you'd have little time for these forums tbh.
I respectfully request that you point out one example where I have done any of those things (fallacious statement, misrepresenting what somebody has said, contradict myself, assert your lack of valid points, or more insults than points). Hopefully you won't take my respectful request as a demand, like you did the last one, and in doing so provide another example of misrepresenting what I have said. I truly, genuinely, would like to see how you came to that conclusion (as I did with my last request of the same nature). Having been a Lecturer in Higher Education I feel compelled to address misconceptions and fallacies. I also see no reason whatsoever to address a post directed at somebody else, especially when that post is another example of misrepresenting what somebody has said (as trolls do). That example being the assertion that when Tasiv said "troll", he/she meant "saying things that you don't agree with". Sure, you put a question mark at the end, but you phrased it as an assertion. My interpretation of what he/she said was quite different. I do not consider Tasiv incapable of making his/her own response, nor do I believe myself to be so brilliant as to be able to read their mind to determine what he/she meant. I don't know about you, but I tend to use the words that people say/write to determine what they mean, however flawed that may be. So I will make another respectful request, this time of Tasiv Deka - what are your thoughts on these two varied interpretations of your use of the word "troll"?
When i call someone a troll its more in line with your view point, i.e. deliberately saying something wrong just to get a rise out of a person and then sitting there and belittling someone when they call you on it. In all honesty i have no problem when someone has a different viewpoint so long as they are respectful of the fact that others may not share their opinions and they shouldn't be forced down peoples throat however at the same point if something is true you should display evidence of why its true. Sorry if my post may not be coherent im currently under the effects of a new allergy medication and its making things come out kinda off. CCP add another race of ships into the game... Not even the people just the ships... now i know there would be all sorts of copyright issues to iron out... but i want to fly an Irken Titan known as the "Massive"... Invader Zim is an amazing show. |
Temba Ronin
34
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 15:38:00 -
[447] - Quote
Yeep wrote:Temba Ronin wrote: Could you please tell me how many Alliances you have run, how many nullsec systems YOU claimed sov for with your Alliances before you gave it all up to become a swarm member? Because i'm not convinced i am the one who is suffering from naivety in this particular conversation.
Hi I'm Yeep. I was a founding member of Goonfleet and a director for 3 years (and a CEO for a couple of weeks). I was heavily involved in organising and executing both fights and logistics for Syndicate, Outer Ring and Cloud Ring and to a lesser extent the Scalding Pass, Wicked Creek and Detorid campaigns. You're still an idiot. Hello Yeep! I am an idiot because i think people should have an original idea or some knowledge of what they tell other players are facts in this game. You might find it good reading to look at the forum thread i started about the bot problem and because i credited the goons for taking action against bots and i clearly state that i feel no sorrow for an afk player that gets ganked i am called a goon alt haha!
The forums are full of name calling small thinking people who want a fast easy box to place someone in for not agreeing with them. Subsequently i am called both a goon alt and a goon hating alt, lol i think it's delightful tbh.
I admit calling people names is indeed fun verbal PVP. But being a player with less than a year's experience, and being the idiot that i am, i still prefer that when a multiyear vet puts the smackdown on my positions, ideas, or poorly conceived notions, it comes from their superior knowledge an actual experience and not from parroting what they have heard from others.
i understand that i don't have to agree with you to learn from you. i also understand that to learn something of real value the person telling you the facts should actually know wtf they are talking about. That being said if you ever have the time to regale this idiot with stories of your actual experiences as a ceo or organizing fights & logistics you'll find me to also be a quick learner. |
Velicitia
Open Designs
225
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 16:53:00 -
[448] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:(stuff)
This is gonna get good.
Lemme grab some popcorn.
|
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 18:04:00 -
[449] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:The forums are full of name calling small thinking people who want a fast easy box to place someone in for not agreeing with them.
So stop being part of the problem.
In my first response to you, I gave you the benefit of the doubt (about whether or not you were a troll) and addressed the flaws with your suggestion - far more than anybody else seemed to be doing at the time.
Your response was pretty vile actually, especially when I was the only one actually giving you the time of day. Sure, I supposed that you were either naive or a troll, but what I didn't call you (even though sorely tempted) was an idiot.
Also, you clearly have no idea who I am, much as I have no idea about your background, so I'll let you know that I am an award winning game designer (Best game in student showcase, NZGDC and TUANZ eVision Entertainment award) who has taught 3rd year Computer Game Design at the University of Otago. So when I talk about game mechanics I have some authority to do so and am not just parroting what I have heard from others.
Now, armed with this background knowledge, go back and read both of those posts and come back and tell me what your response would be to your post. Wouldn't you think this strongly added to the case that you were trolling (by my and Tasiv's definition)? While you're at it, try re-reading all of my posts, and in fact all of yours. If you would like to continue this discourse, stop trolling (whether deliberate or not). |
Dread Red
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 18:27:00 -
[450] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:The forums are full of name calling small thinking people who want a fast easy box to place someone in for not agreeing with them. So stop being part of the problem. In my first response to you, I gave you the benefit of the doubt (about whether or not you were a troll) and addressed the flaws with your suggestion - far more than anybody else seemed to be doing at the time. Your response was pretty vile actually, especially when I was the only one actually giving you the time of day. Sure, I supposed that you were either naive or a troll, but what I didn't call you (even though sorely tempted) was an idiot. Also, you clearly have no idea who I am, much as I have no idea about your background, so I'll let you know that I am an award winning game designer (Best game in student showcase, NZGDC and TUANZ eVision Entertainment award) who has taught 3rd year Computer Game Design at the University of Otago. So when I talk about game mechanics I have some authority to do so and am not just parroting what I have heard from others. Now, armed with this background knowledge, go back and read both of those posts and come back and tell me what your response would be to your post. Wouldn't you think this strongly added to the case that you were trolling (by my and Tasiv's definition)? While you're at it, try re-reading all of my posts, and in fact all of yours. If you would like to continue this discourse, stop trolling (whether deliberate or not). I read your posts and it seems like you are an unemployed former higher education lecturer looking to get respect for winning student game design contests. lol good luck with that!
Brings to mind the old saying, "those who can, do, those who can't, teach."
So what respect do you feel you've earned by being neither a current educational lecturer nor a gainfully employed game designer? But i'm sure asking this question makes me a troll. |
|
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 18:38:00 -
[451] - Quote
Dread Red wrote:I read your posts and it seems like you are an unemployed former higher education lecturer looking to get respect for winning student game design contests. lol good luck with that!
Brings to mind the old saying, "those who can, do, those who can't, teach."
So what respect do you feel you've earned by being neither a current educational lecturer nor a gainfully employed game designer? But i'm sure asking this question makes me a troll.
Nope, being a 27 day old character with no forum posts but this one, making (incorrect) assumptions about things you know nothing about, and generally being inflammatory are the things that make you a troll.
2/10 too obvious |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2605
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 18:51:00 -
[452] - Quote
I'm kind of leading an invaison of Branch right now and setting things on fire, apologies for the delays in posting itt. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 18:53:00 -
[453] - Quote
Actually, that's not quite correct, this was actually my first response to you, which also gave an explanation of why I disagreed with your idea. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 19:02:00 -
[454] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'm kind of leading an invaison of Branch right now and setting things on fire, apologies for the delays in posting itt.
Figures :)
Maybe when You guys will reinforce another POS/Outpost You can come and write some stuff :D |
Velicitia
Open Designs
227
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 19:21:00 -
[455] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Dread Red wrote:I read your posts and it seems like you are an unemployed former higher education lecturer looking to get respect for winning student game design contests. lol good luck with that!
Brings to mind the old saying, "those who can, do, those who can't, teach."
So what respect do you feel you've earned by being neither a current educational lecturer nor a gainfully employed game designer? But i'm sure asking this question makes me a troll. Nope, being a 27 day old character with no forum posts but this one, making (incorrect) assumptions about things you know nothing about, and generally being inflammatory are the things that make you a troll. 2/10 too obvious
sounds kinda like someone questioning who Chribba or Halada are...
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
158
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 19:31:00 -
[456] - Quote
ban forum alts from assembly hall |
Temba Ronin
86
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 19:44:00 -
[457] - Quote
Imigo Montoya wrote:Temba Ronin wrote:The forums are full of name calling small thinking people who want a fast easy box to place someone in for not agreeing with them. So stop being part of the problem. In my first response to you, I gave you the benefit of the doubt (about whether or not you were a troll) and addressed the flaws with your suggestion - far more than anybody else seemed to be doing at the time. Your response was pretty vile actually, especially when I was the only one actually giving you the time of day. Sure, I supposed that you were either naive or a troll, but what I didn't call you (even though sorely tempted) was an idiot. Also, you clearly have no idea who I am, much as I have no idea about your background, so I'll let you know that I am an award winning game designer (Best game in student showcase, NZGDC and TUANZ eVision Entertainment award) who has taught 3rd year Computer Game Design at the University of Otago. So when I talk about game mechanics I have some authority to do so and am not just parroting what I have heard from others. Now, armed with this background knowledge, go back and read both of those posts and come back and tell me what your response would be to your post. Wouldn't you think this strongly added to the case that you were trolling (by my and Tasiv's definition)? While you're at it, try re-reading all of my posts, and in fact all of yours. If you would like to continue this discourse, stop trolling (whether deliberate or not). Yes you are correct i have no idea who you are nor do i really care beyond the fact that you are a fellow EVE sub. I post here to get the Chairman's reactions, thumbs up or thumbs down on the things i propose to him. The fact that you felt compelled to respond to what i asked of him and/ or commented to others and then got all butt hurt when you tripped all over your own numerous contradictions and then retreated to the realm of "I'm an important person in real life" defense has all the merit of your student awards.
One of the fun things about EVE is the mechanics which dictate they don't take into account how important you might feel you are in real life. I don't think you were part of the EVE game design team, from what i have read, correct me if i am wrong. You didn't know and still haven't given a specific verifiable number to define what "heaps" is equal to so you were at best spreading rumors, parroting what you had heard from others, or purposely propagandizing. All of which are allowed in EVE, however the self righteous indignation of the self proclaimed important person when they are caught doing some or all of the previously stated is very entertaining.
Glad the chairman might use some of his personal time to respond to the things i an others have posted while he has been busy playing the game and living his real life. |
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
1258
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 20:02:00 -
[458] - Quote
I'm nobody.
/c
|
|
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 20:31:00 -
[459] - Quote
Chribba wrote:I'm nobody.
/c
Sometimes I think Chribba spends all day hitting refresh on search for "Chribba" in all posts, and responds whenever someone mentions him :) |
Velicitia
Open Designs
227
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 20:43:00 -
[460] - Quote
Max Kolonko wrote:Chribba wrote:I'm nobody.
/c Sometimes I think Chribba spends all day hitting refresh on search for "Chribba" in all posts, and responds whenever someone mentions him :)
nah, he's too busy mining Veldspar to do that. He has people who do the menial tasks. |
|
|
Chribba
Otherworld Enterprises Otherworld Empire
1259
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 20:47:00 -
[461] - Quote
ahem Linkage + I get email notifications
|
|
Imigo Montoya
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
16
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 20:49:00 -
[462] - Quote
Again you misrepresent what I have said. Again you ignore things I have said and say I haven't said them. Again you suggest I have contradicted myself numerous times without offering a single example.
I never said I was an "important person", I simply shared my qualification to discuss matters of game design seeing as, after all, it was you who requested some qualification to discuss game mechanics. So apparently, according to you one needs to have actually run a nullsec alliance to understand the mechanics of nullsec sov (eg Yeep), and now you seem to be suggesting that one needs to be a member of the EVE game design team to be qualified to discuss any matter of game design in EVE, yet you feel compelled to discuss these very matters. Are you not seeing your own contradiction there? Really?
I gave a specific number of approximately how many subs, and I gave (albeit in a roundabout way) a means of independent verification (Dotlan). If you can't or won't see that, there's not much I can do about that. I'm yet to see any reason to doubt these figures as they are consistent with all the evidence that I have seen (far more than is itt).
You have continually suggested that I have contradicted myself, yet when I very politely requested an example so that I can address any misunderstanding you persistently fail to provide one. I won't ask again because you clearly aren't even going to try. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
27
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 20:59:00 -
[463] - Quote
Chribba wrote:ahem Linkage + I get email notifications
Hats off to You, mister :D |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
99
|
Posted - 2011.12.21 22:38:00 -
[464] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'm kind of leading an invaison of Branch right now and setting things on fire, apologies for the delays in posting itt.
Thats good to hear. I was starting to think the only "great wars" eve would ever have were over when bob was disbanded. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nubs McIbis
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
3
|
Posted - 2011.12.22 07:41:00 -
[465] - Quote
Mr. Chairman,
Who was more smug, Boat after he killed four jump freighters, or Vee after bombing IRC?
Nubs McIbis, loyal patriot |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
95
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 00:11:00 -
[466] - Quote
Any chance at all, in between invasions, to get CCP to take a look at the forum software? Sorry if it's already been said somewhere here, I haven't read every page/post.
Dam forum keeps eating posts, it's irritating to say the least.
Thanks.
Wormholes: The *NEW* end game of Eve - Online: No Local. No Lag. No Blues (No Intell Channesl). No Blobs.
NEW FEATURE: NO INCARNA! |
Aeron Sophus
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2011.12.24 01:34:00 -
[467] - Quote
What is your standpoint on the fact that bug hunters keep closing the bugs that report that EVEs sound engine doesn't uninitialize when closing EVE, which causes reproducible sound card hangs with every single Asus sound card?
(This isn't specifically about this bug, it just serves as an example; it's about the fact that 'the bug hunter issue' STILL exists, after years of volunteer bug hunters, they still close numerous perfectly valid bugs - repeatedly.) |
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
57
|
Posted - 2011.12.25 17:10:00 -
[468] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The Mittani wrote:I'm kind of leading an invaison of Branch right now and setting things on fire, apologies for the delays in posting itt. Thats good to hear. I was starting to think the only "great wars" eve would ever have were over when bob was disbanded. Well, to be a "Great War" the other side has to put up a fight. Since WN is not puting up any meanigful fight, this is not a great war. If anything it is better to say that we are going to "go a viking", than anything else. Look up the etymology for viking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking#Etymology You've got to remember that these are just simple miners. These are people of the land. The common clay of New Eden. You know... morons. |
J Kunjeh
145
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:02:00 -
[469] - Quote
This thread is fail. "The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5)-á |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
127
|
Posted - 2011.12.29 16:35:00 -
[470] - Quote
Falin Whalen wrote:Cearain wrote:The Mittani wrote:I'm kind of leading an invaison of Branch right now and setting things on fire, apologies for the delays in posting itt. Thats good to hear. I was starting to think the only "great wars" eve would ever have were over when bob was disbanded. Well, to be a "Great War" the other side has to put up a fight. Since WN is not puting up any meanigful fight, this is not a great war. If anything it is better to say that we are going to "go a viking", than anything else. Look up the etymology for viking here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viking#Etymology
I can't blame Mittens for that. If I could I would.
I really don't know what the issue is with null sec being carebear central for pretty much the last year or 2 but it is pathetic. If its the case that there is no way you can hold onto your territory if you go warring then ccp needs to fix that. (I really am not sure how. Maybe randomly change what moons are worth so people are always fighting to get the best ones or something.)
I don't do null sec but even I used to like to hear about all the capitals getting blown up in null sec. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
|
Dunkler Imperator
N.F.H.P. Eternal Evocations
10
|
Posted - 2011.12.31 20:54:00 -
[471] - Quote
How do you feel about boosters right now?
Tried making them recently very hard to do. Nearly impossible to sell and only a few people understand how they work.
Are they a sucking chest wound Or Feature working as intended?
Also Could u get ccp to Redo the descriptions for boosters and their skill books. They are very confusing and are sometimes downright wrong.
Thxs
Dunkler Imperator |
thoth rothschild
First Aid Emergency Service
55
|
Posted - 2012.01.01 13:03:00 -
[472] - Quote
I do play eve for some time and like most of the people around i also tried a nice number of different mmo's. There is a hughe change in player time commitment lately in most online games, so my request which i like to push is.
a) Are there any plans on how to improve the "get online and get action without much time investment" in 0.0 space. Out of observation this is a reason why 0.0 get's less and less popular. Empire offers a lot of these elements.
b) Modern warefare has some nasty "enemy knowledge" tactics. Eve has only avatar knowledge effecting tactics. There is no module or gameplay feature influencing the knowledge of the enemy player. like decoys/illusions. Are there any designs heading into such directions or what do you think about getting such new ideas into the discussion.
c) DO you see any chance we get rid of the 1000 windows UI, is it possible or a task not able to be handled and there ccp is resignating?
that's all for now :)
greets roth |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
282
|
Posted - 2012.01.05 13:56:00 -
[473] - Quote
Nubs McIbis wrote:Mr. Chairman,
Who was more smug, Boat after he killed four jump freighters, or Vee after bombing IRC?
Nubs McIbis, loyal patriot
I can probably answer this for the Mr. Chairman.
Boat.
it was Boat. |
AMMARPARI
Padded Bras Goonswarm Federation
5
|
Posted - 2012.01.06 21:23:00 -
[474] - Quote
Blawrf McTaggart wrote:Nubs McIbis wrote:Mr. Chairman,
Who was more smug, Boat after he killed four jump freighters, or Vee after bombing IRC?
Nubs McIbis, loyal patriot I can probably answer this for the Mr. Chairman. Boat. it was Boat.
Boat gets :smug: over his own bowel movements.
|
Killstealing
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
327
|
Posted - 2012.01.08 01:43:00 -
[475] - Quote
what and vee doesnt? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2674
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 08:37:00 -
[476] - Quote
Holidays are winding down, time to post.
Camios wrote:A question for the chairman about sov warfare.
For some people the holy grail of game design for sov warfare would be a system that encourages both military entities to split their forces over many objectives. This would mean that each one of current huge fights would be replaced by a number of concurrent, smaller fights that can be handled more fluidly by our hardware, are more interesting (because )and are more fun.
In conclusion, is CCP is researching along these lines for the future of sov warfare, and is CSM interested in this perspective?
There's been a number of proposals kicked around over the years to split up fights over 'capture mechanics'. There's yet to be a real silver bullet though. We discussed a number of possibilities in May. I don't have a particular fixation with one capture mechanic or another, but I'm leery of CCP experimenting on sov (a la Dominion) without field-testing capture mechanics in areas of the game with less risk of catastrophe (such as FW, perhaps).
Gilbaron wrote:so, did you like what you saw at the csm december summit ?
Yep, it was quite civilized compared to the unpleasantness of June. Crucible was a great expansion so we had a great summit. Incarna was an awful expansion, so the emergency summit was similarly awful.
Sara XIII wrote:What's a good first step a new player can take to break up/destroy a big corporation or alliance?
Keep up the good work!
Be useful, if not indispensable. Pick up the crappy jobs no one wants to do - pos fueling, production, whatever the organization needs that isn't being done. Then, be reliable. The most rare director is the reliable kind who gets jobs done that other people don't want to do.
Then, annihilate them.
Max Kolonko wrote:Dear The Mittani,
Have You watched 2011 film "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy"???
(http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1340800/)
I have to say, after reading some of Yours "Sins" at tentonshammer I envision You as "Karla" (spy master of CCCP) who managed to infiltrate MI6's Circus (lets call it board of directors) and place a Mole in their ranks (main plot of movie is the search for the mole).
Karla never actually appear in the movie. Its a background character. Someone people talk about in whispers, even by his British counterparts. All the time people try to find who work for Karla, What Karla knows, what we know of Karla. etc...
If You haven't watched it Yet I urge You to do it, if You like good spy movies :)
Oh wow, I had no idea they did another film version. I love the books - all of le Carre's stuff is grand.
Takara Mora wrote: Yes! More Goons please! By all means, that's exactly the type of player that will ASSURE a great future for ALL of EVE ....
EVE Goonfleet Edition is just another small recruitment drive away :)
Naw, seriously, I may completely disagree with Bully / Be Bullied style of play, but indeed, it's a playstyle that is highly encouraged by not only the sandbox principle, but much more deeply than that, it actually feels like CCP PREFERS that style of play to all others ... queue the "Yes, you're playing in the wrong sandbox" posts now ...
Yes, you're in the wrong sandbox. EVE was made by a gaggle of Icelandic Ultima Online players. It's also about the only thing about EVE, besides the single-shard setup, that makes it unique in the modern MMO market. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2674
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 08:51:00 -
[477] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:Dear CSM Chairman since it is an indisputable fact that highsec ganking of players negatively impacts player retention, which in turns threatens the survival of EVE as a game we all can continue to play, I was curious as to if you would support a change in the killmail mechanics that would discourage highsec ganking of players whenever Concord action is triggered.
Nope. And judging by your spergout in this thread, you're a great advocate for your anti-griefing ideology - ie, an unconvincing, embarrassing train-wreck.
If a poster like you didn't exist, I'd have to invent you.
Forum Fighter wrote:Dear Goons,
Where will you head to after WN and Raiden spank you?
Freeport IRC space!
Hi, I own Branch.
Cearain wrote: I think CCP assumes people who play EVE are socially defunct. They are constantly assuming we need to "socialize" more and therefore mechanics that force even the most basic utterances are seen as superior to those that don't.
Why does ccp assume its subscribers are looking to a computer game to be their social network?
The statistics contradict your argument - players are much more likely to continue playing EVE if they join a corporation and engage in multiplayer activities.
That said, EVE players /are/ often socially defunct. If you've ever been to Fanfest, the autism level is statistically significant~
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:ban forum alts from assembly hall
AH and Jita Park should probably have the same corp requirement as CAOD, yep. I'll poke the mods about it if I don't forget about it in the next 15 minutes (highly likely)
Nubs McIbis wrote:Mr. Chairman,
Who was more smug, Boat after he killed four jump freighters, or Vee after bombing IRC?
Nubs McIbis, loyal patriot
Boat, Vee doesn't really smug much, he's too much of a princess. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2674
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 09:00:00 -
[478] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Any chance at all, in between invasions, to get CCP to take a look at the forum software? Sorry if it's already been said somewhere here, I haven't read every page/post.
Dam forum keeps eating posts, it's irritating to say the least.
Thanks.
It's pretty awful, but CCP mostly vanishes during the holidays. They should be back now and hopefully fixing things (famous last words).
Aeron Sophus wrote:What is your standpoint on the fact that bug hunters keep closing the bugs that report that EVEs sound engine doesn't uninitialize when closing EVE, which causes reproducible sound card hangs with every single Asus sound card?
(This isn't specifically about this bug, it just serves as an example; it's about the fact that 'the bug hunter issue' STILL exists, after years of volunteer bug hunters, they still close numerous perfectly valid bugs - repeatedly.)
Obligatory 'eve has sound' joke goes here. From what I understand the bug hunters are volunteers, but I haven't looked into this as your post is the first I've heard of it. It might also be a known issue - ie, they know it's broken so they close it, but it never gets fixed by CCP, since bug hunters can't fix bugs, only find them and dump them on an issue list.
Dunkler Imperator wrote:How do you feel about boosters right now?
Tried making them recently very hard to do. Nearly impossible to sell and only a few people understand how they work.
Are they a sucking chest wound Or Feature working as intended?
Also Could u get ccp to Redo the descriptions for boosters and their skill books. They are very confusing and are sometimes downright wrong.
Thxs
Dunkler Imperator
They're a minor area that needs adjustment, not a sucking chest wound. They're too hard to make and they're not used often, and I think they're on the agenda for looking at (iirc they were being tweaked in Crucible).
thoth rothschild wrote: a) Are there any plans on how to improve the "get online and get action without much time investment" in 0.0 space. Out of observation this is a reason why 0.0 get's less and less popular. Empire offers a lot of these elements.
b) Modern warefare has some nasty "enemy knowledge" tactics. Eve has only avatar knowledge effecting tactics. There is no module or gameplay feature influencing the knowledge of the enemy player. like decoys/illusions. Are there any designs heading into such directions or what do you think about getting such new ideas into the discussion.
c) DO you see any chance we get rid of the 1000 windows UI, is it possible or a task not able to be handled and there ccp is resignating?
that's all for now :)
greets roth
A) I've banged this drum for a while now - EVE needs some quick action options, but they don't even need to be in nullsec. Running a mission isn't 'quick action', it's 'quick stab your eyeballs out from sheer boredom'. This is why I support some kind of arena/battleground/combat simulator/whatever - the details itself aren't something I'm wedded to, but I would like to be able to log into EVE, mash a button, and be able to play for half an hour and then log off.
B) I think that a revamped intel tools/local proposal could include this sort of mechanic, such as sensor nets installed in Ihubs. Ideas involving that had been discussed back in May, not in such exact terms, but I think it'd be a cool mechanic that deserves some focus.
C) The UI is getting better with time, thank god, and the UI team really seems to know their ****. The problem is that the UI team is relatively new in the scheme of things (last year? two years, tops?) and EVE's UI is awful and ancient, requiring lots of overhauling. The concept art we saw at the December summit looked great, though.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Abdiel Kavash
Paladin Order Fidelas Constans
294
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 15:57:00 -
[479] - Quote
Welcome back!
Since it's an idea thrown around quite a lot recently, what do you / the CSM / CCP think about redistributing moon resources, and potentially an ongoing dynamic redistribution and/or depletion?
I don't think it's appropriate for 0.0, as it would give less incentive to conquer regions and moons - as you would be forced to just grab as much as you can hoping you get a good random spawn. But I think it could work in lowsec, to give smaller corps/alliances an extra income boost before they get discovered and blown up by the big boys.
Feel free to disagree. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
747
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 16:54:00 -
[480] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: They're a minor area that needs adjustment, not a sucking chest wound. They're too hard to make and they're not used often, and I think they're on the agenda for looking at (iirc they were being tweaked in Crucible).
I can elaborate about this one, since I followed it closely when it was proposed. The booster GÇ£tweakGÇ¥ that was to be implemented in Crucible was to remove all side effects and lower the boost amount, changing all the skills to give back the boost that was nerfed rather than mitigating side effects as they do now.
This proposal was highly controversial, since it would have effectively sparked a market rush on boosters (many DONGÇÖT use them currently because of the side effect risk alone) without doing anything to compensate on the supply end of things. The bottleneck would have caused them to become exorbitantly expensive, which many of us felt would result in less people using boosters, not more as CCP was trying to accomplish. They would have become another pay-to-win luxury PvP element not unlike Officer mods. Others objected to the change because they felt that the side effects and risk were manageable what made boosters exciting and fun, and in the spirit of EvEGǪinstead of making them potions that youGÇÖd be a fool not to have in your cargo, assuming you could afford them in the first place.
Some booster manufacturers supported the change and would have loved to have made a killing under these circumstances, but CCP agreed that overall a better set of adjustments could be made to make boosters more accessible and usable, and that more time should be spent coming up with a better solution, so the changes were postponed for now. |
|
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 18:01:00 -
[481] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Cearain wrote: I think CCP assumes people who play EVE are socially defunct. They are constantly assuming we need to "socialize" more and therefore mechanics that force even the most basic utterances are seen as superior to those that don't.
Why does ccp assume its subscribers are looking to a computer game to be their social network?
The statistics contradict your argument - players are much more likely to continue playing EVE if they join a corporation and engage in multiplayer activities.
The statistic proves my argument. Eve is losing allot of players who don't want EVE to be their social media platform. Only players that do use it a some sort of social media stay because it is forced down our throats so if you don't like it you tend to leave.
Your reading this sort of like a study the Catholic Church did where they found that most priests don't find the celibacy requirement to be too onerous. Of course, they don't because if they did find it to be too onerous they wouldn't be priests.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
748
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 19:25:00 -
[482] - Quote
Cearain wrote: The statistic proves my argument. Eve is losing allot of players who don't want EVE to be their social media platform. Only players that do use it a some sort of social media stay because it is forced down our throats so if you don't like it you tend to leave.
(Ok Cearain - lets see if we can do this without bringing up plexes )
I was hoping if you could clarify what you meant here? I've always seen plugging one's self in socially as the key to long-term success and happiness in a game like EvE. I don't really understand why someone would try to "go it alone" in an MMO when there are a host of great single players games offering better solo gameplay.
If you're speaking about more "casual" gameplay being integrated into the game, such as content that can be accessed within the hour, whether its shorter-length PvE, or shorter length PvP such as (DOH!!! I did it, I mentioned plexing again....) In that case I agree, EvE needs more variety in that department.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean exactly by "players that don't want to use EvE as social media" - are you saying those that want to log in and not interact with other players at all? Or just those that want to log in and use a matchmaking type service to grab partners for content, rather than being forced to pick a corp, make friends, etc?
Sorry if I missed an earlier post of yours explaining, I'm suffering a bit of "thread fatigue" and haven't scoured this one 100%. |
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
49
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 20:28:00 -
[483] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Hi, I own Branch. It was delicious. Though you should mention we're giving bits of it to folks like Gentlemen's Agreement, Razor, Fidelias Constans, Spacemonkey's Alliance, and C0nvicted (when they're not losing jump freighters in Deklein because they accept fleet invites from hostiles.) |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
214
|
Posted - 2012.01.09 20:36:00 -
[484] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Cearain wrote: The statistic proves my argument. Eve is losing allot of players who don't want EVE to be their social media platform. Only players that do use it a some sort of social media stay because it is forced down our throats so if you don't like it you tend to leave.
(Ok Cearain - lets see if we can do this without bringing up plexes ) I was hoping if you could clarify what you meant here? I've always seen plugging one's self in socially as the key to long-term success and happiness in a game like EvE. I don't really understand why someone would try to "go it alone" in an MMO when there are a host of great single players games offering better solo gameplay. .
Are they mmos, that have a perpetual universe on a single shard? Do you not think these are important parts of eve for people who would play eve solo or with just loose affilliations?
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: If you're speaking about more "casual" gameplay being integrated into the game, such as content that can be accessed within the hour, whether its shorter-length PvE, or shorter length PvP such as (DOH!!! I did it, I mentioned plexing again....) In that case I agree, EvE needs more variety in that department..
There is definitely an overlap. We both agree eve needs more here. Those who not only have time to play eve but also socialize for long periods of time with eve players are generally less casual than those who just like to log in every now and then and mess around in the eve universe. There is not only very little for people who are more casual to do but CCP seems to want to specifically nerf what they can do by artificial mechanics like the incursion pay scale. They also spend allot more time and resources on the parts of the game that would appeal to those who are less casual. E.g., they spend allot more time and resources to sov null sec than they do to npc null sec and low sec. This is just my opinion.
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: But perhaps I'm misunderstanding what you mean exactly by "players that don't want to use EvE as social media" - are you saying those that want to log in and not interact with other players at all? Or just those that want to log in and use a matchmaking type service to grab partners for content, rather than being forced to pick a corp, make friends, etc?
....
No thats not what I mean. What I mean is people who want to play a computer game but don't want to commit lots time to socializing with people they meet in the game. That includes allot more than people who don't want to interact at all. I doubt that is even possible. At the very least they would use the market at some time and sell something or buy something that is not produced by npcs. That is the thing, everyone is contributing to what eve online is.
People intereract in this game quite a bit. It's not the case that unless you spend allot of time chatting and developing friendships on vent that you are not interacting with other players in this game. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Killer Gandry
Shadow of the Pain
24
|
Posted - 2012.01.11 13:01:00 -
[485] - Quote
Do you or don't you agree that the whole wardec system plus the aggro system needs a huge revamp.
Meaning if you wardec a corp and the corp hops into an alliance the wardec get's transferred over to the alliance, then the corp leaves the alliance and the wardec should continue seperatly from the alliance and thus enabling to drop the dec on the alliance but continue on the corp. There are more issues with the whole wardec system as you already know.
Aggro system is totally borked still.
If people decide to go all pew pew on eachother then at NPC stations in Hi Sec there should be a much longer agression counter before being able to dock up again. People want hi sec to reflect a sort of semi safety. In that retrospect why would a station allow you to dock up after agressing on someone? Wouldn't it be far more obvious if they would say " Heck we are a peacefull station and in that perspective you are not allowed the next 15 minutes" Maybe you can dock up sooner depending on your standing with that stations corporation but still a longer time than the ridiculous few seconds that are on the timer now.
Transferable killrights also comes to mind.
Not all that get shot up and / or podded are equipped to resolve their own grievances. So naturally they should have the option to somehow transfer the killrights which concord gave them.
This might be a pain in the butt for the campaign on hulks since now those owners could transfer their killrights over to someone who will be able to shoot back. But heck. PvP is part of the game, isn't it. And this will surely spark the PvP part in the game a bit more.
|
Endeavour Starfleet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
542
|
Posted - 2012.01.14 07:00:00 -
[486] - Quote
Sorry if I missed your answer on this topic.
What is your views on the current state of Eve Voice and anything you would like to see done to improve it? |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
362
|
Posted - 2012.01.14 09:11:00 -
[487] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:thoth rothschild wrote:a) Are there any plans on how to improve the "get online and get action without much time investment" in 0.0 space. Out of observation this is a reason why 0.0 get's less and less popular. Empire offers a lot of these elements. A) I've banged this drum for a while now - EVE needs some quick action options, but they don't even need to be in nullsec. Running a mission isn't 'quick action', it's 'quick stab your eyeballs out from sheer boredom'. This is why I support some kind of arena/battleground/combat simulator/whatever - the details itself aren't something I'm wedded to, but I would like to be able to log into EVE, mash a button, and be able to play for half an hour and then log off.
You really think EVE needs to have battlegrounds/turned into WOT or something like that?
|
wowjemdsd
Viziam Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.14 15:34:00 -
[488] - Quote
hello my name is dennis can son one help me please when do you think the 2012 CSM elections wil be and who do you think will win
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2600
|
Posted - 2012.01.14 18:09:00 -
[489] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:The Mittani wrote:thoth rothschild wrote:a) Are there any plans on how to improve the "get online and get action without much time investment" in 0.0 space. Out of observation this is a reason why 0.0 get's less and less popular. Empire offers a lot of these elements. A) I've banged this drum for a while now - EVE needs some quick action options, but they don't even need to be in nullsec. Running a mission isn't 'quick action', it's 'quick stab your eyeballs out from sheer boredom'. This is why I support some kind of arena/battleground/combat simulator/whatever - the details itself aren't something I'm wedded to, but I would like to be able to log into EVE, mash a button, and be able to play for half an hour and then log off. You really think EVE needs to have battlegrounds/turned into WOT or something like that?
See my "Hi-sec manifesto" thread for an expanded PoV. Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
364
|
Posted - 2012.01.14 19:41:00 -
[490] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:See my "Hi-sec manifesto" thread for an expanded PoV.
Ahh... I've not read all 12 pages, but the OP sounds good.
|
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
769
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 11:41:00 -
[491] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Malcanis wrote:See my "Hi-sec manifesto" thread for an expanded PoV. Ahh... I've not read all 12 pages, but the OP sounds good.
I'll give you the TL:DR version of the other 12 pages - its mostly people upset and accusing Malcanis of being a "l33t pvp-er who's out to destroy carebears and wants to turn Jita into nullsec", while skipping over the part of the manifesto where Malcanis argues for and provides examples of why high sec casual players deserve more ways to protect themselves from aggressive activity in the first place. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
217
|
Posted - 2012.01.16 15:31:00 -
[492] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: A) I've banged this drum for a while now - EVE needs some quick action options, but they don't even need to be in nullsec. Running a mission isn't 'quick action', it's 'quick stab your eyeballs out from sheer boredom'. This is why I support some kind of arena/battleground/combat simulator/whatever - the details itself aren't something I'm wedded to, but I would like to be able to log into EVE, mash a button, and be able to play for half an hour and then log off. involving that had been discussed back in May, not in such exact terms, but I think it'd be a cool mechanic that deserves some focus.
This is a great drum to pick, you are right some quick action is what eve lacks most. ItGÇÖs why allot of people leave because eve is boring.
However I think the instanced combat/arena style is the easy/bad option and at least 2 better options are worth exploring first.
1) FW occupancy plexing. The plexes can be spread out and taken in anywhere from 10-20 minutes. If CCP let pilots in fw know when their complexes are being attacked then people could find combat in a few jumps all the time. It wouldn't be instanced made up combat because you never know who else is going to the plex. But the plexes are ship size restricted and they do not allow warping inside the plex. So it would be a great way to get allot of pvp without the use of arenas or instanced pvp. The npcs would need to be removed/modified so people donGÇÖt have to fit a pve ship. My sig has more of the idea.
People who don't like generally don't like it because they like to "hunt" for pvp and want people to have to have scouts everywhere. But like you said eve is fine for those with lots of time to wait and hunt for action. It offers nothing for those who don't want to wait.
2) If they do go an arena route make it so alliances would need to buy an arena and there would be construction materials needed to build it. They can install guns and ecm into the arena. But ships could still potentially crash the fight.(its eve) However then they would get the arena guns and ecm hitting them. It would be the equivalent of coliseums, but it would be all player run. No appealing to the ccp gods to keep it safe. Yes the coliseums could be destroyed as well in times of war but they could also just be taken over by whoever has sov there.
The coliseums could be set up with various sensors and requirements. Perhaps sometimes you can warp out without penalty perhaps you asplode if you warp out. Sometimes you could warp back in sometimes not. Sometimes your goal is to try to keep within a certain distance of a beacon for a certain amount of time. The coliseum would have different add ons that you can construct that would allow these different types of contests.
Null sec alliances might get the reputation for running fair tournaments that people like to join. Then those alliances could start running their own tournaments and charging admission and giving prizes.
Both options might work well but fixing the fw plexxing would lead to the more fun and crazy fights IMO.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Falin Whalen
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2012.01.21 22:08:00 -
[493] - Quote
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hQC3nkftrk You've got to remember that these are just simple miners. These are people of the land. The common clay of New Eden. You know... morons. |
Plutonian
Intransigent
58
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 08:52:00 -
[494] - Quote
Don't want to derail, but would like to address a comment:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I don't really understand why someone would try to "go it alone" in an MMO when there are a host of great single players games offering better solo gameplay.
Some pilots disdain groups and enjoy hunting other players. There are several factors which come into play, but the distinctions between them get blurred easily.
The Ultimate Game: No AI can emulate the deviousness found in a human being.
Schedule: The game will serve me, not vise-versa.
The Rebel: I refuse to group up, I'm not a cog in the wheel, I make my own destiny.
Anti-social: People are ****. Blow 'em up!
Something to Prove: I want to take on the world by myself... can I survive (and occasionally win) completely surrounded by my enemies?
Trial By Fire: It is generally accepted that learning PvP solo is far more accelerated (and brutal) than learning within a group.
It's a weird mix of those type things. I'd be willing to bet that a survey of the solo fighters of Eve would show every damn one of us played single player games on the hardest/impossible skill levels. In my case, I've modded games so it became harder than the developer-imposed highest skill level.
It's a hard thing to describe. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
859
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 09:57:00 -
[495] - Quote
Plutonian wrote:Don't want to derail, but would like to address a comment: Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: I don't really understand why someone would try to "go it alone" in an MMO when there are a host of great single players games offering better solo gameplay. Some pilots disdain groups and enjoy hunting other players. There are several factors which come into play, but the distinctions between them get blurred easily. The Ultimate Game: No AI can emulate the deviousness found in a human being. Schedule: The game will serve me, not vise-versa. The Rebel: I refuse to group up, I'm not a cog in the wheel, I make my own destiny. Anti-social: People are ****. Blow 'em up! Something to Prove: I want to take on the world by myself... can I survive (and occasionally win) completely surrounded by my enemies? Trial By Fire: It is generally accepted that learning PvP solo is far more accelerated (and brutal) than learning within a group. It's a weird mix of those type things. I'd be willing to bet that a survey of the solo fighters of Eve would show every damn one of us played single player games on the hardest/impossible skill levels. In my case, I've modded games so it became harder than the developer-imposed highest skill level. It's a hard thing to describe. I sometimes wonder if I play games for 'fun' at all.
No, I totally hear you. Living in lowsec I've been attacked by plenty of solo PvP'ers (in ships of all sizes) and have plenty of corpmates who are quite proficient in fighting alone themselves. This is also why I believe many of the best PvP'ers in the game live in lowsec because the smaller the fight, the more individual pilot talent matters. This scales all the way down to where those that fight alone are usually unmatched in skill and expertise.
I was probably thinking more along the lines of solo PvE content in MMO's, which is generally lackluster. This is true in EvE just as any other "terrestrial" MMO. Isk flamewars aside, no one really disagrees that Incursions foster cooperation and ended up being a helluvalot more fun and challenging than any of the missions that can be done solo.
PvP still feels social to me whether you're with a team or not in that you are directly seeking out other players to have fun, even if you aren't talking to them directly. (This is where The Mittani steps in and mentions something about the percentage of EvE players with Aspberger's.) I love logistics more than anything, and am not personally that competitive, so I've never really been one to go out seeking solo kills, but I have high respect for those that do. They usually have the most they can teach us. |
Mintrolio
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
51
|
Posted - 2012.01.27 10:08:00 -
[496] - Quote
CONFRIMIGN I THNKS IT NOT GETTIGN NOTICE PAGES 25 BUT
ALSO I JUST TO LEAFIGN THESE HEAR.
PLEAS TO PUTTIGN COPY ON OFFCIE WALL.
CSM 7 - SPRIGN IS COMIGN! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
226
|
Posted - 2012.01.28 07:14:00 -
[497] - Quote
Kissy Baby Threads like this generally result in anything positive.
Locked. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2719
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 12:54:00 -
[498] - Quote
It's almost election season, which means that actual issues will be abandoned in favor of trolling and raw hysteria among the hoi polloi - grab your popcorn!
I'll be running for Chairman again but I won't have any serious threads up until the candidacy period finishes. Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them! The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
866
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 15:31:00 -
[499] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:It's almost election season, which means that actual issues will be abandoned in favor of trolling and raw hysteria among the hoi polloi - grab your popcorn!
I'll be running for Chairman again but I won't have any serious threads up until the candidacy period finishes. Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them!
Confirming EvE Populace has zero qualms with the summit meetings and are 100% behind the council's proposals. |
Shazzam Vokanavom
Hedion University Amarr Empire
29
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 15:46:00 -
[500] - Quote
I predict I'm about to be threadnoughted. Very lame. |
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
232
|
Posted - 2012.01.31 21:13:00 -
[501] - Quote
Just a heads up on the minutes, Players are only allowed one vote to give. So they are overly paranoid about trust because of it. And are wishing minutes had more of the CSM who said what, that way they feel safer with their one vote they have.
i.e did Trebor say that, did Seleene say that or so on. Threads like this generally result in anything positive.
Locked. |
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 01:55:00 -
[502] - Quote
As a new player, I'm lamenting the restrictions that remaps place on my ability to adapt to new Fleet Doctrine changes and various skill plans I would like to follow. Training stuff takes forever.
In the interest of players new and old: How do you feel about Mapping jump clones? Not only would a Jump Clone hold your implants, but it would also hold an attribute map specific to that clone. The ability to hop between clones for various skills would make some of these 16-26day skills more tolerable. I've been playing for almost 3 months and something like this would get me into bigger fights faster, and allow me to live a little longer. (blackbirds are paper)
We have a great new player program in GSF, and I think something like this would allow us, along with every other alliance, to on-board new players even faster. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
241
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 03:04:00 -
[503] - Quote
Good luck trying to get that passed new powers sa, Alot of players have commited time to lvling skills up be hard to increase them faster. Best you can hope for is to get +3-5 learning implants, learn how to remap real well. Then go to bed praying every night CCP gives away more free gift remaps.
I honestly would just try to go for more free remaps before trying to get jump clones able to hold unique remaps. Threads like this generally result in anything positive.
Locked. |
None ofthe Above
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.01 23:58:00 -
[504] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:It's almost election season, which means that actual issues will be abandoned in favor of trolling and raw hysteria among the hoi polloi - grab your popcorn!
I'll be running for Chairman again but I won't have any serious threads up until the candidacy period finishes. Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them!
By this I'd say you aren't even reading the forums.
Not going to bother stating your positions until after the candidacy period FINISHES? Well glad to see you taking this all very seriously.
Tired of the current CSM? Vote for me, I am None ofthe Above!
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 00:02:00 -
[505] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:The Mittani wrote:It's almost election season, which means that actual issues will be abandoned in favor of trolling and raw hysteria among the hoi polloi - grab your popcorn!
I'll be running for Chairman again but I won't have any serious threads up until the candidacy period finishes. Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them! Not going to bother stating your positions until after the candidacy period FINISHES? Well glad to see you taking this all very seriously. Hey, trolling and raw hysteria are cool, he makes excellent points about my lack of popcorn (I must get some).
|
Largo Coronet
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 01:15:00 -
[506] - Quote
I'm not a fan of popcorn (working in a movie theater will do that to you), so I shall break out hard pretzels and cheap sodas. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
869
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 02:10:00 -
[507] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote: By this I'd say you aren't even reading the forums.
Not going to bother stating your positions until after the candidacy period FINISHES? Well glad to see you taking this all very seriously.
By this I'd say you aren't even reading the CSM election procedures.
There are multiple stages. First, you submit paperwork to CCP. They must vet you. Than they announce a list of candidates to be placed on the ballot. Those candidates must than gain the 100 signatures needed to become finalized candidates. After the final list of candidates is published, there is than another 7 days before voting begins.
This gives Mittens 3 weeks to campaign after the candidacy period but before polls close.
Well glad to see you taking your trolling very seriously. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2790
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 02:32:00 -
[508] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:The Mittani wrote:It's almost election season, which means that actual issues will be abandoned in favor of trolling and raw hysteria among the hoi polloi - grab your popcorn!
I'll be running for Chairman again but I won't have any serious threads up until the candidacy period finishes. Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them! By this I'd say you aren't even reading the forums. Not going to bother stating your positions until after the candidacy period FINISHES? Well glad to see you taking this all very seriously.
let's see, i'm me, you're you
i think i win this round of life The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
578
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 03:02:00 -
[509] - Quote
What is your stance on Lyris' independent bid for a CSM seat? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
869
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 10:14:00 -
[510] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:What is your stance on Lyris' independent bid for a CSM seat?
Ahhh yes I was curious about this as well. I keep hearing reports the strat this year was for Goons not to split but to rally behind Mittens alone. Lyris' campaign is, well, interesting to say the least. And even though I take everything a Goon says with a grain of salt I figure its just better to ask the man himself instead of speculating....
Mittens, do you foresee a threat to the Chairman's seat that would require you to rally the whole bloc to your side instead of splitting and grabbing two travelling seats like before? Or simply enjoy breaking some records?
|
|
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
585
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 10:22:00 -
[511] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:What is your stance on Lyris' independent bid for a CSM seat? Ahhh yes I was curious about this as well. I keep hearing reports the strat this year was for Goons not to split but to rally behind Mittens alone. Lyris' campaign is, well, interesting to say the least. And even though I take everything a Goon says with a grain of salt I figure its just better to ask the man himself instead of speculating.... Mittens, do you foresee a threat to the Chairman's seat that would require you to rally the whole bloc to your side instead of splitting and grabbing two travelling seats like before? Or simply enjoy breaking some records? I can tell you straight up that Lyris poses no threat to The Mittani's re-election. I'm more curious of what his opinion of it is. If Lyris gets elected, it wont be on goon votes. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
869
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 15:25:00 -
[512] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:What is your stance on Lyris' independent bid for a CSM seat? Ahhh yes I was curious about this as well. I keep hearing reports the strat this year was for Goons not to split but to rally behind Mittens alone. Lyris' campaign is, well, interesting to say the least. And even though I take everything a Goon says with a grain of salt I figure its just better to ask the man himself instead of speculating.... Mittens, do you foresee a threat to the Chairman's seat that would require you to rally the whole bloc to your side instead of splitting and grabbing two travelling seats like before? Or simply enjoy breaking some records? I can tell you straight up that Lyris poses no threat to The Mittani's re-election. I'm more curious of what his opinion of it is. If Lyris gets elected, it wont be on goon votes.
Naaahh, I know Lyris isn't a threat to The Mittani. I meant threat from a non-Goon. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
250
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 15:48:00 -
[513] - Quote
With the reduced seats having multiple goons might be wierd. Was thinking it would be fun to vote in goons across the board for all 7 seats. Wonder if there is enough beer in iceland for CCP to handle that. Threads like this generally result in anything positive.
Locked. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2798
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:43:00 -
[514] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:What is your stance on Lyris' independent bid for a CSM seat? Ahhh yes I was curious about this as well. I keep hearing reports the strat this year was for Goons not to split but to rally behind Mittens alone. Lyris' campaign is, well, interesting to say the least. And even though I take everything a Goon says with a grain of salt I figure its just better to ask the man himself instead of speculating.... Mittens, do you foresee a threat to the Chairman's seat that would require you to rally the whole bloc to your side instead of splitting and grabbing two travelling seats like before? Or simply enjoy breaking some records?
Realtalk: I got elected to chair with only 1750 GSF votes in CSM6; the rest of my 5365 votes came from non-GSF sources, likely due to name recognition and being something of a name. When CSM6 was elected, a huge chunk of the playerbase thought the CSM was a waste of time and powerless. After my tenure as Chair, most of the screeching has changed tone to 'CSM has too much power', so I suspect that people who appreciate what we've done will vote even harder for me in CSM7.
tl;dr is basically guessing how many votes I can actually muster from the non-GSF public; I'd like to get an impressive number above 5365 in order to demonstrate an outright mandate over and beyond my previous 'more votes than anyone in the csm's history' showing.
Re: Lyris, there are always independent goon candidates, they just don't have the formal backing of Goonfleet.com and don't aim for goon votes. I don't think it's actually necessary to stack the council with GSF voices, since I'm something of a persuasive guy, the CSM doesn't 'vote', and most null reps view the game through a similar lens. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
870
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:59:00 -
[515] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: Realtalk: I got elected to chair with only 1750 GSF votes in CSM6; the rest of my 5365 votes came from non-GSF sources, likely due to name recognition and being something of a name. When CSM6 was elected, a huge chunk of the playerbase thought the CSM was a waste of time and powerless. After my tenure as Chair, most of the screeching has changed tone to 'CSM has too much power', so I suspect that people who appreciate what we've done will vote even harder for me in CSM7.
tl;dr is basically guessing how many votes I can actually muster from the non-GSF public; I'd like to get an impressive number above 5365 in order to demonstrate an outright mandate over and beyond my previous 'more votes than anyone in the csm's history' showing.
Re: Lyris, there are always independent goon candidates, they just don't have the formal backing of Goonfleet.com and don't aim for goon votes. I don't think it's actually necessary to stack the council with GSF voices, since I'm something of a persuasive guy, the CSM doesn't 'vote', and most null reps view the game through a similar lens.
Enlightening. Thanks! |
None ofthe Above
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 19:59:00 -
[516] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:
let's see, i'm me, you're you
Mintchip? LOL
The Mittani wrote: i think i win this round of life
If you say so. You've done quite well for you self, no question.
The real question is whether you are the best person to lead the CSM forward. While you clearly have your strengths, other options should be considered.
Tired of the current CSM? Vote for me, I am None ofthe Above!
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
870
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:05:00 -
[517] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:The Mittani wrote:
let's see, i'm me, you're you
Mintchip? LOL
But is he evil? or SO evil? |
None ofthe Above
9
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 20:15:00 -
[518] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:None ofthe Above wrote: By this I'd say you aren't even reading the forums.
Not going to bother stating your positions until after the candidacy period FINISHES? Well glad to see you taking this all very seriously.
By this I'd say you aren't even reading the CSM election procedures. There are multiple stages. First, you submit paperwork to CCP. They must vet you. Than they announce a list of candidates to be placed on the ballot. Those candidates must than gain the 100 signatures needed to become finalized candidates. After the final list of candidates is published, there is than another 7 days before voting begins. This gives Mittens 3 weeks to campaign after the candidacy period but before polls close. Well glad to see you taking your trolling very seriously.
I do. Thank you very much for noticing.
I interpreted his comments as waiting for serious threads after the "final list of candidates" is published. Perhaps you are right that he meant after the candidates are vetted, but that's not an obvious way to read that.
I think my observation is still valid. Its a common tactic in "front-runners" to shut down communication and debate, and I don't think we should let that happen.
Tired of the current CSM? Vote for me, I am None ofthe Above!
|
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
37
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:42:00 -
[519] - Quote
I have three votes. What is the best way to spend them to ensure the next CSM is as good as this one? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2843
|
Posted - 2012.02.02 23:43:00 -
[520] - Quote
Ispia Jaydrath wrote:I have three votes. What is the best way to spend them to ensure the next CSM is as good as this one?
Vote for me. More votes = more mandate = more power.
vOv
ofc, every candidate will tell you to vote for them, so make up your own mind. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
Typherian
Legio Invicta Many Reckless Corps
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:15:00 -
[521] - Quote
Hell I'm a former BOB-*** and I'm voting for mittani. Only things I think really need fixing have already been stated a billion times over. Just gotta be sure to keep CCP going the way they are going instead of meandering back onto their road to oblivion via barbies and the like and all will be swell. Don't care bout what the goons do in nullsec what the CSM has been doing for eve is whats important.
EDIT: This may have already been asked but reading this whole thread would make my eyes hurt. I'm not really sure blasters need any more buffing. They are pretty nasty with all the Null changes. I do on the other hand think railguns still suck. Do we know if they are getting specific buffs or will it continue as changes to hybrids overall? |
Typherian
Legio Invicta Many Reckless Corps
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:25:00 -
[522] - Quote
wtf forums making me double post and quote myself. Hopefully the forums eat this damned thing. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
36
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 01:25:00 -
[523] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Vote for me. More votes = more mandate = more power.
vOv
ofc, every candidate will tell you to vote for them, so make up your own mind. Seconding this post. Follow this man's advice, you'll be thankful you did! |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
245
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 02:54:00 -
[524] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: .....When CSM6 was elected, a huge chunk of the playerbase thought the CSM was a waste of time and powerless. After my tenure as Chair, most of the screeching has changed tone to 'CSM has too much power', ....
I don't recall anyone saying that recently. I think you complained that CCP was listening to csm 5. But after that there was very few who thought ccp was listening to csm too much. In fact, your saying that of csm 5 may have been the only time anyone ever complained CSM had too much power.
I think the concerns are still that CSM is a pr stunt for ccp. The "emergency summit" where you attempted damage control for ccp and your "defense of incarna" definitely increased that perception. But alas it wasn't enough and people kept unsubbing. So ccp had to actually work on their product and hence we get crucible.
Yes CSM 6 did seem to eventually come around and encourage ccp to work on EVE. CSM6 was ridiculously late in the game but it did eventually happen. So IGÇÖm glad you all finally came around.
The other screeching has to do with CSM 6 now just giving their own personal opinions behind the closed door of the nda. Most of these personal opinions never got the support of players via assembly hall. Did *anything* CSM 6 said in the minutes get an assembly hall vote?
So when we get the minutes and read you guys recommending things no one even heard of, let alone supported I think they are like "yeah whatever we have nothing to do with any of this crap."
Now if you mean that csm has *in-game* power because of the increased nda information you are privy to, then yeah a bit of concern was expressed. I myself raised that issue, but really no one seemed to care. Oh well.
If you guys were so powerfull the forums wouldn't eat so many posts. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2871
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 03:35:00 -
[525] - Quote
You're one of the screechers, of course; you screeched back when I ran for CSM6, and you're still screeching.
But hey, at least you're not in ~The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION~ anymore (tildes mine, actual corp name otherwise, no troll) so maybe someone could accidentally take your posts seriously. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
597
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 05:52:00 -
[526] - Quote
Typherian wrote:Hell I'm a former BOB-*** and I'm voting for mittani. Only things I think really need fixing have already been stated a billion times over. Just gotta be sure to keep CCP going the way they are going instead of meandering back onto their road to oblivion via barbies and the like and all will be swell. Don't care bout what the goons do in nullsec what the CSM has been doing for eve is whats important.
EDIT: This may have already been asked but reading this whole thread would make my eyes hurt. I'm not really sure blasters need any more buffing. They are pretty nasty with all the Null changes. I do on the other hand think railguns still suck. Do we know if they are getting specific buffs or will it continue as changes to hybrids overall?
I fly gallente a whole lot and completely agree. I honestly considered blasters very well balanced before the null change. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
245
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:12:00 -
[527] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:You're one of the screechers, of course; you screeched back when I ran for CSM6, and you're still screeching.
But hey, at least you're not in ~The IMPERIUM of LaZy NATION~ anymore (tildes mine, actual corp name otherwise, no troll) so maybe someone could accidentally take your posts seriously.
Yeah whatever. What I said is true. You know it. So you didn't/can't take issue with any particular point I made.
I'm certainly not screeching that csm6 has too much power over ccp. lol.
You were the one screeching to your alliance that ccp is listening to csm 5. You can try to deny it but the internet remembers this sort of thing.
I'm also not entirely unhappy with you guys/csm6 so no reason to get upset.
And what is the problem with my old corp? Your lazier than I am retiring before 30 and all. I can't believe someone from goose swarm is saying they can't take my posts seriously because of my corp. ffs! Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
871
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 06:47:00 -
[528] - Quote
Cearain wrote: And what is the problem with my old corp? Your lazier than I am retiring before 30 and all. I can't believe someone from goose swarm is saying they can't take my posts seriously because of my corp. ffs!
You know you're probably giving him a woodie right now, Cearain. He loves hearing this stuff. |
Steel Heid
Risk Breakers C0NVICTED
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.03 20:43:00 -
[529] - Quote
Regarding the issue of supercap proliferation, what are your views regarding the various proposals of introducing a new class of heavy bombers, using citadel torps and/or heavy 'doomsday' bombs, instead of direct nerfing or changing mechanics? Ideas such as this mainly. Advantages would be:
- it adds new content to the game, new stuff to build and blob up - it's a more natural way from a RP/mechanic/whatever point of view to say "in response to this [...] , a new weapon was developed", rather than "your super works like this, and now it doesn't" - which means supercap owners won't be able to complain about their stuff getting nerfed. Hey, your super is just as powerfull as it used to be. You can still drop 30 titans at will... |
Adolf Hilmar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 10:10:00 -
[530] - Quote
As a nullsec resident deeply involved in the EVE endgame, I strongly believe CCP management is the greatest danger to my gameplay. Therefore I will be voting all three of my accounts for The Mittani, King of Space. He is the only candidate with a proven track record of thwarting CCP's terrible plans. I hope my support will give him an even larger cudgel to beat CCP in CSM7.
-Adolf Hilmar, concerned voter |
|
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
64
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 18:03:00 -
[531] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them! Well, some people post on the comments thread of the devblog, and others on the related thread on Jita Park instead of ITT.
The Mittani wrote:I got elected to chair with only 1750 GSF votes in CSM6; the rest of my 5365 votes came from non-GSF sources, How do you know this? |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous
874
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:24:00 -
[532] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:The Mittani wrote:I got elected to chair with only 1750 GSF votes in CSM6; the rest of my 5365 votes came from non-GSF sources, How do you know this?
Because he know's what he's doing. When you have an alliance full of *enough* sheep (not saying every Goon is incapable of thinking for themselves), its pretty easy to command a specific number of them to vote one way, and the others to vote the rest.
Mittens has the capability to cause GSF to either vote completely for himself, or to divide their votes between other candidates.
The 1750 votes was probably by design.
As for guaranteeing the other 3500 votes, that was a coordinated work with the Clusterfuck Coalition, containing leaders of other alliances with equally high compliance rates when giving out vote orders.
To win an election in EvE, you can't just "throw your hat" into the ring and pray for good results. The winning candidates, year after year, are those that have taken the time to guarantee their own voter base, and usually know how many votes they will get, and from where, long before the talking heads make their predictions or the first vote is ever cast.
That's the perennial challenge for the non-0.0 candidates. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
43
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:26:00 -
[533] - Quote
Adolf Hilmar wrote:As a nullsec resident deeply involved in the EVE endgame, I strongly believe CCP management is the greatest danger to my gameplay. Therefore I will be voting all three of my accounts for The Mittani, King of Space. He is the only candidate with a proven track record of thwarting CCP's terrible plans. I hope my support will give him an even larger cudgel to beat CCP in CSM7.
-Adolf Hilmar, concerned voter This is beautiful.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2777
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 21:38:00 -
[534] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Che Biko wrote:The Mittani wrote:I got elected to chair with only 1750 GSF votes in CSM6; the rest of my 5365 votes came from non-GSF sources, How do you know this? Because he know's what he's doing. When you have an alliance full of *enough* sheep ...
Occam's razor.
Malcanis' Law: Any proposal justified on the basis that "it will benefit new players" is invariably to the greater advantage of older, richer players.
Things to do in EVE:-áhttp://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/ |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2915
|
Posted - 2012.02.05 22:26:00 -
[535] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:The Mittani wrote:Amusingly, the release of the minutes didn't see much action itt, so I assume you all loved them! Well, some people post on the comments thread of the devblog, and others on the related thread on Jita Park instead of ITT. The Mittani wrote:I got elected to chair with only 1750 GSF votes in CSM6; the rest of my 5365 votes came from non-GSF sources, How do you know this?
Because we had a system on our forums which would tell GSF members to either vote for myself or Vile Rat based on whether their forum ids were even or odd numbers, and then an exit poll page which would track how many accounts they used to vote for their designated candidate. This let us track to ensure we had a roughly even split, so that people didn't just mash vote for me and leave Vile Rat hanging. I was told to vote for Vile Rat, so I did!
Of course, self-reporting is always open to misrepresentation, blah blah. But about ~1750 for each myself and VR from GSF. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Mintrolio
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
72
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 00:40:00 -
[536] - Quote
CONFRIMIGN THAT IS LOT OF VOTE.
ALSO I AM HOPE I GETTIGN JUST HALF THESE VOTE MAYBE EVEN ONE QUARTR.
ALSO I FINDIGN IT DIFFICUTL TO BELEAF THET SUCH A ~POPLUAR~ SPACEMAN MUST TELLIGN PEEPOL TO VOTIGN FUR HIM - SURLY YOU TROLL US AGAIN.
ALSO YOU SUCH A KIDDER!
KEEP UP THE GOOD POASTIGN! MINTROLIO FUR CSM7 |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
64
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 13:49:00 -
[537] - Quote
Hmm, that answer does two things for me: - It strengthens my dislike for strategic voting. - It shows a reason why candidates that have no ties with large alliances/corps/blocs could indeed be at a disadvantage, at least initially.
3500 votes, that was about 3/5 of GSF, right? And the total amount of EVE population voting for the CSM was 14.25%.
As I see it there no way a group of independant people could organize themselves in a way that would attract a similar amount of votes from people that would otherwise not vote for the CSM, or to organize and monitor voting in a similar way (yes, I am assuming a lot of goons would not have voted for the CSM if they were not asked to vote for one of their members.) They don't have the pre-existing communication lines with large amounts of players (not to mention the command and obey nature of the mentioned groups). This gives large alliances/corps/blocs candidates an advantage other candidates do not have. Candidates belonging to large groups could possibly be voted into the CSM just because they asked their groups to do so.
Do you see this possible advantage as a problem, and if not, why not? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
45
|
Posted - 2012.02.06 20:35:00 -
[538] - Quote
Well, we could try direct democracy by putting things constantly to referendum, as people suggested. But it would mean what would effectively be a perpetual election.
After the 50th minor issue, all the debating over everything will just wear out the illustrious EVE-O forums (where everyone has their say) and when eventually something big appears, guess who'll be performing coordinated butan push. |
Adolf Hilmar
Republic University Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 01:58:00 -
[539] - Quote
Why do charismatic and effective leaders keep winning elections? The union of space nobodies demands an answer! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
257
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:42:00 -
[540] - Quote
Adolf hilmar what would be your final solution to our problems? Force the jews to pay the micro-transaction costs instead of us players? Plus we get the cool goggles and clothes still, but off of jew labor? Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
|
Bromothymol
Ixion Defence Systems Tactical Narcotics Team
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 04:52:00 -
[541] - Quote
In the last CSM election procedings you (mittens) spoke frequently about the limitations of the CSM, encouraging people who would listen to maintain a realistic view of what the CSM can and can not accomplish. With a year on the CSM under your belt, do you see the role of the CSM any differently now? What are realistic expectations for us plebians for the CSM in the next 12 months, barring any more emergency summits?
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 13:04:00 -
[542] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Quebber wrote:You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.
How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.
This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters. It's impossible for me to tell who's a dedicated ratter and who's a 'bot', and it's not my job. I'm not paid by CCP to play GM. If you find a bot, click 'report bot' and the Security Team - who actually has access to logs and evidence - can sort things out. Alliance leaders have no evidence, just hearsay and endless finger-pointing. Witch hunts accomplish nothing save feed the egos of the ignorant and self-righteous (that's you).
I have read somewhere that your position on this in your alliance is that if you rat on a fellow goon for botting you get kicked.
Please clarify what your personal stance is on this issue and if necessary explain how you justify setting a double standard; one for your fellow goons and one for the rest of the community.
|
N'maro Makari
The Synenose Accord Celestial Imperative
33
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 13:08:00 -
[543] - Quote
Do you have any plans for lo sec, hi sec and/or WH space communities? N'maro Makari Special Investigative Officer The Synenose Accord Celestial Imperative |
Orion GUardian
118
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 14:03:00 -
[544] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:Quebber wrote:You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.
How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.
This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters. It's impossible for me to tell who's a dedicated ratter and who's a 'bot', and it's not my job. I'm not paid by CCP to play GM. If you find a bot, click 'report bot' and the Security Team - who actually has access to logs and evidence - can sort things out. Alliance leaders have no evidence, just hearsay and endless finger-pointing. Witch hunts accomplish nothing save feed the egos of the ignorant and self-righteous (that's you). I have read somewhere that your position on this in your alliance is that if you rat on a fellow goon for botting you get kicked. Please clarify what your personal stance is on this issue and if necessary explain how you justify setting a double standard; one for your fellow goons and one for the rest of the community.
The goosn position on this is: It is not their job to find botters and report them that is the work of the GMs. You cannot prove that anyone you suspect is really a botter.
At the same time they have a kind of code "Don't **** a fellow goon" which reaches in all areas. no blue shooting, no detsroying of assets no stealing etc. And yes no "reporting" of any kind because they cannot proof it anyway and might just bring alot of unjustified attention ot a fellow member that might just have been very diligent.
So instead of going into witch hunts, reporting everyone and their mom for suspected botting they just leave it to the GMs to find perpetrators. That has nothing to do with double standards.
I mean: How would YOU as a player PROVE that someone is using a Macro? You can't, there are only indicators but never proof. So its just "When in doubt, innocent!".
Example: If a friend of yours eats alot of chocolate bars but you have never seen him buy one. YOu may suspect he STEALS chocolate bars but would you report him to the police because you COULD come to the conclusion? (If yes I don't want to be a friend of yours ;))
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2958
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 15:22:00 -
[545] - Quote
Che Biko wrote: As I see it there no way a group of independant people could organize themselves in a way that would attract a similar amount of votes from people that would otherwise not vote for the CSM, or to organize and monitor voting in a similar way (yes, I am assuming a lot of goons would not have voted for the CSM if they were not asked to vote for one of their members.) They don't have the pre-existing communication lines with large amounts of players (not to mention the command and obey nature of the mentioned groups). This gives large alliances/corps/blocs candidates an advantage other candidates do not have. Candidates belonging to large groups could possibly be voted into the CSM just because they asked their groups to do so.
Do you see this possible advantage as a problem, and if not, why not?
People always get mad at the idea that organization matters in democracy, and imply that organization is somehow undemocratic.
Mostly, I just chuckle when people reach for authoritarian solutions while bleating about 'real' democracy when someone they dislike wins due to (gasp) having more votes. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2958
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 15:26:00 -
[546] - Quote
Bromothymol wrote:In the last CSM election procedings you (mittens) spoke frequently about the limitations of the CSM, encouraging people who would listen to maintain a realistic view of what the CSM can and can not accomplish. With a year on the CSM under your belt, do you see the role of the CSM any differently now? What are realistic expectations for us plebians for the CSM in the next 12 months, barring any more emergency summits?
The situation is a bit more fluid these days. After the Jita Riots/Emergency summit, the CSM has much more influence than it did previously, as CCP's management appears to have stopped drinking koolaid. But then, influence is by nature fluid.
I still think that 'pet issue' candidates are a waste of time, and it's better to focus on effective advocates for constituencies. IE, a solid WH guy, a solid FW guy, a solid lowsec guy, etc. The primary purpose of the modern, post-CSM6 is an advocacy group, happy to try to work with CCP towards common goals, but alert and prepared to fight against virtual pants or anomaly nerf blogs. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2958
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 15:32:00 -
[547] - Quote
N'maro Makari wrote:Do you have any plans for lo sec, hi sec and/or WH space communities?
Nope. My value to those communities comes from the fact that the CSM under my guidance is an effective body that gets things done. I personally defer to folks like Two Step on WH issues or Meissa on lowsec issues, or forward the commentary of outside experts such as Hans to CCP w/r/t FW. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:07:00 -
[548] - Quote
Orion GUardian wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:Quebber wrote:You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.
How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.
This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters. It's impossible for me to tell who's a dedicated ratter and who's a 'bot', and it's not my job. I'm not paid by CCP to play GM. If you find a bot, click 'report bot' and the Security Team - who actually has access to logs and evidence - can sort things out. Alliance leaders have no evidence, just hearsay and endless finger-pointing. Witch hunts accomplish nothing save feed the egos of the ignorant and self-righteous (that's you). I have read somewhere that your position on this in your alliance is that if you rat on a fellow goon for botting you get kicked. Please clarify what your personal stance is on this issue and if necessary explain how you justify setting a double standard; one for your fellow goons and one for the rest of the community. The goosn position on this is: It is not their job to find botters and report them that is the work of the GMs. You cannot prove that anyone you suspect is really a botter. At the same time they have a kind of code "Don't **** a fellow goon" which reaches in all areas. no blue shooting, no detsroying of assets no stealing etc. And yes no "reporting" of any kind because they cannot proof it anyway and might just bring alot of unjustified attention ot a fellow member that might just have been very diligent. So instead of going into witch hunts, reporting everyone and their mom for suspected botting they just leave it to the GMs to find perpetrators. That has nothing to do with double standards. I mean: How would YOU as a player PROVE that someone is using a Macro? You can't, there are only indicators but never proof. So its just "When in doubt, innocent!". Example: If a friend of yours eats alot of chocolate bars but you have never seen him buy one. YOu may suspect he STEALS chocolate bars but would you report him to the police because you COULD come to the conclusion? (If yes I don't want to be a friend of yours ;))
Thank you for responding on behalf of the candidate GÇô it is a pity he doesnGÇÖt want to answer the question directly but it is understandable.
He says GÇ£If you find a bot, click 'report botGÇ¥, but you say GÇ£Don't **** a fellow goon". These are entirely contradictory positions to take.
Again I ask Mittani to clarify his position on this important issue. Does he support CCP in their efforts to eliminate RMT and botting or is he the pro RMT and botting candidate that advocates not reporting suspected bots?
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2962
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:09:00 -
[549] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:
Thank you for responding on behalf of the candidate GÇô it is a pity he doesnGÇÖt want to answer the question directly but it is understandable.
He says GÇ£If you find a bot, click 'report botGÇ¥, but you say GÇ£Don't **** a fellow goon". These are entirely contradictory positions to take.
Again I ask Mittani to clarify his position on this important issue. Does he support CCP in their efforts to eliminate RMT and botting or is he the pro RMT and botting candidate that advocates not reporting suspected bots?
this is a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question, ARE YOU A PRO RMT PRO BOT CANDIDATE
i don't grace people like you with answers, it's been discussed at length in this thread previously but you're too lazy to read and don't actually care, you just want to bleat
baaa baaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1037
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:12:00 -
[550] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: At the summit, CCP suggested testing new capture mechanics on FW; the idea didn't originate with me. There was no discussion of 'linking' the systems as you imply.
Stop trying to use me as a boogeyman and mentioning me in every other post, or if you do it, you should at least get the facts straight.
CSM Minutes wrote:Some CSMs suggested that FW could be used as a testbed for new capture mechanics, since FW would be smaller scale than nullsec.
(emphasis mine)
Would you mind sharing with the voter community who exactly suggested this? You have already stated it wasn't you. I'm hoping you can either clarify this, or if you don't feel comfortable outing the person who proposed this initially, I'm hoping the CSM6 member who did has the integrity to step forth and take responsibility.
Thank you, much appreciated!
|
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2962
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:14:00 -
[551] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Would you mind sharing with the voter community who exactly suggested this? You have already stated it wasn't you. I'm hoping you can either clarify this, or if you don't feel comfortable outing the person who proposed this initially, I'm hoping the CSM6 member who did has the integrity to step forth and take responsibility.
Thank you, much appreciated!
I'm pretty sure it came from CCP first, but I certainly agree with it. I'd rather new capture mechanics be tested on FW before being inflicted on nullsec.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:42:00 -
[552] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:
Thank you for responding on behalf of the candidate GÇô it is a pity he doesnGÇÖt want to answer the question directly but it is understandable.
He says GÇ£If you find a bot, click 'report botGÇ¥, but you say GÇ£Don't **** a fellow goon". These are entirely contradictory positions to take.
Again I ask Mittani to clarify his position on this important issue. Does he support CCP in their efforts to eliminate RMT and botting or is he the pro RMT and botting candidate that advocates not reporting suspected bots?
this is a 'when did you stop beating your wife' question, ARE YOU A PRO RMT PRO BOT CANDIDATE i don't grace people like you with answers, it's been discussed at length in this thread previously but you're too lazy to read and don't actually care, you just want to bleat baaa baaaa baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
And still no answer.
Question: How do you justify your contradictory position on reporting bots? You encourage the general EVE playerbase to use the report a bot feature, but kick your own corp members if they report one of their own. Please explain, or can we just assume that goonies are special little snowflakes who are allowed to ignore the rules? |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
64
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 16:56:00 -
[553] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:People always get mad at the idea that organization matters in democracy, and imply that organization is somehow undemocratic. Well, part of a democratic process is that they get equal "media exposure". One could say that the goons have a similar advantage as a candidate in control of a nations media, like Berlusconi or some "elected" dictators. (I know this is somewhat of a mismatched comparison, but I can't think of a better real-world comparison at the moment.)
How would a candidate be able to build an organization that has the same benefits as the one you belong to? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2973
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 17:16:00 -
[554] - Quote
Goonswarm has no special media coverage on the eve-o forums; in fact, we mostly ignore these forums as they're a cesspool and largely irrelevant to the election process.
You're making a democracy+ argument; democracy is voting ~plus~ x, y and z. Any candidate can make an organization to back them, as long as they have the leadership talent and skill. 90% of CSM candidates are typical EVE spergs, however, and assume that with a spreadsheet and a few long-winded posts they should sail to victory, and when they don't sail to victory it's a failure on the part of the process, rather than a failure to organize. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
64
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 17:46:00 -
[555] - Quote
I did not say that you had special coverage on the eve forum, I was talking about the goon forum. What you said that only makes the state media comparison more valid: goons regard the eve forum as irrelevant to the election process and thus some goons will not even know about other candidates who post there and not on the goon forum.
I don't see the democracy + argument, I am just talking about what is generally considered one of the requirements for a free election. That includes things like having multiple parties, anonymous voting, and equal media coverage. While this is not in a strict sense part of the democratic definition, it is part of a democracy as I'd like to see it.
I know any candidate can make an organization from scratch to back them, but not every candidate can use an existing organization. Having communication lines with thousands of people who mostly ignore the forums is not something you can just create out of thin air. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2975
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 17:59:00 -
[556] - Quote
Che Biko wrote: I know any candidate can make an organization from scratch to back them, but not every candidate can use an existing organization. Having communication lines with thousands of people who mostly ignore the forums is not something you can just create out of thin air.
Hi, I've been a director in Goonfleet since January 2006 and have helped build GSF up from nothing in S-U8A4 - despite the entire game banding together to try to kill us and drive us out for ~daring~ to play Eve Online and not be a part of their old guard club - to being somewhat successful in nullsec.
I helped build my organization, as did the rest of our people. It took work and overcoming more opposition than anyone has seen in this game; we had to win the Great War, with the help of our allies, to even survive.
~so sorry~ if I don't give a **** about your 'a bloo bloo bloo goons have a powerful organization' whines. We built it, because you all tried to destroy us. When you kick puppies, sometimes those puppies grow up to become wolves, and then they vote with discipline and purpose and take over the CSM. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2975
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 18:01:00 -
[557] - Quote
why are candidates who post a bad thread with no backing or organization getting steamrolled by those who have been in leadership positions for years with the same group of pilots through incredible adversity?
it must be because ~nullsec people are sheep~, rite? The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
64
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 18:26:00 -
[558] - Quote
Yeah, I knew I should have written "existing, non-CSM-related organization". It seems you think having to build a goon size alliance is now a perfectly acceptable requirement for equal CSM election participation.
BTW I love how your respectful composure is lost when someone does not conform to your opinion or shuts up within 3 posts of discussion, and start calling them whiners, stupid or other degoratory terms. Chairman material. I wish you acted the same in your discussions with the CSM and CCP. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2982
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 18:30:00 -
[559] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:Yeah, I knew I should have written "existing, non-CSM-related organization". It seems you think having to build a goon size alliance is now a perfectly acceptable requirement for equal CSM election participation. BTW I love how your respectful composure is lost when someone does not conform to your opinion or shuts up within 3 posts of discussion, and start calling them whiners, stupid or other degoratory terms. Chairman material. I wish you acted the same in your discussions with the CSM and CCP.
yeah, because everyone's opinion deserves respect
lawl The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Taedrin
Kushan Industrial
333
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 19:33:00 -
[560] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:
And still no answer.
Question: How do you justify your contradictory position on reporting bots? You encourage the general EVE playerbase to use the report a bot feature, but kick your own corp members if they report one of their own. Please explain, or can we just assume that goonies are special little snowflakes who are allowed to ignore the rules?
Edit: No it hasn't been discussed in this thread previously, so please answer the question.
How the hell can mittens tell if one of his members reported another member for botting or not? I'm just a pubbie, but I *HIGHLY* doubt that mittens has some sort of anti-bot-reporting counter intelligence system set up to weed out members who report bots to CCP. That's just plain silly. The fact of the matter is that if a goon wanted to report another goon for botting, there is nothing that mittens can do to stop it.
Now, I wouldn't actually put it past mittens to have actually be opposed to goons reporting other goons. But I wouldn't put it past him to be the other way around either. We are just a couple of pubbies and the only thing we can see out here is a bunch of hot gas being spouted between two sides of an argument.
If you think that he is a bot loving RMTer, then don't vote for him - simple as that. If you hate that he is a self-admitted sadistic bastard, then don't vote for him.
As for me, I may yet vote for him - I begrudgingly admit that the CSM has been surprisingly competent and effective under his leadership. I highly doubt that he has some sort of hidden tin-foil-hattery agenda to revive some sort of age-old plot to destroy EVE. He has had PLENTY of chances to allow CCP to do just that this past year. |
|
Raptor217
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 20:29:00 -
[561] - Quote
Mittani how are you going to celebrate you're reelection?
Also, never stop shazbotting or spamming fractals. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
50
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 21:12:00 -
[562] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:I highly doubt that he has some sort of hidden tin-foil-hattery agenda to revive some sort of age-old plot to destroy EVE. He has had PLENTY of chances to allow CCP to do just that this past year. It would doubtless be a lot harder than nodding and saying "oh yes, titans are perfectly balanced" and "we love walking in stations."
Might have to try something like "funnel some dev time into Dust, the trickle down effects will definitely be worth it". |
Zordon
Sundown Logistics SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.08 21:48:00 -
[563] - Quote
Sir Mitten's
About the nullsec miner, for us that 'wish' to support large construction methods, would you toss around the idea of Random-roids in the grav site?
To explain this, the small grav site has a ginormous Spodumain rock that the site is anchored around... It's roughly 4 mil m3 in size or 250,000 units. Even if this rock would shift as the site respawns with different ores, totaling in the same (average) value based on the market. (IE with 16 base types of ore, shift based off how common in new-eden they are)
This would have a minimal effect on the actual isk value of the site, but lead to self-sustainability for 0.0 alliances with a strong industrial side. And also lead to a change in need for the mineral compression from high-sec. The compressions would still be needed because building a titan still needs loads of minerals and I know nobody that would mine that in an efficient manner.
I know this is a fail post, and definatly troll worthy, but I hope it comes across as understandable and you could possibly lay out an answer.
Zordon Monkey 4 Life |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 07:55:00 -
[564] - Quote
Taedrin wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:
And still no answer.
Question: How do you justify your contradictory position on reporting bots? You encourage the general EVE playerbase to use the report a bot feature, but kick your own corp members if they report one of their own. Please explain, or can we just assume that goonies are special little snowflakes who are allowed to ignore the rules?
Edit: No it hasn't been discussed in this thread previously, so please answer the question.
How the hell can mittens tell if one of his members reported another member for botting or not? I'm just a pubbie, but I *HIGHLY* doubt that mittens has some sort of anti-bot-reporting counter intelligence system set up to weed out members who report bots to CCP. That's just plain silly. The fact of the matter is that if a goon wanted to report another goon for botting, there is nothing that mittens can do to stop it. Now, I wouldn't actually put it past mittens to have actually be opposed to goons reporting other goons. But I wouldn't put it past him to be the other way around either. We are just a couple of pubbies and the only thing we can see out here is a bunch of hot gas being spouted between two sides of an argument. If you think that he is a bot loving RMTer, then don't vote for him - simple as that. If you hate that he is a self-admitted sadistic bastard, then don't vote for him. As for me, I may yet vote for him - I begrudgingly admit that the CSM has been surprisingly competent and effective under his leadership. I highly doubt that he has some sort of hidden tin-foil-hattery agenda to revive some sort of age-old plot to destroy EVE. He has had PLENTY of chances to allow CCP to do just that this past year.
I'm not asking him if his corp has an anti-bot program to sniff out members that bot. I have read that his rules for his corp are that if you report another member for botting, regardless of wether they are guilty or not, you get kicked. This seems to be in contradiction to his earlier statement in this thread where he encoraged players "if you see a bot, click report a bot".
I want clarification on this contradictory position. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1508
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 07:57:00 -
[565] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:This seems to be in contradiction to his earlier statement in this thread where he encoraged players "if you see a bot, click report a bot".
Only if you're desperately cherry picking quotes to try and make it look like he supports botting.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:02:00 -
[566] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:This seems to be in contradiction to his earlier statement in this thread where he encoraged players "if you see a bot, click report a bot". Only if you're desperately cherry picking quotes to try and make it look like he supports botting.
Have I quoted him out of context? If so I would be happy for him to tell me that. Of course that would mean that he is infact telling the playerbase "if you see a bot, DON'T click report a bot" which is not exactly a politically sound position to take is it?
Still waiting for the Mittani's clarification on this issue |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1999
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:06:00 -
[567] - Quote
imryn xaran you're a worthless pubbie roleplayer, hth yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
264
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:10:00 -
[568] - Quote
Imryn, I think the goons mean, dont come to the mittani to report another goon a bot or so. Or dont go to another goon to report a goon being a bot.
Think you might still be able to click on the report a bot, but let CCP do the work of removing them and handling the bot issues not other goons handling that. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:26:00 -
[569] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Imryn, I think the goons mean, dont come to the mittani to report another goon a bot or so. Or dont go to another goon to report a goon being a bot.
Think you might still be able to click on the report a bot, but let CCP do the work of removing them and handling the bot issues not other goons handling that.
Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked.
Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1508
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:31:00 -
[570] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:[quote=rodyas]Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked.
Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears
I can clarify it for you. The "leaked article" you read was correct. It is against Goonswarm Federation policy to report another member of the alliance for botting.
What are you confused about?
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1999
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:39:00 -
[571] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:rodyas wrote:Imryn, I think the goons mean, dont come to the mittani to report another goon a bot or so. Or dont go to another goon to report a goon being a bot.
Think you might still be able to click on the report a bot, but let CCP do the work of removing them and handling the bot issues not other goons handling that. Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked. Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears
like i said, you're a stupid pubbie
shoo, back to your asteroids and ice belts yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:44:00 -
[572] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:[quote=rodyas]Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked.
Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears I can clarify it for you. The "leaked article" you read was correct. It is against Goonswarm Federation policy to report another member of the alliance for botting. What are you confused about?
Thank you for that clarification, it is good to know that I didn't miss-remember what I read or get sucked in by a trolling article. Now all I need is the Mittani to clarify the contradictory positions he has taken on this issue.
How does he justify telling the playerbase that they should report bots if they see them, but telling his own alliance that they will be kicked if they report a fellow goon for botting. |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1113
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:49:00 -
[573] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Would you mind sharing with the voter community who exactly suggested this? You have already stated it wasn't you. I'm hoping you can either clarify this, or if you don't feel comfortable outing the person who proposed this initially, I'm hoping the CSM6 member who did has the integrity to step forth and take responsibility.
Thank you, much appreciated!
I'm pretty sure it came from CCP first, but I certainly agree with it. I'd rather new capture mechanics be tested on FW before being inflicted on nullsec.
Cool, cool. It's kind of water under the bridge who came up with it, right? Cat's out of the bag now.
I think the more important question is, what sort of mechanics do you have in mind that would work well for both Faction Warfare and null sec sovereignty?
If you've got some good ideas, I can be convinced to get my people on board. We should definitely be talking specifics here though, I don't want my supporters getting all riled up about "null sec mechanics in FW" if there really isn't anything to get all doomsday about.
If you can explain to the Faction Warfare community what options you endorse that might be tested, maybe we can deflate the whole argument before it gets too out of control.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1999
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 08:53:00 -
[574] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Ladie Harlot wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:[quote=rodyas]Well that's not what I read. In the (leaked) article I saw he clearly stated that any goon who reported a fellow goon to CCP for botting would be kicked.
Still awaiting clarification, and loving all the goon tears I can clarify it for you. The "leaked article" you read was correct. It is against Goonswarm Federation policy to report another member of the alliance for botting. What are you confused about? Thank you for that clarification, it is good to know that I didn't miss-remember what I read or get sucked in by a trolling article. Now all I need is the Mittani to clarify the contradictory positions he has taken on this issue. How does he justify telling the playerbase that they should report bots if the see them, but telling his own alliance that they will be kicked if they report a fellow goon for botting.
Gee, I don't know. Directors don't want to put up with petty ratting drama, and nobody in Goonswarm would want to be the "Director of Dealing with Stupid Bullshit Like Ratting Drama." Let's say that goons were allowed to shoot and report bots - every goddamn incident would be an incident that a diplomat or director would have to deal with, and it'd be a matter of one's word versus another's.
Basically, the answer is that there is more important crap to deal with than being CCP Sreegs' little helpers. yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 09:04:00 -
[575] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Cool, cool. It's kind of water under the bridge who came up with it, right? Cat's out of the bag now.
I think the more important question is, what sort of mechanics do you have in mind that would work well for both Faction Warfare and null sec sovereignty?
If you've got some good ideas, I can be convinced to get my people on board. We should definitely be talking specifics here though, I don't want my supporters getting all riled up about "null sec mechanics in FW" if there really isn't anything to get all doomsday about.
If you can explain to the Faction Warfare community what options you endorse that might be tested, maybe we can deflate the whole argument before it gets too out of control.
It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first. One man's scandal is another's good sense.
However, I don't have any specific ideas about capture mechanics, nor did CCP bring up any at the summit, so the entire discussion is moot save for riling up your base (which is fine, do what you gotta do). It's actually kind of funny how little nullsec CSMs want to discuss sov mechanic changes, unless you've lived through the swap from Pos War to Dominion mechanics. (it was bad) We're more interested in working on risk/reward balance, force projection issues, tech rebalancing, etc.
There's a widespread skepticism of CCP having 'good' capture mechanic ideas across the nullsec CSM reps, given the record of Dominion; most of null is worried that there'd be some kind of a sweeping revamp of the sov system that somehow makes things even worse. I think we'd prefer CCP beta-test ideas on a smaller population and see if they work out on a smaller scale, first. If CCP can fix FW somehow, great - but if they botch it, a la Dominion, then the damage is limited in scope. It sucks being a guinea pig, but FW has been neglected for so long that any attention at all is good attention.
The sov issue/capture mechanic issue is different from stuff like Dead Horse (modular POS revamp). Everyone wants Dead Horse, it's just a matter of getting it done. There's no debate about it, no question about it being cool. By contrast, no one has a silver bullet idea for a workable capture mechanic; it's been discussed to death for years across null and CCP and no consensus has emerged other than 'all of this sucks balls and pos war, while ******, was better'.
Conveniently, the post-Incarna CCP seems to be more interested in small iterative tweaks than grand revamps. We haven't seen any plans for sov revamps, and Stoffer mentioned in ~drinks with bolton~ a possible focus on pos stuff/dead horse after the upcoming expansion, which would imply that a major sov rework of any kind is at least 2+ expansions out.
FW hasn't come up much besides dumping your suggestions in their lap and saying 'this guy knows what's up, do what he says'. (You're welcome, by the by) Amusingly for your run, I suspect by the time the elections are over most of the design work on a FW revamp will be done, since CCP began work on the post-Crucible stuff shortly after the Dec summit. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3093
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 09:13:00 -
[576] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position.
you don't deserve one, sorry publord The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:11:00 -
[577] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position.
you don't deserve one, sorry publord
Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? That publicly you support CCPGÇÖs efforts to suppress botting and RMT in EVE, including use of the GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥ feature, but in private you tell your alliance that if they report a fellow goon for botting they will be kicked.
If you want us to take you as seriously as you obviously take yourself I suggest you start behaving like the big time space politician you obviously think you are and front up to this issue.
Either you support CCP on this or you donGÇÖt GÇô you canGÇÖt have it both ways.
|
Richard Desturned
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:42:00 -
[578] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position.
you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? That publicly you support CCPGÇÖs efforts to suppress botting and RMT in EVE, including use of the GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥ feature, but in private you tell your alliance that if they report a fellow goon for botting they will be kicked. If you want us to take you as seriously as you obviously take yourself I suggest you start behaving like the big time space politician you obviously think you are and front up to this issue. Either you support CCP on this or you donGÇÖt GÇô you canGÇÖt have it both ways.
why don't you post yet another GD thread about the mittani oppressing goons who only wish to report their fellow alliance members for botting |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:45:00 -
[579] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Hans Jagerblitzen wrote: Cool, cool. It's kind of water under the bridge who came up with it, right? Cat's out of the bag now.
I think the more important question is, what sort of mechanics do you have in mind that would work well for both Faction Warfare and null sec sovereignty?
If you've got some good ideas, I can be convinced to get my people on board. We should definitely be talking specifics here though, I don't want my supporters getting all riled up about "null sec mechanics in FW" if there really isn't anything to get all doomsday about.
If you can explain to the Faction Warfare community what options you endorse that might be tested, maybe we can deflate the whole argument before it gets too out of control.
It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first. One man's scandal is another's good sense.
Faction Warfare, The Official Guinea Pigs of New Eden. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3094
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:47:00 -
[580] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote: Faction Warfare, The Official Guinea Pigs of New Eden.
You guys could use some medical product testing, it beats being neglected since 2008.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 10:51:00 -
[581] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Vordak Kallager wrote: Faction Warfare, The Official Guinea Pigs of New Eden.
You guys could use some medical product testing, it beats being neglected since 2008.
As long as it makes my winter coat lustrous and shiny. |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1509
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 11:06:00 -
[582] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position.
you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar?
What, exactly, has he lied about? He's publicly stated that it's not cool for Goons to report other Goons and if he told some pubbies to report each other...what difference does it make? Are you expecting him to care a great deal about what the pubbies do with the bot reporting system?
If you want to accuse him of being some sort of RMT overlord then just man up and say it. The way you're currently going about it is embarrassing.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
55
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 11:43:00 -
[583] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position.
you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? What, exactly, has he lied about? He's publicly stated that it's not cool for Goons to report other Goons and if he told some pubbies to report each other...what difference does it make? Are you expecting him to care a great deal about what the pubbies do with the bot reporting system? If you want to accuse him of being some sort of RMT overlord then just man up and say it. The way you're currently going about it is embarrassing.
I, FOR ONE, WELCOME OUR HAS-ALWAYS-BEEN-HERE RMT OVERLORD. Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 11:46:00 -
[584] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: I want clarification on this contradictory position.
you don't deserve one, sorry publord Really? You are happy that anyone reading this thread will know that you appear to be a two faced liar? What, exactly, has he lied about? He's publicly stated that it's not cool for Goons to report other Goons and if he told some pubbies to report each other...what difference does it make? Are you expecting him to care a great deal about what the pubbies do with the bot reporting system? If you want to accuse him of being some sort of RMT overlord then just man up and say it. The way you're currently going about it is embarrassing.
He has publicly stated that he fully supports CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate botting, including GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥, but in his own alliance he has a rule to kick any member that reports another member for botting; therefore he has lied about his support for CCP on this.
I am not accusing him of being an RMT overlord, or anything like that, but I am asking him to clarify his position on the issue. I donGÇÖt expect him to be too concerned about an individual goon running a bot, but I would like to know how he can actively protect that goon while still claiming to support CCPGÇÖs anti botting initiatives.
This is a normal thing that politicians have to do. They get caught out in a lie or half-truth and they have to respond. The dumb ones refuse to answer, send out stooges to try to trash the person asking the question, or vilify them, or just to change the subject. The smart ones front up and make a statement, even if they have to eat a bit of humble pie. They answer the question and put the matter behind them.
So Mittani, what sort of politician are you?
Please clarify your contradictory position on supporting CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate bots. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 13:12:00 -
[585] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:He has publicly stated that he fully supports CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate botting, including GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥, but in his own alliance he has a rule to kick any member that reports another member for botting; therefore he has lied about his support for CCP on this.
I am not accusing him of being an RMT overlord, or anything like that, but I am asking him to clarify his position on the issue. I donGÇÖt expect him to be too concerned about an individual goon running a bot, but I would like to know how he can actively protect that goon while still claiming to support CCPGÇÖs anti botting initiatives.
This is a normal thing that politicians have to do. They get caught out in a lie or half-truth and they have to respond. The dumb ones refuse to answer, send out stooges to try to trash the person asking the question, or vilify them, or just to change the subject. The smart ones front up and make a statement, even if they have to eat a bit of humble pie. They answer the question and put the matter behind them.
So Mittani, what sort of politician are you?
Please clarify your contradictory position on supporting CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate bots.
wow it's like you glossed over every explanation in this thread
in any case, the way he runs his alliance is irrelevant to his CSM campaign - why do you insist on pushing such nonsense? |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 13:34:00 -
[586] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:He has publicly stated that he fully supports CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate botting, including GÇ£Report a botGÇ¥, but in his own alliance he has a rule to kick any member that reports another member for botting; therefore he has lied about his support for CCP on this.
I am not accusing him of being an RMT overlord, or anything like that, but I am asking him to clarify his position on the issue. I donGÇÖt expect him to be too concerned about an individual goon running a bot, but I would like to know how he can actively protect that goon while still claiming to support CCPGÇÖs anti botting initiatives.
This is a normal thing that politicians have to do. They get caught out in a lie or half-truth and they have to respond. The dumb ones refuse to answer, send out stooges to try to trash the person asking the question, or vilify them, or just to change the subject. The smart ones front up and make a statement, even if they have to eat a bit of humble pie. They answer the question and put the matter behind them.
So Mittani, what sort of politician are you?
Please clarify your contradictory position on supporting CCPGÇÖs efforts to eliminate bots. wow it's like you glossed over every explanation in this thread in any case, the way he runs his alliance is irrelevant to his CSM campaign - why do you insist on pushing such nonsense?
He has not made any explanation in this thread. Several stooges have stepped up, but do they speak for him? No they donGÇÖt.
The way he runs his alliance is very relevant in this case because his he has stated something in his campaign for CSM election that is completely contradicted in his running of his Alliance.
He is a politician GÇô his whole life (in EVE terms) is fair game. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 13:48:00 -
[587] - Quote
This place is less ~chill~ since Imryn started badposting; please GTFO and give me back my icicles before they melt! |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 13:55:00 -
[588] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:This place is less ~chill~ since Imryn started badposting; please GTFO and give me back my icicles before they melt!
Sure thing - right after I get an answer to my question. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 16:05:00 -
[589] - Quote
you're a nobody - why should anybody take you seriously? |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 16:27:00 -
[590] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:you're a nobody - why should anybody take you seriously?
I'm a person with a vote to cast (actually 4) just like you.
I am sure I will not be the only person who is interested in the answer to my question. Anyway, Mittani's nice "chill" thread seems to be off the rails until I get my answer, or make it blatantly obvious to even the most sycophantic Mittani fanboy that he is not going to give an answer, let alone a straight one. |
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 16:45:00 -
[591] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:you're a nobody - why should anybody take you seriously? I'm a person with a vote to cast (actually 4) just like you. I am sure I will not be the only person who is interested in the answer to my question. Anyway, Mittani's nice "chill" thread seems to be off the rails until I get my answer, or make it blatantly obvious to even the most sycophantic Mittani fanboy that he is not going to give an answer, let alone a straight one.
sperging out is what pubbies do best, yes |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
253
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:02:00 -
[592] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first..
The people who do null sec sov war are after completely different things in eve than people who are in low sec or doing faction war. Your suggestion that the mechanics be the same, or one be a test bed for the other, completely misses this fundamental point. I will make an attempt to spell this out for you because you clearly don't get it.
Yes there currently are more people in null sec. However, if CCP spent as much time thinking about and iterating on faction war and low sec and left null sec abandoned like they have low sec and faction war then the numbers would be more than reversed. The potential playerbase that would be attracted to low sec and faction war is much larger than the playerbase who can be attracted to null sec sov warfar.
Sov null sec is for people who are willing to dedicate allot of their lives to a computer game. They are willing to wait around a long time for those epic battles. The epic battles are indeed epic and when they happen its extremely high stakes for a computer game. That part is great and works out well for people like yourself who are retired or perhaps people in college who havenGÇÖt yet fully experienced the real life grind. IGÇÖm not putting this part of the game down at all. If I had allot of extra time I would probably do that myself. But the reality is I donGÇÖt have that sort of time. And I am allot more typical GÇô at least when it comes to adults who might play eve - than people like yourself who are retired and have lots of free time for computer games.
You said it yourself that one of the goals in sov warfare is to make it so the other side doesnGÇÖt want to sign on anymore. Well the problem is the things you have to do to in order to make the other side not want to sign in are extremely boring to allot of people. POS bashing Camping stations and gates never really getting anything but ganks and no really good fights for hours on end. This isnGÇÖt stuff allot of players find entertaining.
However, sov null sec has to be that way because the stakes are higher. The timers should be slow giving each side time to get their large fleets together. CCP canGÇÖt make it so that if you sign off for a few hours you find that when you log back on you lost your system and all your crap there. With the high stakes comes allot of boring downtime that is all there is to it.
Balancing or giving more isk for doing sov null sec stuff is just rolling that turd in glitter. I can only use isk in game and if the game play primarily consists of sitting around waiting for something to happen then itGÇÖs worthless. I couldnGÇÖt care less about it.
Faction war and low sec is for people who want to be entertained without committing their lives to a computer game. Think GÇ£better than tv.GÇ¥ I come home from work put the kids to bed and I have a an hour or two before bed. I can watch tv with my wife or I can go shoot some people in the face.
Like hans says the mechanics need to be set up to bring about frequent fun small scale fights. The faction war plexing mechanics seem to have been geared to do that but they have sat broken for years. These plex mechanics need to be fine tuned and balanced more often than anything else in eve.
If a group at ccp took it upon themselves to say it is their goal to tweak and balance the plex mechanics to make sure that there is always lots of small scale pvp happening in these plexes (and low sec general) the eve subscriber base would explode.
ItGÇÖs not going to be something where they just make one change and it works. It will need allot of fine tuning to get it going right. Lots of iterating. But it will be worth it to a much larger potential playerbase than sov null sec could ever hope to capture.
But instead it sits neglected. So what happens? I and many in low sec will often sign on and spend a few hours roaming around with no action at all. Sorry thatGÇÖs not even better than tv. String several nights like that together where I go to sleep thinking I should have watched a show instead of signing on and ccp loses subscribers.
Moreover, the fights should have *some* significance. I mean right now the low sec fights are just barely a step up from sisi. The stakes shouldnGÇÖt be so high that it turns into sov null sec but there should be some overarching goals that somewhat accurately measure who is doing well at the parts of the game people value.(i.e., who is doing well at small gang pvp) This is important so itGÇÖs not just a constant meaningless thunderdome.
I would also bet that many people who have the time to play the null sec sov stuff would like to head over to faction war and low sec if ccp actually developed it. Just for a change of pace.
TLDR:
Eve can work for people who have allot of time to play the game and for people who don't. But the same mechanics aren't always going to work for both sets of people.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:06:00 -
[593] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.... I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever
Come on Mittani.
That quote is from your post opening this thread.
Please can you clarify your position on supporting CCP's anti-bot and RMT initiatives when you actively protect goons that run bots. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:29:00 -
[594] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.... I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever Come on Mittani. That quote is from your post opening this thread. Please can you clarify your position on supporting CCP's anti-bot and RMT initiatives when you actively protect goons that run bots.
learn what the word "active" means
also he said it's for his constituents, so get out
i love how you manage to inflate "thou shalt not file petitions against other goons" into "WE ACTIVELY PROTECT BOTTERS LOL" i guess that's just autism at work??? |
Osabojo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
86
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 17:32:00 -
[595] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: Come on Mittani.
That quote is from your post opening this thread.
Please can you clarify your position on supporting CCP's anti-bot and RMT initiatives when you actively protect goons that run bots.
What's really dumb about your posting is not so much your deliberate refusal to understand things that have been explained more clearly and patiently than you deserve, but your seeming expectation that other people reading this thread are going to share your deliberate misunderstandings and false presuppositions, and go along with the implied claim that you are trying to bludgeon them with.
Perhaps I am overestimating the average reader of this thread, but I think most of them will find your hamfisted attempts to manipulate the discourse rather insulting, regardless of how they feel about The Mittani as CSM Chair.
|
Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc. Lonely Maple Conglomeration
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 18:31:00 -
[596] - Quote
What is your position on following issues of high sec warfare:
A) Neutral orcas in high sec wars http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Neutral_orcas_in_high_sec_wars_%28CSM%29
B) Neutral remote repers not getting aggression timer when remote repairing targets engaged in combat making them near invulnerable when positioned near stations.
Do you think those are problems CCP should address? If yes what changes to mechanic would you advocate and what level of priority would you put on those changes? |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
339
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 18:34:00 -
[597] - Quote
They can both be addressed by banning NPC corps and making individuals wardecable - neutral Orca/logi alt is wardec'd in turn. Ban NPC corps. Repeat until aggressor corporation has compiled a list of all the alts that need to be wardec'd the next time they want to take a swipe at the offending corp. |
Fractals 4Lyfe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:20:00 -
[598] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:They can both be addressed by banning NPC corps and making individuals wardecable - neutral Orca/logi alt is wardec'd in turn. Ban NPC corps. Repeat until aggressor corporation has compiled a list of all the alts that need to be wardec'd the next time they want to take a swipe at the offending corp.
That's just trying to bandaid something that's already broken. Why let them keep switching corps? If a tower is reinforced, then don't let it be transferred to another corp. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:21:00 -
[599] - Quote
Cearain wrote: :words::words::words::words::words::words: and more :words:
Mittens prefering to test 0.0 sov mechanics on FW, and Mittens (as the chairman) trying to push the CSM to advocate 0.0 sov mechanics to be tested on FW, are two entirely different arguments. His stance is from my understanding the former of the two.
Put the Drama Llama away? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
22
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:22:00 -
[600] - Quote
I do not believe it's possible to transfer an anchored tower between corps. |
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
341
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:45:00 -
[601] - Quote
Fractals 4Lyfe wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:They can both be addressed by banning NPC corps and making individuals wardecable - neutral Orca/logi alt is wardec'd in turn. Ban NPC corps. Repeat until aggressor corporation has compiled a list of all the alts that need to be wardec'd the next time they want to take a swipe at the offending corp. That's just trying to bandaid something that's already broken. Why let them keep switching corps? If a tower is reinforced, then don't let it be transferred to another corp. Well I was responding to a specific question about Orcas and RR-ships. Corphopping I agree is another big problem and I've argued in the past that an exponentially increasing 'cooldown' period (over the span of say a month) to join another corp would be a good solution, in combination with the other suggestions I just made.
1) A corp is wardec'd 2) POS is reinforced 3) POS owner drops corp, has to wait 24 hours before rejoining 4) POS is reinforced 5) POS owner drops corp, has to wait 48 hours before rejoining 6) POS owner is individually wardec'd
Depending on the stront timer, the POS now either leaves reinforcenment when the player has zero allies, or he might luck out and have it leave for another cycle, which he then has to wait 96 hours before joining a corp (and being individually wardec'd). I don't think there should ever be a timer to leave corp because both corp and member must be able to drop a member at a moment's notice for a number of reasons (scam corps, awoxers, etc). |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
254
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:48:00 -
[602] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Cearain wrote: :words::words::words::words::words::words: and more :words:
Mittens prefering to test 0.0 sov mechanics on FW, and Mittens (as the chairman) trying to push the CSM to advocate 0.0 sov mechanics to be tested on FW, are two entirely different arguments. His stance is from my understanding the former of the two.
Ignoring your bad/pointless distinction, his suggestion is still horrible. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
341
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:53:00 -
[603] - Quote
No it isn't |
Levy Break
Martyr's Vengence Test Alliance Please Ignore
8
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 20:57:00 -
[604] - Quote
EVE Programs you so that you become a bot while playing it, it's that un-interactive. Bots hurt the economy blah blah blah, just have CCP make the game more fun to play and bot numbers go down. Simple as that. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
254
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 21:45:00 -
[605] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:No it isn't
Yes it is for the reasons I spelled out at great length.
But if you want to keep thinking that faction war/low sec players, and sov null sec players are after the same things in eve, thats your right. Just like its your right to mindlessly defend mittani for any of his other idiotic suggestions for the game. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 22:40:00 -
[606] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:learn what the word "active" means
also he said it's for his constituents, so get out
i love how you manage to inflate "thou shalt not file petitions against other goons" into "WE ACTIVELY PROTECT BOTTERS LOL" i guess that's just autism at work???
Osabojo wrote:What's really dumb about your posting is not so much your deliberate refusal to understand things that have been explained more clearly and patiently than you deserve, but your seeming expectation that other people reading this thread are going to share your deliberate misunderstandings and false presuppositions, and go along with the implied claim that you are trying to bludgeon them with.
Perhaps I am overestimating the average reader of this thread, but I think most of them will find your hamfisted attempts to manipulate the discourse rather insulting, regardless of how they feel about The Mittani as CSM Chair.
More goonie stooges spewing crap to cover for the Mittanis failure to address my question. To dignify the above posts more than they deserve:
1. If he is a candidate for chairman surely every EVE player is his constituent? Or did I misunderstand, and he is only running for chairman of 0.0 and theres going to be 2 other chairmen for the other to zones? Stupid goonie.
2. How is "If you report a goonie for botting I will kick you out of the corp" not protecting botters. Unless you are asking me to believe that no goonie has ever run a bot? Please make that claim, because I think everyone could do with the laugh.
3. I agree that lots of goonies have confirmed that I am right about your Alliance policy, but none have offered any real explanation of how the Mittanis position is not contradictory. More importantly, the first post in this thread states that the Mittani will offer clarification on issues of concern. I'm not interested in hearing from random goonie stooges, I want to hear from him.
Fact is he clearly offered this thread as a place where he would answer questions, but it seems he is only willing to answer "certain" questions, and not ones where he seems to be on dodge ground.
I'm not going anywhere, still waiting for that answer. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
630
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 22:44:00 -
[607] - Quote
A constituent is a person who voted for you. They elected you to represent them, so you represent them. |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 22:49:00 -
[608] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: I'm not going anywhere, still waiting for that answer.
whatever will we do with yet another nameless pubbie angryposting about goonies |
Ogi Talvanen
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
88
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 22:49:00 -
[609] - Quote
Imagine that. Politicians representing their voters. Crazy idea. |
Sullivar N
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:18:00 -
[610] - Quote
Dear Mittani:
I'm having somewhat conflicting feelings at this point. I've worked my way up to the KV, gotten the derp gun, can penetrate the better tanks, yet I don't feel like I've ~arrived~; I'm still trying to grind my way up to the KV-3 and through other trees. This wasn't supposed to happen! I want to have fun with the KV! Any tips on how to play well with it and to enjoy the experience to boot?
So far my "strategy" has been to snuggle up against the higher-teir heavy tanks and use them as protection, ducking out to fire, and generally just react to what they do. This generally ends up for worse than for the better, since if they do stupid things my choices are to follow and be useless too or to go out on my own and still be generally ineffective/die. Am I playing too passively? Is this just an indication of a lack of skill on my part? |
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
26
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:32:00 -
[611] - Quote
Akirei Scytale wrote:A constituent is a person who voted for you. They elected you to represent them, so you represent them.
Really? suggest you buy a dictionary. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:37:00 -
[612] - Quote
Retar Aveymone wrote:whatever will we do with yet another nameless pubbie angryposting about goonies The same thing we do with every nameless pubbie angryposting about goonies, Retar Aveymone.
Get out our Strip Miner IIs and load them with Pubbie Tears crystals.
Ogi Talvanen wrote:Imagine that. Politicians representing their voters. Crazy idea. Haha, let me tell you about the time there were tons of pubbies running for the CSM. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
631
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:53:00 -
[613] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Akirei Scytale wrote:A constituent is a person who voted for you. They elected you to represent them, so you represent them. Really? suggest you buy a dictionary.
Noun: constituent kun'sti-choo-unt
1) An artifact that is one of the individual parts of which a composite entity is made up; especially a part that can be separated from or attached to a system "a component or constituent element of a system";
2) A member of a constituency; a citizen who is represented in a government by officials for whom he or she votes "needs continued support by constituents to be re-elected"
//
con-+stit-+u-+ent noun
1) one who authorizes another to act as agent : principal |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3167
|
Posted - 2012.02.09 23:58:00 -
[614] - Quote
my furnace blew when it got down to 14 last night, got it up and running again and i'm going to chill out and play some tribes tonight; will hit up the new questions from actual humans later
i see that the roleplaying publord has been frantically trying to imitate a demagogue while i've been away and posting up a storm
heh The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3167
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:00:00 -
[615] - Quote
incidentally the publord's question was answered in the previous 30 pages, but he's too cool for school to actually read the thread rather than smearing poop on the walls and howling for validation from me The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
doombreed52
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 02:31:00 -
[616] - Quote
publord if i like one of your posts will you take a hike? or go play in traffic whatever ppl do in highsec.... |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 02:35:00 -
[617] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:i see that the roleplaying publord has been frantically trying to imitate a demagogue while i've been away and posting up a storm Well I guess, but he's irrelevant, we're now discussing how much we love having you represent us.
As kun'sti-choo-unts. |
Osabojo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
90
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:07:00 -
[618] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: More goonie stooges spewing crap to cover for the Mittanis failure to address my question. To dignify the above posts more than they deserve:
1. If he is a candidate for chairman surely every EVE player is his constituent? Or did I misunderstand, and he is only running for chairman of 0.0 and theres going to be 2 other chairmen for the other two zones? Stupid goonie.
2. How is "If you report a goonie for botting I will kick you out of the corp" not protecting botters. Unless you are asking me to believe that no goonie has ever run a bot? Please make that claim, because I think everyone could do with the laugh.
3. I agree that lots of goonies have confirmed that I am right about your Alliance policy, but none have offered any real explanation of how the Mittanis position is not contradictory. More importantly, the first post in this thread states that the Mittani will offer clarification on issues of concern. I'm not interested in hearing from random goonie stooges, I want to hear from him.
Fact is he clearly offered this thread as a place where he would answer questions, but it seems he is only willing to answer "certain" questions, and not ones where he seems to be on dodgy ground.
I'm not going anywhere, still waiting for that answer.
I've met lots of people like you. You are too dumb to know how stupid you are. There can never be an actual discussion with someone like you.
The next time you are in a crowded place, take a look around. Over 99% of the people you look at are significantly smarter than you are. The sad part is, I'm not talking about any kind of innate intelligence, but rather a deliberate decision on your part not to use your mind.
|
Iam Widdershins
Project Nemesis Moar Tears
480
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:15:00 -
[619] - Quote
Osabojo wrote:I've met lots of people like you. You are too dumb to know how stupid you are. There can never be an actual discussion with someone like you.
Basically, you are saying he's a Dunning-Kruger poster child. Representing experience and reason in CSM 7 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
268
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:26:00 -
[620] - Quote
Or George Lucas. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:32:00 -
[621] - Quote
The likihood he's George Lucas is pretty small. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
268
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 03:35:00 -
[622] - Quote
Anything is possible with the Force. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Osabojo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:09:00 -
[623] - Quote
But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting? Would you be more inclined to attribute it to the moral failings of botters, or would you instead say that it has more to do with isk being a tedium based currency, and that botting would be less of a problem if earning isk were a byproduct of successfully playing the game in an enjoyable way? Or perhaps some other cause that I have unintentionally excluded?
|
Pseudo Ucksth
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:20:00 -
[624] - Quote
Osabojo wrote:moral failings of botters
Haha. Oh wow. |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:30:00 -
[625] - Quote
JamesCLK wrote:Cearain wrote: :words::words::words::words::words::words: and more :words:
Mittens prefering to test 0.0 sov mechanics on FW, and Mittens (as the chairman) trying to push the CSM to advocate 0.0 sov mechanics to be tested on FW, are two entirely different arguments. His stance is from my understanding the former of the two. Put the Drama Llama away?
If you test 0.0 mechanics on FW and Lowsec, you are going to get very different results and feedback than if you test them on the player base they are designed for.
FW/Lowsec inhabitants and 0.0 inhabitants differ greatly in their expectations of the game and why they play the game. Something that might work in 0.0 might not work in FW and vice versa. Therefore, it is a waste of time to try to use one player base as a "test-bed" for the other.
To use an extremely straightforward analogy that you might be able to more clearly understand:
CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out.
Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Tyran Scorpi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Test Friends Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:35:00 -
[626] - Quote
Having read your thoughts on the Assembly Hall, where would you suggest bringing up an idea then? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:35:00 -
[627] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out. The cat was buggy and crashed the bath.
Queue a day of bugfixing to restore the cat to its proper state of accepting baths.
|
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
269
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 04:41:00 -
[628] - Quote
Thanks Jinli mei for doing the hard work of finding the official stance on the botting issue. I wanted to know, but was too lazy to do it myself.
I suppose the botting is a Two Final Solution. Either you hate bots so much you leave your alliance, or you love your allaince so much you stay and ignore the botting. Makes sense to me. Not much else you can do I suppose.
Also with the low sec test bed. When I read it, it seemed a way to add features to low sec, so its more fun and enjoyable and has things going for it. I never felt it would restrict low sec the way players feel about it. I actaully liked hearing about the test bed and it is a bit surprising the players reactions to it. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:32:00 -
[629] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Thanks Jinli mei for doing the hard work of finding the official stance on the botting issue. I wanted to know, but was too lazy to do it myself.
I suppose the botting is a Two Final Solution. Either you hate bots so much you leave your alliance, or you love your allaince so much you stay and ignore the botting. Makes sense to me. Not much else you can do I suppose.
Also with the low sec test bed. When I read it, it seemed a way to add features to low sec, so its more fun and enjoyable and has things going for it. I never felt it would restrict low sec the way players feel about it. I actaully liked hearing about the test bed and it is a bit surprising the players reactions to it.
So far, those "features" have been potential new 0.0 Sov Mechanics. We don't want "nullsec lite" in lowsec. There will be a lot of unsubs if we have to start doing 0.0 Sov war bullshit over in lowsec. Lowsec is about casual/instant pvp, not about long form ups/waits and alarm-clock ops. Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Divine Power. Cascade Imminent
341
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:47:00 -
[630] - Quote
yeah that's why nullsec voters came out in droves to vote in representatives because they're really happy with the current sov war mechanics as is so happy that clearly they want to make lowsec a copy of the current model |
|
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
61
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 06:13:00 -
[631] - Quote
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:yeah that's why nullsec voters came out in droves to vote in representatives because they're really happy with the current sov war mechanics as is so happy that clearly they want to make lowsec a copy of the current model
I don't think you understand what my point is, but thanks for the sarcasm anyway. Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Gallinarr
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 09:42:00 -
[632] - Quote
Cearain wrote:The Mittani wrote:It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first.. The people who do null sec sov war are after completely different things in eve than people who are in low sec or doing faction war. Your suggestion that the mechanics be the same, or one be a test bed for the other, completely misses this fundamental point. I will make an attempt to spell this out for you because you clearly don't get it. Yes there currently are more people in null sec. However, if CCP spent as much time thinking about and iterating on faction war and low sec and left null sec abandoned like they have low sec and faction war then the numbers would be more than reversed. The potential playerbase that would be attracted to low sec and faction war is much larger than the playerbase who can be attracted to null sec sov warfar. Sov null sec is for people who are willing to dedicate allot of their lives to a computer game. They are willing to wait around a long time for those epic battles. The epic battles are indeed epic and when they happen its extremely high stakes for a computer game. That part is great and works out well for people like yourself who are retired or perhaps people in college who havenGÇÖt yet fully experienced the real life grind. IGÇÖm not putting this part of the game down at all. If I had allot of extra time I would probably do that myself. But the reality is I donGÇÖt have that sort of time. And I am allot more typical GÇô at least when it comes to adults who might play eve - than people like yourself who are retired and have lots of free time for computer games. You said it yourself that one of the goals in sov warfare is to make it so the other side doesnGÇÖt want to sign on anymore. Well the problem is the things you have to do to in order to make the other side not want to sign in are extremely boring to allot of people. POS bashing Camping stations and gates never really getting anything but ganks and no really good fights for hours on end. This isnGÇÖt stuff allot of players find entertaining. However, sov null sec has to be that way because the stakes are higher. The timers should be slow giving each side time to get their large fleets together. CCP canGÇÖt make it so that if you sign off for a few hours you find that when you log back on you lost your system and all your crap there. With the high stakes comes allot of boring downtime that is all there is to it. Balancing or giving more isk for doing sov null sec stuff is just rolling that turd in glitter. I can only use isk in game and if the game play primarily consists of sitting around waiting for something to happen then itGÇÖs worthless. I couldnGÇÖt care less about it. Faction war and low sec is for people who want to be entertained without committing their lives to a computer game. Think GÇ£better than tv.GÇ¥ I come home from work put the kids to bed and I have a an hour or two before bed. I can watch tv with my wife or I can go shoot some people in the face. Like hans says the mechanics need to be set up to bring about frequent fun small scale fights. The faction war plexing mechanics seem to have been geared to do that but they have sat broken for years. These plex mechanics need to be fine tuned and balanced more often than anything else in eve. If a group at ccp took it upon themselves to say it is their goal to tweak and balance the plex mechanics to make sure that there is always lots of small scale pvp happening in these plexes (and low sec general) the eve subscriber base would explode. ItGÇÖs not going to be something where they just make one change and it works. It will need allot of fine tuning to get it going right. Lots of iterating. But it will be worth it to a much larger potential playerbase than sov null sec could ever hope to capture. But instead it sits neglected. So what happens? I and many in low sec will often sign on and spend a few hours roaming around with no action at all. Sorry thatGÇÖs not even better than tv. String several nights like that together where I go to sleep thinking I should have watched a show instead of signing on and ccp loses subscribers. Moreover, the fights should have *some* significance. I mean right now the low sec fights are just barely a step up from sisi. The stakes shouldnGÇÖt be so high that it turns into sov null sec but there should be some overarching goals that somewhat accurately measure who is doing well at the parts of the game people value.(i.e., who is doing well at small gang pvp) This is important so itGÇÖs not just a constant meaningless thunderdome. I would also bet that many people who have the time to play the null sec sov stuff would like to head over to faction war and low sec if ccp actually developed it. Just for a change of pace. TLDR: Eve can work for people who have allot of time to play the game and for people who don't. But the same mechanics aren't always going to work for both sets of people.
Do you know how much scrolling I had to do just from clicking the quote button |
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
517
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 09:44:00 -
[633] - Quote
The Mittani wrote: I'm pretty sure it came from CCP first, but I certainly agree with it. I'd rather new capture mechanics be tested on FW before being inflicted on nullsec.
I rather prefer CCP tests 0.0 stuff in 0.0 and not use another game feature as a testbed for your own gameplay. Since faction warfare in low sec has its own different rules (bombs, bubbles, crime, etc) and completely different makeup (empire influence, role-playing, smaller gang fights, plexes, loyalty points) and goals (not really empire building but more empire extending and faster combat) "testing" any mechanic for 0.0 will be therefore be flawed.
Not to mention the totally different desires of pirates and gankers and other professions of the 8% of people in eve who enjoy low sec. My question for you is (although it is more of a request): please don't test how you park your new car in another's man garage.
oh and PS: its not all about hate, to quote one of the best movies of all time "All that hate's gonne burn you up son"
- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Gallinarr
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 09:48:00 -
[634] - Quote
rodyas wrote:Or George Lucas. does ccp phantom know you use him as a sig |
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:12:00 -
[635] - Quote
Osabojo wrote:But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting?
Mindlessly repetitive PvE gameplay and tasks which automaton excel at because they require no thought or creativity.
Eve is a terrible game. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:16:00 -
[636] - Quote
Gallinarr wrote:rodyas wrote:Or George Lucas. does ccp phantom know you use him as a sig
He gave me this sig, and thus holds to power to treat my sig as a play thing and give me any sig he deems worthy of me having. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:19:00 -
[637] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote:Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:yeah that's why nullsec voters came out in droves to vote in representatives because they're really happy with the current sov war mechanics as is so happy that clearly they want to make lowsec a copy of the current model I don't think you understand what my point is, but thanks for the sarcasm anyway.
I will give it a crack finding out what ya mean.
Yeah I know what ya mean, actually alot of null sec people dont even like the Sov warfare and such. Lots of players hate the strucure bash and want that to be made easier or changed. Like destroyable stations and such. I actually forgot about their complaints about null. But remembering them and low sec people thinking those will be given to them, yeah I see now. Makes since people would be angry with null coming to low, since the problems come with it. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:29:00 -
[638] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:my furnace blew when it got down to 14 last night, got it up and running again and i'm going to chill out and play some tribes tonight; will hit up the new questions from actual humans later
i see that the roleplaying publord has been frantically trying to imitate a demagogue while i've been away and posting up a storm
heh
Sorry to hear about your domestic disaster and glad to see you are back. Now about my questionGǪ
The Mittani wrote:incidentally the publord's question was answered in the previous 30 pages, but he's too cool for school to actually read the thread rather than smearing poop on the walls and howling for validation from me
I have read it all (have you?) and no it hasnGÇÖt been answered. Various people have posted on the subject, mainly just confirming that I have got your alliance policy on this correct. You have not said one word on the subject, apart from throwing insults around. You are the guy who wants to be voted in, not these other random stooges so how about you answer the question?
Jinli mei wrote:Think about this in the way that republican candidates care about strong democratic and liberal values when they have office (hint: they don't). He got chairman because 0.0 players had enough votes for him to cater to their needs (although, in reality, he caters to the needs of the game and making it not poop)
Of course politicians make promises and say things when campaigning that they donGÇÖt really believe or intend to do GÇô thereGÇÖs even a phrase just for it. But politicians also get called on the crap they say, and get asked hard questions in the press and in debate. ItGÇÖs all part of the process. When I first asked my question I expected a paragraph or two in response and that would have been the end of it.
Jinli mei wrote:Because that's screwing over your friends and you deserved to get the boot for it. Or because it's not an alliances job to police what its member base does. Or because CCP doesn't (as of writing) care enough to deal with bots. Or because ratting is so unrealistically boring that it's easy to sympathize with people who bot. Pick an answer that makes you mad the most so you can mash words about it while I go back to ignoring these terrible forums.
I could pick an answer, but nobody cares what I think on the subject. I would like to know, (and I think a few others would too), what the Mittani thinks on the subject. I simply asked him to clarify his position on the issue in light of the apparently contradictory positions he has taken.
Jinli mei wrote:You won't hear it from him because you want to hear it from him. I hope this is obvious to you, but it probably isn't so here are the words.
I don't think he stated he was going to answer all questions. And you can jerk and preach this point as much as you want but it won't really have any value because nobody cares.
He didnGÇÖt say he would answer all questions, thatGÇÖs true, but he did say GÇ£I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whateverGÇ¥ I think botting and RMT are important issues and so do many other people.
So, Mittani, can you please clarify your position on supporting CCPGÇÖs anti-bot initiatives given that you seem to be encouraging the general EVE playerbase to report people they suspect of botting, whilst at the same time telling your alliance that they will be kicked for reporting a fellow alliance member for botting. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
270
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:32:00 -
[639] - Quote
Its because the goons put their bots through a rigurous training program to create an elite botting force, that should not be so easy to ban or one to quick to ban them.
Other bots found in the game are enferior bots that are lazy and never had a hard days work before. You should immediatly report those bots or shoot them on site. They lower the high quality EVE has. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
34
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:56:00 -
[640] - Quote
Vordak Kallager wrote: If you test 0.0 mechanics on FW and Lowsec, you are going to get very different results and feedback than if you test them on the player base they are designed for.
FW/Lowsec inhabitants and 0.0 inhabitants differ greatly in their expectations of the game and why they play the game. Something that might work in 0.0 might not work in FW and vice versa. Therefore, it is a waste of time to try to use one player base as a "test-bed" for the other.
To use an extremely straightforward analogy that you might be able to more clearly understand:
CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that using FW as a testbed is a good idea; there just seems to be a lot of rambling over validity of opinion around the subject; the CSM minutes are, for all intents and purposes, high level discussions*. Lots of things are brought to the table as suggestions and ideas - that doesn't make them good, but they certainly are cheap.
I know that faction warfare pilots fly for the blood and carnage of lowsec, not the hate and resentment of 0.0; all I was argueing is that Mittens has a valid opinion on the matter - and that he, as far as I know, hasn't pushed for it as a feature yet; only discussed it as a possibility.
It is understandable that many don't even want it to be a possibility though.
*High level discussions in design mean superficial discussions with a very broad scope and deal with things like playstyles, as opposed to low level discussions that deal with individual mechanics and tweaks; things like "what is wrong with lowsec?" are high level questions; things like "should we decrease the GCC timer to 5 minutes?" are low level questions. |
|
Osabojo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:17:00 -
[641] - Quote
Jafit wrote:Osabojo wrote:But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting?
Mindlessly repetitive PvE gameplay and tasks which automaton excel at because they require no thought or creativity. Eve is a terrible game.
Exactly. And these are also very profitable activities. So we can either expect players, especially alliance leaders, to express some kind of moral outrage about botting and go on crusades against it, and criticize them if they seem inconsistent with that, or we can expect CCP to make botting more difficult and (more importantly) less desirable.
Making isk should be fun. This is a game. When tedium is profitable, it invites botting, and that's CCP's problem to solve.
I have to wonder if there's some kind of twisted work ethic at play here, that says you should have to suffer through tedious labor to enjoy the game that you've paid for.
|
Osabojo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
91
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:24:00 -
[642] - Quote
It's not unusual for gaming organizations to have policies against their members reporting each other for suspected rules violations instead of going through the organization's leadership. Recently I read the 30plus.org charter (I'm old, lol) and it specifically states members must not make public accusations of cheating.
I guess someone could take that as support of cheating, but most people would probably see that as a rule against stupid drama. Of course, if you thrive on stupid drama then you'll probably find such a rule infuriating and launch into some kind of tirade about it on an internet forum.
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 13:25:00 -
[643] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:whilst at the same time telling your alliance that they will be kicked for reporting a fellow alliance member for botting.
you've been told why like 20 times
you just want to hear it from the mittani so you can quote him out of context everywhere because that's what you do |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 14:20:00 -
[644] - Quote
Osabojo wrote:It's not unusual for gaming organizations to have policies against their members reporting each other for suspected rules violations instead of going through the organization's leadership. Recently I read the 30plus.org charter (I'm old, lol) and it specifically states members must not make public accusations of cheating.
I guess someone could take that as support of cheating, but most people would probably see that as a rule against stupid drama. Of course, if you thrive on stupid drama then you'll probably find such a rule infuriating and launch into some kind of tirade about it on an internet forum.
I completely understand that. If the Mittani was to publicly state that his alliance has an internal procedure for dealing with accusations of botting I would be happy with that. Also, if he said that he would not disclose details of that procedure I would accept that.
He hasnGÇÖt said that though, he has just refused to answer, which makes it look like he does have a contradictory position on this issue and he does operate a policy within his alliance that effectively protects players who run bots.
Richard Desturned wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:whilst at the same time telling your alliance that they will be kicked for reporting a fellow alliance member for botting. you've been told why like 20 times you just want to hear it from the mittani so you can quote him out of context everywhere because that's what you do
Yes, I want to hear it from the Mittani. As for quoting it out of context GÇô IGÇÖve never done it before so why would I start now? I have made maybe 50 posts on these forums total (a significant percentage of those 50 in this thread) and this is the only character I have ever posted on. I read the forums for entertainment and news; I occasionally post a comment or opinion. I donGÇÖt troll (not intentionally anyway), I donGÇÖt take part in any GÇ£meta gamingGÇ¥ activities. My motives for asking him this question are entirely straight forward GÇô I would like him to clarify his position.
I am an entirely unremarkable casual EVE player, who has seen the sort of mess that can occur when a game developer doesnGÇÖt listen to feedback, and I have seen the good work the CSM can do to help the EVE players. I give the Mittani his share of the credit for the good work he and the other CSM members have done for us during their term, and I fully expect him to be elected for another term.
That said, just because he has done a good job does not mean he is above scrutiny. Many have accused him of having an agenda that promotes the interests of his alliance over the best interests of the game. From my position in the game I donGÇÖt really see that, so I donGÇÖt have an opinion one way or the other. I do see a problem with bots in the game. I am not sure that the measures that CCP have taken are sufficient to eliminate bots, and agree with many others who have said that the best way to eliminate bots is to re-vamp the activities that are susceptible to botting such as mining, ratting and missioning.
I do believe that if progress is to be made against bots and RMT CCP will require the full support of the playerbase and especially the full support of the CSM. This issue, for me, will be a factor in where I decide to cast my votes, and at the moment I am unsure where the Mittani stands, so can you please clarify your position for me |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 14:25:00 -
[645] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=512342#post512342
mystery solved move on to your next "casual" peeve that you will "casually" go on about for pages in another thread |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 14:30:00 -
[646] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=512342#post512342
mystery solved move on to your next "casual" peeve that you will "casually" go on about for pages in another thread
If you think that comes anywhere close to answering my question then you need to re take that infants school level reading comprehension course that you evidently failed. |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 14:58:00 -
[647] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=512342#post512342
mystery solved move on to your next "casual" peeve that you will "casually" go on about for pages in another thread If you think that comes anywhere close to answering my question then you need to re take that infants school level reading comprehension course that you evidently failed.
please tell me more about reading comprehension, mister "i cannot understand that the mittani is not going to answer my question" |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:37:00 -
[648] - Quote
this isn't a candidacy thread btw, it's for Q&As, but thanks for all the free likes ^_^ The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Jafit
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:42:00 -
[649] - Quote
Osabojo wrote:Jafit wrote:Osabojo wrote:But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting?
Mindlessly repetitive PvE gameplay and tasks which automaton excel at because they require no thought or creativity. Eve is a terrible game. Exactly. And these are also very profitable activities. So we can either expect players, especially alliance leaders, to express some kind of moral outrage about botting and go on crusades against it, and criticize them if they seem inconsistent with that, or we can expect CCP to make botting more difficult and (more importantly) less desirable. Making isk should be fun. This is a game. When tedium is profitable, it invites botting, and that's CCP's problem to solve. I have to wonder if there's some kind of twisted work ethic at play here, that says you should have to suffer through tedious labor to enjoy the game that you've paid for.
Bots pay subscriptions or consume PLEX, which is the same thing. Why would CCP want to ban these sources of income? From what I've learned from the bot hunters that I've spoken to CCP only ban the bots that they receive complaints about, and even then it's temp bans on a three strikes system. Bot hunters have no incentive to report bots because then they'd get less killmails and less loot.
Also I agree, I can't stand trying to earn money in this game via conventional means. I pay for PLEX because I get better isk/h reading forums at work than I do shooting red crosses in Eve, and it's safer. Also I get paid by alliance mates to make forum signatures for them. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:42:00 -
[650] - Quote
Sullivar N wrote:Dear Mittani:
I'm having somewhat conflicting feelings at this point. I've worked my way up to the KV, gotten the derp gun, can penetrate the better tanks, yet I don't feel like I've ~arrived~; I'm still trying to grind my way up to the KV-3 and through other trees. This wasn't supposed to happen! I want to have fun with the KV! Any tips on how to play well with it and to enjoy the experience to boot?
So far my "strategy" has been to snuggle up against the higher-teir heavy tanks and use them as protection, ducking out to fire, and generally just react to what they do. This generally ends up for worse than for the better, since if they do stupid things my choices are to follow and be useless too or to go out on my own and still be generally ineffective/die. Am I playing too passively? Is this just an indication of a lack of skill on my part?
The KV suffered heavily from the recent HE nerf. The Derp gun still works, but it's not the death machine it once was. The real question is if you're in the wrong tree; you may prefer more accurate and mobile sniping platforms to a slow brick house like the KV. Since you're only tier 5, it might be worthwhile to hop over to the German armor side and see if you like the Pz4. I personally went mostly RUS armor - KV-3 is a whole different world than the KV - but I enjoyed the German stuff more in the end.
Also, get the 107mm on the KV if you haven't already, it's superior in the post-HE-nerf environment. You can also snipe with it and thus don't need to get in the faces of higher tier tanks. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:47:00 -
[651] - Quote
Sofia Wolf wrote:What is your position on following issues of high sec warfare: A) Neutral orcas in high sec wars http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Neutral_orcas_in_high_sec_wars_%28CSM%29B) Neutral remote repers not getting aggression timer when remote repairing targets engaged in combat making them near invulnerable when positioned near stations. Do you think those are problems CCP should address? If yes what changes to mechanic would you advocate and what level of priority would you put on those changes?
I use a neutral orca to tote my Brutixes around when I go on a hisec ganking spree, I think they're grand. The Orca was a huge boost to peaceful activity in hisec; it is only fair that it also be a vehicle of grief in the right hands.
I think neutral remote repping should make you target-able, however. 'healing a bad guy' is engaging in actual combat, where 'carting a bad guy's stack of Brutixes around through space' isn't.
I suspect the neutral remote rep issue will be addressed in the upcoming war mechanic revamp, and we discussed a simplification of it at the December summit. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:48:00 -
[652] - Quote
Cearain wrote: Ignoring your bad/pointless distinction, his suggestion is still horrible.
Your opinion is meaningless, Cearain; fwiw I don't read your walls of text.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:52:00 -
[653] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:Richard Desturned wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=512342#post512342
mystery solved move on to your next "casual" peeve that you will "casually" go on about for pages in another thread If you think that comes anywhere close to answering my question then you need to re take that infants school level reading comprehension course that you evidently failed. please tell me more about reading comprehension, mister "i cannot understand that the mittani is not going to answer my question"
No, I am getting that vibe loud and clear. The fact that he won't answer my question is an answer in itself though so I will keep on going and hopefully anyone who browses this thread will pick up on that. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:54:00 -
[654] - Quote
Zordon wrote:Sir Mitten's
About the nullsec miner, for us that 'wish' to support large construction methods, would you toss around the idea of Random-roids in the grav site?
To explain this, the small grav site has a ginormous Spodumain rock that the site is anchored around... It's roughly 4 mil m3 in size or 250,000 units. Even if this rock would shift as the site respawns with different ores, totaling in the same (average) value based on the market. (IE with 16 base types of ore, shift based off how common in new-eden they are)
This would have a minimal effect on the actual isk value of the site, but lead to self-sustainability for 0.0 alliances with a strong industrial side. And also lead to a change in need for the mineral compression from high-sec. The compressions would still be needed because building a titan still needs loads of minerals and I know nobody that would mine that in an efficient manner.
I know this is a fail post, and definatly troll worthy, but I hope it comes across as understandable and you could possibly lay out an answer.
Zordon Monkey 4 Life
This is pretty weird, because I haven't mined since 2006, but I actually know about 'the spod'. 0.0 mining in general needs a huge reworking, the first step of which is removing alloy drops from drone rats. After that, nitty-gritty tweaks to grav site compositions are somewhat beyond my capacity, though the usual ideas - superveld, etc - have been tossed around. Making mining in null worthwhile once more is a high priority for the CSM, however, as most of us miss blowing up mining barges, and in order to find exhumers to kill you have to make the sites profitable enough to make it worth mining in the first place. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:56:00 -
[655] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: No, I am getting that vibe loud and clear. The fact that he won't answer my question is an answer in itself though so I will keep on going and hopefully anyone who browses this thread will pick up on that.
this isn't 'mr xaran goes to washington' where you're the star and fighting against corruption and making a noble stand for principles, you're just a sad badposter wailing and flailing on something asked and answered previously
hint: get a goon or someone not cerain itt to ask the question and i'll be delighted to answer it~ The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
None ofthe Above
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:06:00 -
[656] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: No, I am getting that vibe loud and clear. The fact that he won't answer my question is an answer in itself though so I will keep on going and hopefully anyone who browses this thread will pick up on that.
this isn't 'mr xaran goes to washington' where you're the star and fighting against corruption and making a noble stand for principles, you're just a sad badposter wailing and flailing on something asked and answered previously hint: get a goon or someone not cerain itt to ask the question and i'll be delighted to answer it~
The Office of the Chairman: A Threat to Constituent Issues
So your answer Mr. Xaran is: yes, he's as bad as you think he is, and probably worse.
Tired of the current CSM? Vote for me, I am None ofthe Above!
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3192
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:08:00 -
[657] - Quote
I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:10:00 -
[658] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote: No, I am getting that vibe loud and clear. The fact that he won't answer my question is an answer in itself though so I will keep on going and hopefully anyone who browses this thread will pick up on that.
this isn't 'mr xaran goes to washington' where you're the star and fighting against corruption and making a noble stand for principles, you're just a sad badposter wailing and flailing on something asked and answered previously hint: get a goon or someone not cerain itt to ask the question and i'll be delighted to answer it~ Could you please release your long-form birth certificate? |
Retar Aveymone
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
44
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:16:00 -
[659] - Quote
there are allegations that you were actually born in a russian coder's computer and therefore are a Manchurianbot candidate |
Tsubutai
The Tuskers
60
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:33:00 -
[660] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I think neutral remote repping should make you target-able, however. 'healing a bad guy' is engaging in actual combat, where 'carting a bad guy's stack of Brutixes around through space' isn't. FYI, you can already shoot neutral RR alts once they rep your target; the problem is that they don't inherit the target's aggression timer, so if you switch damage onto them, they can instantly dock up or jump through the gate. The argument (such as it is) is about whether neutral alts should inherit aggression timers and how it should be handled if they were to do so. |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3234
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:37:00 -
[661] - Quote
Tsubutai wrote:The Mittani wrote:I think neutral remote repping should make you target-able, however. 'healing a bad guy' is engaging in actual combat, where 'carting a bad guy's stack of Brutixes around through space' isn't. FYI, you can already shoot neutral RR alts once they rep your target; the problem is that they don't inherit the target's aggression timer, so if you switch damage onto them, they can instantly dock up or jump through the gate. The argument (such as it is) is about whether neutral alts should inherit aggression timers and how it should be handled if they were to do so.
Probably, but most of my hisec griefing experience is of the ganking, rather than the wardec variety. I had an alt in the 0rphanage for a while, I'd probably just evemail Pit Boss should it come up. My initial gut feeling is that they should inherit the aggression timer as well, because station games are gay. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Neotin Nahrain
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:38:00 -
[662] - Quote
Join the dark side and win a free cookie! |
Indy McSmarty
The Praxis Initiative Gentlemen's Agreement
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:39:00 -
[663] - Quote
Id join without a cookie too! |
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
18
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:41:00 -
[664] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I had an alt in the 0rphanage for a while
the plot thickens |
Plutonian
Intransigent
84
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:42:00 -
[665] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all. Have you read Stephen R. Donaldson's Gap series? And if so, would your favorite character be Holt Fasner?
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
27
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 17:56:00 -
[666] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all.
IGÇÖm not sure how you have decided that I am either hysterical or a roleplayer from the posts I have made, and I am no more and no less GÇ£impotentGÇ¥ under the circumstances than you or anyone else for that matter. I do get the feeling that over the years you have already GÇ£made upGÇ¥ many of the people that inhabit your world so what harm would one more do eh?
Anyway, back to the question. Can you please clarify your apparently contradictory positions on players reporting suspected bots. |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
414
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 17:58:00 -
[667] - Quote
i think you might be impotent |
Xenuria
Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet
271
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 17:59:00 -
[668] - Quote
I'm coming for you Mittens! I am going to give you a great big hug when I finally meet you. Xenuria for CSM |
Dmitry Sychev
Raging Ducks Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 18:04:00 -
[669] - Quote
i was here. |
Zixie Draco
Tactical Knightmare
76
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 18:22:00 -
[670] - Quote
It is fairly appropriate that Xenuria's post was #666 in this thread.
Would you like a kitten? |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 20:17:00 -
[671] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all. I do get the feeling that over the years you have already GÇ£made upGÇ¥ many of the people that inhabit your world so what harm would one more do eh? Oh great, now everyone knows Xaran is Mittani's forum alt. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
80
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 21:24:00 -
[672] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote: so I will keep on going and hopefully anyone who browses this thread will pick up on that. Why won't you answer my question about your being an alt of The Mittani?
I'm very certain now this is the case, no ordinary pubbie could keep on being so sure of themselves on EVE-O forums (about an internet spaceship game), you are clearly created to some some nefarious cause.
Hm, Quote is not edit. Oh well |
Xymethian
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 23:24:00 -
[673] - Quote
Neotin Nahrain wrote:Join the dark side and win a free cookie!
Dear Gentlemen's Agreement,
The quoted post is what happens when you let your corps recruit from the Recruitment channel. Consider this carefully.
Sincerely,
The Forces of Good Posting
|
Richard Desturned
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
25
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 02:18:00 -
[674] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all. IGÇÖm not sure how you have decided that I am either hysterical or a roleplayer from the posts I have made, and I am no more and no less GÇ£impotentGÇ¥ under the circumstances than you or anyone else for that matter. I do get the feeling that over the years you have already GÇ£made upGÇ¥ many of the people that inhabit your world so what harm would one more do eh? Anyway, back to the question. Can you please clarify your apparently contradictory positions on players reporting suspected bots.
Hi, let me help you here. You're asking a loaded question and you're only taking one answer. Get out. |
doombreed52
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 04:30:00 -
[675] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all. publord stuff Hi, let me help you here. You're asking a loaded question and you're only taking one answer. Get out.
clippy- "it seems you have a publord being ******** would like to to light a cyno to hotdrop him?" |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
300
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 04:35:00 -
[676] - Quote
Should hot drop him, he admitted to not being impotent, should never say that and if someone asks always say yes, I am impotent. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
83
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 05:15:00 -
[677] - Quote
Is it worth the LO to get a cyno just for one pubbie?
We can get a few of them at least. |
Lord Lewtz
AQUILA INC 0ccupational Hazzard
5
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 10:22:00 -
[678] - Quote
MY personal biggest complaint with EVE since I have been playing is this:
No decent Damage report window. No way to turn off the "popup" damage window without turning off damage reported to logs. Logs are Crap.
What I would like to see is something more alone the lines of a scrolling Overview for damage. Basically a window that acts very similar to the way the Overview works (including a ton of filters). It also needs to have abbreviated damage messages.
If this is to much to ask, have the log written to the .txt file in realtime instead of when you warp off, that way we can write our own damage parsing programs. |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
29
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 18:14:00 -
[679] - Quote
Richard Desturned wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:The Mittani wrote:I'm delighted to have hysterical roleplayers flailing at me impotently on the forums. If someone like Xaran didn't exist, I'd have to invent him - the essence of politics is the distinction between friend and enemy, after all. IGÇÖm not sure how you have decided that I am either hysterical or a roleplayer from the posts I have made, and I am no more and no less GÇ£impotentGÇ¥ under the circumstances than you or anyone else for that matter. I do get the feeling that over the years you have already GÇ£made upGÇ¥ many of the people that inhabit your world so what harm would one more do eh? Anyway, back to the question. Can you please clarify your apparently contradictory positions on players reporting suspected bots. Hi, let me help you here. You're asking a loaded question and you're only taking one answer. Get out.
I think I can do without your help. A loaded question is one phrased in such a way that there is only one answer, and it is one the the person asked does not want to give. Typically they have very obvious opening such has "Would you agree that...". I was very careful to ask my question in an open way because I actually wanted a straight answer.
I outline the two positions I saw as contadictory and asked for clarification. It couldn't be more open. |
Johan Krieger
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
65
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 18:48:00 -
[680] - Quote
Why are you still posting? |
|
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
31
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 20:35:00 -
[681] - Quote
Johan Krieger wrote:Why are you still posting?
Because I haven't recieved and answer to my question. Duh? |
Harold Tuphlos
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
40
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 20:39:00 -
[682] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:Johan Krieger wrote:Why are you still posting? Because I haven't recieved and answer to my question. Duh?
More like you don't like the complexity of the answer. Since it does not match your preconceived ideas of what the answer should be, you concider the question unanswered when it is. |
Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
31
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 21:04:00 -
[683] - Quote
Harold Tuphlos wrote:Imryn Xaran wrote:Johan Krieger wrote:Why are you still posting? Because I haven't recieved and answer to my question. Duh? More like you don't like the complexity of the answer. Since it does not match your preconceived ideas of what the answer should be, you concider the question unanswered when it is.
What complexity? A complex answer would be fine, but I have not recieved any answer at all. The Mittani has responded just once to my question, to tell me I don't deserve and answer. Read the thread before posting dummy. |
Ra Death
Saevos Aviation Saevos Aviation LLC
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 21:07:00 -
[684] - Quote
Mittani. EVE is currently divided into large powerblocks that result in heavy fights in 0.0 with over 1200+ in local on a regular basis, infact the powerblocks have only grown in size since my entry into the game. How do you feel about this development and if opposed; what is your vision or plan to fix it?
GoonSwarm is a pretty large EVE Alliance and I think it's pretty safe to say that you will get elected into the CSM. But can you honestly say that you represent EVE's best interest and not GoonSwarm's best interest? In other words, are you willing to go against tactics that are heavily favoured by GoonSwarm in combat for example? (Any examples of your actions in the past year to this point would be very appreciated)
Tech 2 BPOs are widely discussed and are in themselves a controversial subject. I recently sold mine off because I don't have the time to keep up a huge production line going anymore. But what are your thoughts on these? Do you want them removed? Is it realistic to remove them given how much isk they are selling for at this current time? How do you see their role at the moment?
This thread is incredibly long and I don't have the stamina to look through ALL of your posts. But if you could change three things in EVE right now, what would it be?
Thanks for your time! |
Ladie Harlot
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1555
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 21:19:00 -
[685] - Quote
Ra Death wrote:But can you honestly say that you represent EVE's best interest and not GoonSwarm's best interest?
Can you name a single thing that the CSM (or The Mittani personally) did that harmed the game somehow? I keep reading pubbies raging about Mittens destroying the game but so far nobody has been able to provide an example.
The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet. |
Ra Death
Saevos Aviation Saevos Aviation LLC
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 21:38:00 -
[686] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Ra Death wrote:But can you honestly say that you represent EVE's best interest and not GoonSwarm's best interest? Can you name a single thing that the CSM (or The Mittani personally) did that harmed the game somehow? I keep reading pubbies raging about Mittens destroying the game but so far nobody has been able to provide an example.
I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask since he is pretty much guarenteed election. He only has to satisfy GoonSwarm to get re-elected again next year. It's a simple question. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
95
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 22:07:00 -
[687] - Quote
Ladie Harlot wrote:Can you name a single thing that the CSM (or The Mittani personally) did that harmed the game somehow? I keep reading pubbies raging about Mittens destroying the game but so far nobody has been able to provide an example.
When The Mittani smirks smugly, nodes used to crash. Now they just go to 10% time dialation but NO, this just isn't GOOD enough for them. |
JamesCLK
Lone Star Exploration Lone Star Partners
35
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 22:11:00 -
[688] - Quote
Ra Death wrote: I don't think it's an unreasonable question to ask since he is pretty much guarenteed election. He only has to satisfy GoonSwarm to get re-elected again next year. It's a simple question.
Statistically speaking, more than 60% of votes cast for Mittens last election weren't from people within GoonSwarm. Now, the votes back then were "officially" split between Mittens and Vile Rat, but apparently this season Mittens is the only one getting officially backed by GoonSwarm & co.
According to many, a lot of the votes were from people who expected shenanigans if Mittens got chair; they were prooved wrong, as Mittens has in all likelyhood been one of the -- if not the -- most effective CSM chair to date.
This season however, Mittens probably won't have the votes of these :lolCSM: people (there were many); and it would be wise to focus his entire alliance to back him.
If Mittens received 1700 votes last election, we can expect over 3000 this season; and a few wouldn't put it past him acheiving over 6000 votes total. Especially since a lot of goon votes last year were siphoned off by Goon candidates who weren't officially backed.
Source, in case you're interested: http://tinyurl.com/75kkb9k |
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
37
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 02:30:00 -
[689] - Quote
Imryn Xaran wrote:What complexity? A complex answer would be fine, but I have not recieved any answer at all. The Mittani has responded just once to my question, to tell me I don't deserve and answer. Read the thread before posting dummy.
Did you know that being a ***** doesn't make people like you or agree with you? |
Hratli Smirks
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
182
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 02:40:00 -
[690] - Quote
Ra Death wrote:But can you honestly say that you represent EVE's best interest and not GoonSwarm's best interest?
GoonSwarm's best interest is EVE's best interest |
|
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
106
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 03:21:00 -
[691] - Quote
Ra Death wrote:But can you honestly say that you represent EVE's best interest and not GoonSwarm's best interest? Yes, we goons would be really interested in hearing this. If The Mittani was going to sell out to the uberpowerful mining lobby ...
Heck, what am I saying, we practically ARE the mining lobby. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4489
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 05:32:00 -
[692] - Quote
Ra Death wrote:Mittani. EVE is currently divided into large powerblocks that result in heavy fights in 0.0 with over 1200+ in local on a regular basis, infact the powerblocks have only grown in size since my entry into the game. How do you feel about this development and if opposed; what is your vision or plan to fix it?
I think it's great that devs like Veritas and Masterplan have optimized the client and the lag situation to the point that we can once again have 1000+ person battles. They make EVE epic, and distinguish it from WoW, or any other MMO on the market. 30-man slapfights happen daily, but when you have a 2000-man battle, people remember those fights for years. We're still talking about F-T, five years later.
Quote:GoonSwarm is a pretty large EVE Alliance and I think it's pretty safe to say that you will get elected into the CSM. But can you honestly say that you represent EVE's best interest and not GoonSwarm's best interest? In other words, are you willing to go against tactics that are heavily favoured by GoonSwarm in combat for example? (Any examples of your actions in the past year to this point would be very appreciated)
Sorry for not fitting into your preconceived notion: I'm a vehement advocate of rebalancing Technetium moons, depsite being one of the largest Tech-holders in the game. GSF makes stupid amounts of isk from Tech, and I'm trying to have that nerfed.
Quote:Tech 2 BPOs are widely discussed and are in themselves a controversial subject. I recently sold mine off because I don't have the time to keep up a huge production line going anymore. But what are your thoughts on these? Do you want them removed? Is it realistic to remove them given how much isk they are selling for at this current time? How do you see their role at the moment?
T2 BPOs come up every election cycle. They're dumb. They've always been dumb. I'd like to see invention buffed to render T2 BPOs essentially meaningless. It's not realistic from a business perspective to have them removed, but invention buffs can make them increasingly less relevant.
The T2 BPO lottery was introduced by our dear friend T20. It was a terrible system. T2 BPOs themselves are stupid. The people who smugly bleat about how they're great, and inevitably come calling to my threads when I say T2 BPOs are dumb, are entitled old-guard apologists who deserve only scorn and condescension.
Quote:This thread is incredibly long and I don't have the stamina to look through ALL of your posts. But if you could change three things in EVE right now, what would it be?
*Dead Horse/Modular Pos implementation *Risk/Reward Balance in Null (Farms and Fields, Tech fix, making sov meaningful) *Further Iterative Ship Balance: there's still a shitpile of spaceships that are essentially useless in this game about spaceships.
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4489
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 05:34:00 -
[693] - Quote
Lord Lewtz wrote:MY personal biggest complaint with EVE since I have been playing is this:
No decent Damage report window. No way to turn off the "popup" damage window without turning off damage reported to logs. Logs are Crap.
What I would like to see is something more alone the lines of a scrolling Overview for damage. Basically a window that acts very similar to the way the Overview works (including a ton of filters). It also needs to have abbreviated damage messages.
If this is to much to ask, have the log written to the .txt file in realtime instead of when you warp off, that way we can write our own damage parsing programs.
Seems like the kind of tweak that you should post in one of Soundwave's 'little things' threads; if you put it in there, these days it'll probably get in, since CCP is focusing (wisely) on polish and usability. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
102
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:09:00 -
[694] - Quote
What are your intentions for wardec mechanics? Do you intend to finally get CCP to make what I do impossible? Free Wardec Removal |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4516
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 09:50:00 -
[695] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:What are your intentions for wardec mechanics? Do you intend to finally get CCP to make what I do impossible?
I think the wardec revamp will be implemented before CSM7 takes office, and hopefully there'll be no more decshield bullshit. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 15:58:00 -
[696] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:What are your intentions for wardec mechanics? Do you intend to finally get CCP to make what I do impossible? I think the wardec revamp will be implemented before CSM7 takes office, and hopefully there'll be no more decshield bullshit.
This would be an amusing turn up for those CSM7 candidates running on the 'I will fix wardecs' platform. |
Ntrails
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:04:00 -
[697] - Quote
what is your position on deadtear getting a new titan as thanks for his moderation efforts? |
testobjekt
Creative Accounting Institute
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:22:00 -
[698] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:The Zerg Overmind wrote:What are your intentions for wardec mechanics? Do you intend to finally get CCP to make what I do impossible? I think the wardec revamp will be implemented before CSM7 takes office, and hopefully there'll be no more decshield bullshit.
That would mean Kelduum just lost 90% of his plattform |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
120
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 16:22:00 -
[699] - Quote
Ntrails wrote:what is your position on deadtear getting a new titan as thanks for his moderation efforts?
deth2allsupercaps especially deadtear's |
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1465
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 17:31:00 -
[700] - Quote
testobjekt wrote:That would mean Kelduum just lost 90% of his plattform but, you said in the other thread (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=793762#post793762) that I don't have a platform... Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University
Candidate,-áCSM7 |
|
The Zerg Overmind
Rule Reversal Dec Shield
102
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 17:39:00 -
[701] - Quote
Kelduum Revaan wrote:testobjekt wrote:That would mean Kelduum just lost 90% of his plattform but, you said in the other thread (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=793762#post793762) that I don't have a platform... Just get wardecs fixed. Dec Shield is ridiculous. I'm in 30 wars right now, and have helped at least 187 corps.
http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Dec_Shield/corporations
And for god's sake, figure out why we can no longer make links in the forums without it saying:
"There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode" Free Wardec Removal |
Kelduum Revaan
EVE University Ivy League
1477
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 18:54:00 -
[702] - Quote
The Zerg Overmind wrote:Just get wardecs fixed. Dec Shield is ridiculous. I'm in 30 wars right now, and have helped at least 187 corps. http://evemaps.dotlan.net/alliance/Dec_Shield/corporationsAnd for god's sake, figure out why we can no longer make links in the forums without it saying: "There was an issue with parsing this post's BBCode"
Agreed about the wardec mechanics - I'm hoping for a big revamp/fix with the summer expansion.
And I know what the problem is with the BBCode parsing - it doesn't like URL parameters inside markup, which is probably some massively over the top security checking, but breaks pretty much every modern site.
I plan to find and hit the dev responsible for that with a brick (brick optional) during fanfest. Kelduum Revaan CEO, EVE University
Candidate,-áCSM7 |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
393
|
Posted - 2012.02.12 23:25:00 -
[703] - Quote
Just use the link button they have, even enables a nice cover for your link. But that is broken as well, dont erase the http they give you in it. They do seem over burden by security.
Also what is this wardec revamp people are talking about?
I thought if dec shields were taken out, without a balance for it, more people would vote for kelduum. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
78
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 10:13:00 -
[704] - Quote
Hey Mittens, someone had a non-fail idea for WHs on reddit
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/prnet/new_idea_for_whs/
Don't worry there's no le cp |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
19
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 10:33:00 -
[705] - Quote
For small gang/solo pvp the sabre is the only good dictor, and with the buffs to AF's, blasters, and destroyers, dictors in general have received ninja-nerf after ninja-nerf. While I doubt it is a high priority, would you support a buff to dictors, particularly for the "other races," so that we wouldn't have to fly almost exclusively the sabre, and if so, what would you change? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5082
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 10:55:00 -
[706] - Quote
Lelob wrote:For small gang/solo pvp the sabre is the only good dictor, and with the buffs to AF's, blasters, and destroyers, dictors in general have received ninja-nerf after ninja-nerf. While I doubt it is a high priority, would you support a buff to dictors, particularly for the "other races," so that we wouldn't have to fly almost exclusively the sabre, and if so, what would you change?
It is a shame that the Eris and Flycatcher are such crap compared to the Sabre. The Heretic is suboptimal but at least functions in a solo/smallgang way.
It's not a particularly high priority, though. There's a host of ships that need to be rebalanced first for being completely useless under any circumstances; even the Eris is good in a fleet and serves a useful function, unlike, say, a Bellicose.
The actual EFT-warrioring I'd delegate to whoever the EFT candidate is. In CSM6 that was Prom, and he did sterling work on the hybrid and assault frigate tweaks. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5082
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 10:59:00 -
[707] - Quote
It took them quite a lot of effort to render and introduce the new nebulae in normal space, and while I don't object to the idea of tweaking the skyboxes in w-space, it's not really a sucking chest wound or priority issue. I'd rather the Art guys focus on the spaceships, not merely v3ing the minmatar/amarr, but re-doing some of the awful models - rookie ships (in progress) and the Bellicose hull (holy crap, the Rapier/Huginn look stupid, ugh) just off the top of my head. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Kawira
Versatech Co. Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:28:00 -
[708] - Quote
Well I've got not very comfortable but serious question here. Why do you want to be part of serious "organisation" like CSM while leading the most trolling alliance in Eve? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5095
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:44:00 -
[709] - Quote
Kawira wrote:Well I've got not very comfortable but serious question here. Why do you want to be part of serious "organisation" like CSM while leading the most trolling alliance in Eve?
You seem to have missed the 'have been chair of the CSM for the last year' bit. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Johnny Marzetti
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:01:00 -
[710] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:I'd rather the Art guys focus on the spaceships, not merely v3ing the minmatar/amarr, but re-doing some of the awful models - rookie ships (in progress) and the Bellicose hull (holy crap, the Rapier/Huginn look stupid, ugh) just off the top of my head.
I'm really glad there's been some progress on this issue and I was pleased to read in the minutes that it's something the CSM has been pushing for. I'm eager to see the new rookie ship designs. If I hadn't been joining goons when I first started playing this game and had just tried it out on my own, there's a good chance I would have quit after seeing my first ship (Reaper, lol). I mean, as dumb as the Impairor may look (a flying beak? wtf?), at least it doesn't look like a flying pile of garbage or a dentist's chair.
I really don't know what CCP could have been thinking. If you want people to try this game and like it, the first ship they see up close should look badass, even if it's only a rookie ship. Even the Minmatar shuttle looks pretty badass compared to the Reaper.
Of course, I'm sure they'll all say that rookie ship redesign is purely a nullsec powerbloc issue.
|
|
Yuanzhang Xao
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:54:00 -
[711] - Quote
First off, let me say that it seems you've overall had a positive influence on the game during your time as chair of CSM6, and that I think your positions of most issues seem to make sense to me. So good job on that.
Now on to my question. Keep in mine I have basically no experience with null-sec except for what I've read on the forums or heard from random people, some of which may not be reliable information.
My question is about the dependence of null-sec alliances on Jita for equipment and whatnot. Is the disparity in cost really so high that you are literally dependent on Jita? Earlier in the thread someone talked about a large imbalance between cost/effort and profit to be made from manufacturing in null. What causes this large imbalance? Is there a scarcity of resources in null-sec or is there some other large obstacle that's in the way? Is this only an issue for people looking to make money in null-sec or is it also an issue for alliances that want to be self-sufficient?
I was chatting with a friend about this issue and he brought up the point that it makes sense that hi-sec space has more efficient production seeing as it is an established and safe. However it seems to me that as you've said, it would be nice for large powerblocs to be able to build their own empires of sorts and become self-sufficient and independent, at least to a degree. Is this currently impossible or what? I'm just curious about the details of the matter.
tl;dr: Why are null-sec alliances dependent on Jita and hi-sec?
If anybody is interested in taking the time to educate this capsuleer, it would be much appreciated. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5117
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:01:00 -
[712] - Quote
It's mostly an issue of a lack of low-end minerals for the risk. Mining in null is risky, and since you can just compress and import from Jita there's not much point. People aren't going to mine in null in the first place since high-end minerals are devalued due to the endless stream of highends coming from drone alloy drops; they're certainly not going to mine /veld/ in null.
There's also trouble with manufacturing slots or lack thereof. In general the simplest solution is to just fill up a jump freighter from Jita and hop it out. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Yuanzhang Xao
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:42:00 -
[713] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:It's mostly an issue of a lack of low-end minerals for the risk. Mining in null is risky, and since you can just compress and import from Jita there's not much point. People aren't going to mine in null in the first place since high-end minerals are devalued due to the endless stream of highends coming from drone alloy drops; they're certainly not going to mine /veld/ in null.
There's also trouble with manufacturing slots or lack thereof. In general the simplest solution is to just fill up a jump freighter from Jita and hop it out.
I guess that's where the idea of "super-veldspar" comes in? What other potential solutions, if any, have been proposed? I've already heard of the idea of removing drone alloy drops, but that wouldn't solve the manufacturing slot issue.
Also, if you get rid of "gun-mining", do you think it would cause issues in high-end mineral supply seeing as gun-mining is apparently more efficient than actual mining? If so, is there a way to combat this or are you of the opinion that it would be healthier for the game to cut down on the supply of high-end minerals? |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5123
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:43:00 -
[714] - Quote
Superveld is one such idea, but a full farms and fields revamp is needed for null. Some other ideas include incentivizing invention by giving superior success chances on invention jobs in sov space.
Drone bounties are on the way. It's unquestionably needed - mining is pointless due to alloy drops. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Yuanzhang Xao
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:01:00 -
[715] - Quote
Although Incursions have helped improve the PvE experience, they don't really seem like entry-level content and many new players (at least those who stay in hi-sec) still more or less rely on missioning or mining to make their first small fortune, and I think most of us can agree that those are pretty soul-crushingly boring tasks (at least alone it is. Mining in gangs, especially in low-sec, seems like it's much more tolerable; possibly even enjoyable!). While this might not be a massive problem per se, I think that making these tasks more involved/interesting/enjoyable would affect a fairly large population of the EVE playerbase.
How much of a priority do you consider this issue? How much of a priority does CCP consider it? Any news of ideas for possible fixes? I would ask about future plans but I suspect that any existing plans are covered by the NDA. |
Temba Ronin
130
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 02:16:00 -
[716] - Quote
Mr. Chairman the Crucible patch released today has completely wrecked the Mac client.
EVE is unplayable on Mac systems at the current time.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would comment on how this complete cluster_____ could have happened.
I understand Mac users are a minority but CCP posted no warning of disparate treatment when i signed up and I expected them to do their part as long as i paid.
Absent that perhaps CCP should offer a buyout to Mac client users, refund my money, and i'll write off the time spent to harsh lessons learned.
Just shelved my idea about buying a PS3 for Dust. CCP can't handle intergration between Mac and PC imagine the screwups when they try to support a game console. I hope someone from Sony is aware of this total fiasco. I have an XBOX and a Wii but looked forward to Dust on a new system, however now due to CCP's poor customer service that idea is canceled, amazingly CCP's poor implementation skills are already loosing money for Sony.
Thanks for reading this.
Power to the Players! |
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 10:33:00 -
[717] - Quote
Have you tried using an alternate method, rather than the Mac Client? CCP gave up on the Linux client because running the Windows client through Wine worked better than the Linux client. Wine apparently works on Macs according to its description and also that OSX is based on Unix. Give that a shot before throwing a fit and breaking your toys.
http://www.winehq.org/ |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2106
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 10:40:00 -
[718] - Quote
Hrald wrote:Have you tried using an alternate method, rather than the Mac Client? CCP gave up on the Linux client because running the Windows client through Wine worked better than the Linux client. Wine apparently works on Macs according to its description and also that OSX is based on Unix. Give that a shot before throwing a fit and breaking your toys. http://www.winehq.org/
The Mac client works through Cider, which is Wine-based. It is not a native port to OS X. yeah no i'm not actually running for csm7
got you lol!!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
390
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 10:42:00 -
[719] - Quote
Hrald wrote:Have you tried using an alternate method, rather than the Mac Client? CCP gave up on the Linux client because running the Windows client through Wine worked better than the Linux client. Wine apparently works on Macs according to its description and also that OSX is based on Unix. Give that a shot before throwing a fit and breaking your toys. http://www.winehq.org/ Mac client uses crossover, which is a commercial branch of the wine dev tree.
In other words, the mac client is just the windows client running through a pre-packaged wine distro.
edit: Its Cider? I coulda sworn it was crossover. Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
79
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 10:42:00 -
[720] - Quote
I know next to nothing about mac programs, so I was trying to be as helpful as I could and resist just saying "buy a PC". |
|
Dipluz
Notorious Legion Mildly Intoxicated
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 11:39:00 -
[721] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=70962&find=unread - what you think? |
Tallian Saotome
Fractured Core Fatal Ascension
393
|
Posted - 2012.02.17 12:17:00 -
[722] - Quote
Titan 'adjustment' I have been brainstorming and posted a couple other places.
Tie titans to the FC position in fleets, and require a critical mass of fleet members gaining bonuses from them to power them up beyond warp and jump drives. They seem balanced if there are only 1-2 on the field, and this would put them in a position where thats all that could be fielded effectively(depending on required numbers... CFC has taught me that 200 in fleet isn't hard, but CFC has massive fleets). This would eliminate the need to nerf them any harder, while returning them to the role they are intended for. Flagships.
Thought I would drop this here and see what the Chair has to say about it ;) Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom. |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
665
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 04:39:00 -
[723] - Quote
I thought I'd cross-post this here, just trying to get this into the ears oft the people who can do something about it (AKA, bring it up with CCP). Wallet Flash Threshold
Copy from the OP: "I would love to see a setting in the wallet where you can set a minimum transaction value for triggering the wallet to flash. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't really care much about that 3k ISK bounty for killing the frig that I barely even noticed, but I do want to know when someone buys a sell order for 50M that I have.
I propose that there be an option to set a threshold in the wallet settings and any transaction under that threshold doesn't trigger the wallet icon to flash. " |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5214
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 05:09:00 -
[724] - Quote
mxzf wrote:I thought I'd cross-post this here, just trying to get this into the ears oft the people who can do something about it (AKA, bring it up with CCP). Wallet Flash ThresholdCopy from the OP: "I would love to see a setting in the wallet where you can set a minimum transaction value for triggering the wallet to flash. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't really care much about that 3k ISK bounty for killing the frig that I barely even noticed, but I do want to know when someone buys a sell order for 50M that I have. I propose that there be an option to set a threshold in the wallet settings and any transaction under that threshold doesn't trigger the wallet icon to flash. "
Huh, that's a really good idea. To get it more visibility, I'd suggest posting it in the stickied 'little things' thread general discussion. The devs actually read that!
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
mxzf
Shovel Bros
665
|
Posted - 2012.02.18 05:16:00 -
[725] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:mxzf wrote:I thought I'd cross-post this here, just trying to get this into the ears oft the people who can do something about it (AKA, bring it up with CCP). Wallet Flash ThresholdCopy from the OP: "I would love to see a setting in the wallet where you can set a minimum transaction value for triggering the wallet to flash. I don't know about everyone else, but I don't really care much about that 3k ISK bounty for killing the frig that I barely even noticed, but I do want to know when someone buys a sell order for 50M that I have. I propose that there be an option to set a threshold in the wallet settings and any transaction under that threshold doesn't trigger the wallet icon to flash. " Huh, that's a really good idea. To get it more visibility, I'd suggest posting it in the stickied 'little things' thread general discussion. The devs actually read that!
Thanks for that idea. I posted it in that forum too (link). Anything to get more awareness for it. It seems like a really simple idea that would make things a lot less annoying at times, low hanging fruit and all that. |
Acac Sunflyier
Burning Star L.L.C.
76
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 10:41:00 -
[726] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.
While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.
I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.
Do you actually care for the player base as a whole, or only the interests of goonswarm and its allies? |
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 13:36:00 -
[727] - Quote
Acac Sunflyier wrote:The Mittani wrote:This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.
In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.
While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.
I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.
Do you actually care for the player base as a whole, or only the interests of goonswarm and its allies?
Not this question again.
Seriously, are you going to believe Mitanni, or for that matter any CSM rep if they say they care for the player base as a whole? What does that even mean when the player base is divided on so many issues? You can't argue for prioritizing development of flying in space over walking in stations and prioritizing development of walking in stations over flying in space; when someone says they "represent the player base as a whole" they are merely pretending the people who don't agree with them on the issues they care about aren't actually part of the player base.
Educate yourself on what Mitanni has done as CSM6 chair, perhaps by reading this thread or his candidate thread (the candidate thread's OP is very informative in particular). Ask any questions you still have about specific issues. If you like what he's done for the game then vote for him. If you don't, don't.
The only thing he can really mention, and has been mentioned before, as caring about what's good for the game (not in the interest of "the player base as a whole") as opposed to solely advancing his bloc's interest is advocacy for a technetium nerf when our alliance is absurdly rich from technetium. Some delusional posters have claimed that this is merely because we do not have more than half the technetium moons in the game, and thus are advocating for a tech nerf because everyone else in 0.0 combined has more tech income than we do. There's also his well-known advocacy for supercap nerfs, which people have disparaged as being solely for the benefit of fighting our foes. This is of course ignoring how the existence of supercaps in their current state keep poorer, newer alliances without supercaps from being able to compete with supercap-having alliances (including ours).
The simple fact is that goonswarm's playstyle aligns with the playstyle Mitanni advocates for as CSM, so of course it's going to seem like he's advancing his alliance's interests. Because he is, by making the game more enjoyable to them. Ultimately I don't think it's productive to worry about whether you can fully trust any one candidate; in Mitanni's case you should be considering whether the changes he brought about in CSM6 are the kind of changes you want more of. Anybody can promise you what they think you want to hear, but results are indisputable. |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
65
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:29:00 -
[728] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:yeah, because everyone's opinion deserves respect
lawl Opinions don't, but most people should be treated with respect even if you don't respect them. It's common courtesy. Even though you've treated me with far less respect than I've treated you, it still does not stop me from showing you more than you show me. If I have done anything that makes me not worthy of being treated with respect, than please tell me what it is.
If you are tired of discussing a certain topic with me there are more polite ways to let me know. If you choose not to do so without a valid reason (and there are few valid reasons IMO) then it looks like you are trying to manipulate me emotionally. |
Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
61
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:39:00 -
[729] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:The Mittani wrote:yeah, because everyone's opinion deserves respect
lawl Opinions don't, but most people should be treated with respect even if you don't respect them. It's common courtesy. Even though you've treated me with far less respect than I've treated you, it still does not stop me from showing you more than you show me. If I have done anything that makes me not worthy of being treated with respect, than please tell me what it is. If you are tired of discussing a certain topic with me there are more polite ways to let me know. If you choose not to do so without a valid reason (and there are few valid reasons IMO) then it looks like you are trying to manipulate me emotionally.
You're making way too much sense for him dude.
He won't understand.
Put graphic sigs back in you cheap assholes. |
Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
61
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 16:42:00 -
[730] - Quote
Zhade Lezte wrote:Not this question again.
Seriously, are you going to believe Mitanni, or for that matter any CSM rep if they say they care for the player base as a whole? What does that even mean when the player base is divided on so many issues? You can't argue for prioritizing development of flying in space over walking in stations and prioritizing development of walking in stations over flying in space; when someone says they "represent the player base as a whole" they are merely pretending the people who don't agree with them on the issues they care about aren't actually part of the player base.
Educate yourself on what Mitanni has done as CSM6 chair, perhaps by reading this thread or his candidate thread (the candidate thread's OP is very informative in particular). Ask any questions you still have about specific issues. If you like what he's done for the game then vote for him. If you don't, don't.
The only thing he can really mention, and has been mentioned before, as caring about what's good for the game (not in the interest of "the player base as a whole") as opposed to solely advancing his bloc's interest is advocacy for a technetium nerf when our alliance is absurdly rich from technetium. Some delusional posters have claimed that this is merely because we do not have more than half the technetium moons in the game, and thus are advocating for a tech nerf because everyone else in 0.0 combined has more tech income than we do. There's also his well-known advocacy for supercap nerfs, which people have disparaged as being solely for the benefit of fighting our foes. This is of course ignoring how the existence of supercaps in their current state keep poorer, newer alliances without supercaps from being able to compete with supercap-having alliances (including ours).
The simple fact is that goonswarm's playstyle aligns with the playstyle Mitanni advocates for as CSM, so of course it's going to seem like he's advancing his alliance's interests. Because he is, by making the game more enjoyable to them. Ultimately I don't think it's productive to worry about whether you can fully trust any one candidate; in Mitanni's case you should be considering whether the changes he brought about in CSM6 are the kind of changes you want more of. Anybody can promise you what they think you want to hear, but results are indisputable.
What's actually being asked here is really simple.
Can he overlook self-interest in order to put forward an idea that is in everyone's best interests?
Is he actually capable of that?
Due to your political double-speak I'd suggest the real answer is probably no.
Put graphic sigs back in you cheap assholes. |
|
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 21:44:00 -
[731] - Quote
Is advocating for nerfing technetium, supercaps, and hotdropping (implementing capital jump drive spool up timers), in "everyone's" interest? These are things he has proposed, but I don't think they benefit everyone, certainly not supercapowning, hotdropping, techmoonhaving groups.
I'm confused how asking someone to look at what he's done as a CSM chariman and decide from that track record if this is a person they can trust to make the game the way they enjoy it instead of trusting in unverifiable promises is "political doublespeak". Note that I don't say "better for everyone" or "better for the majority", this is not how democracy works. Mitanni advocates for nullsec warriors, griefers, and prioritizing flying in space over walking in stations. Other candidates advocate for different playstyles. The only thing you can really realize from his support of the technetium nerf is that the Mitanni is able to put aside his alliance loyalties to represent the wider playstyle of his constituents.
A single candidate representing "everyone" is frankly absurd and I would not put trust in such a person if you do not know and approve of his or her actual playstyle (which will be the playstyle they will actually champion when elected).
An actual question for Mitanni.
Way back in August of last year a devblog brought up an idea called "smallholding", an interesting concept that would allow small groups looking to set up shop and cause trouble in areas of nullsec without taking sovereignty. Even as a member of a sovholding alliance I am interested in this idea as the thought of being able to more conveniently live in enemy territory appeals to me.
Is this concept still under development by CCP? I haven't heard any mention of it since the linked August devblog. |
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.02.22 22:19:00 -
[732] - Quote
Perhaps I'm making this too complicated.
Mitanni has proven himself able to represent his constituents, who I have already defined and have been defined in his candidate thread, putting aside his self-interest to do so, as evidenced by his actions in CSM6 such as repeatedly advocating for nerfing tech.
He will not do so to represent "everyone". If you want such a candidate I suggest you find one of them, vote for them and be shocked when they act against your interests in areas where their playstyle is opposed to yours.
Unless you are talking about nonissue ideas such as the PoS revamp and improving the UI that pretty much every candidate supports, in which case I'm not sure why we are having this discussion. It doesn't matter who you are voting for if that's all you care about. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
140
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 00:10:00 -
[733] - Quote
Zhade Lezte wrote:You can't argue for prioritizing development of flying in space over walking in stations and prioritizing development of walking in stations over flying in space; when someone says they "represent the player base as a whole" they are merely pretending the people who don't agree with them on the issues they care about aren't actually part of the player base. Oh so that's why they want to wipe out all goons and related parties. Because we're not bipolar. Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Ispia Jaydrath
Reib Autonomous Industries
38
|
Posted - 2012.02.23 00:15:00 -
[734] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:Opinions don't, but most people should be treated with respect even if you don't respect them. It's common courtesy.
I would like to be the first person to welcome you to the internet. |
Juicy Chanlin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
69
|
Posted - 2012.02.24 00:58:00 -
[735] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:The Mittani wrote:Ajurna Jakar wrote:whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking? First, reverse the anomaly nerf. Soundwave has already indicated in the just-released video blog about balancing that the value of anomalies in nullsec will be increased, so CCP is taking our feedback into account. Instead of increasing the value of anomolies, why not decrease some of the rewards from other regions, such as highsec incursions (which are already grossly imbalanced with respect to risk/reward.) This, in turn, would increase the inherent value of anomolies. There's already more than enough ISK flowing into the system, do we really need more? It's simply causing inflation. CCP should be looking at removing some of the ISK flowing into the system, not increasing the flow. Was the CCP economist one of the people laid off? It would seem so.
There's still an issue with anomalies.. Take Mag/radar sites in HS. Radar will give you an average of about 10mil per site. You'd be lucky to get 1 mil from a mag site there. The way I see it both sites are about the same difficulty in running. Can't comment on the nullsec/lowsec portion.. I have noticed a similar disparity in the WHs too though. I'm not saying to make it so that you run 1 site and you're stinking rich. But it'd be nice to have a balance so that when you scan a site, and it turns out to be a mag site, instead of ignore scan, you'd waste the time to scan to 100% and save location. |
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
5422
|
Posted - 2012.02.26 20:33:00 -
[736] - Quote
Revolution Rising wrote: What's actually being asked here is really simple.
Can he overlook self-interest in order to put forward an idea that is in everyone's best interests?
Is he actually capable of that?
Due to your political double-speak I'd suggest the real answer is probably no.
My stance on technetium is long-standing and obvious - but you don't want to do the research, you want to spout your preconceived notion from a position of ~moral high ground~, unaware of your hypocrisy. The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Kolmogorow
Freedom Resources
56
|
Posted - 2012.03.02 13:06:00 -
[737] - Quote
My question is about low sec: I'd like it to be possible for pirates to catch the cupbeers much more easily so that they cannot jump quickly through a gate laughing at the pirate. At the same time the cupbeers must have better tools to defend from being attacked by a pirate so that a long fight can happen (for the sake of fun). I also like the blobs at the gates to be removed (cupbeer cannot defend against blob and dies, not being a target for pirates anymore = unhappy pirate) but the gates still staying in low sec so that pirates and cupbeers can run and hunt between systems in low sec. Does your CSM program cover such a feature?
|
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
2952
|
Posted - 2012.03.13 16:13:00 -
[738] - Quote
Hullo there
Whilst we are not all carebears, we do all to one degree or another rely on faction modules and the like from various LP stores. As you may be aware, these are horribly broken in terms of tag requirements, primarily to do with the frequency and distribution of anti-faction missions.
My original proposal can be found here, and here is the OP for your viewing pleasure:
Quote:The problem: For a lot of LP store items, it is simply unprofitable (even, in some cases, virtually impossible) to acquire the tags required to purchase items, due to really low drop rates of particular tags. In addition, the distribution of antifaction missions is really lopsided (for example, in Gallente space, the main antifaction missions are Pot and Kettle and In the Midst of Deadspace...where the enemy is Amarr. Nice going, CCP!). The solution: Split the distribution of missions, so that either wholly anti-pirate or anti-faction missions are offered. When a capsuleer first approaches their agent, for example, a dialogue box would pop up asking "Hello [name], I can offer you a choice of either political or law and order missions. Which one would you like take?" I'm sure there are problems somewhere with this but I don't have the time to intricately go through them now. I will later, though. Thanks for your comments/ideas/supports/trolls. Adding mxzf's suggestion (see below): Quote:I would suggest putting another two buttons next to the "Request Mission" button for the agent and have them be "Request anti-pirate mission" and "Request anti-faction mission", which would actually help both the missioners that care about their standings (no more 4h waiting period) and the missioners who want tags to sell (no more pirate missions with no tags). And there would still be the "Request Mission" giving out completely random missions for people who just don't care.
Any ideas if the CSM will be nudging CCP on this issue in the near future? Thanks!
---- CONCORD arrested two n00bs yesterday, one was drinking battery acid, the other was eating fireworks. They charged one and let the other one off. |
Scooter McCabe
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.03.14 20:34:00 -
[739] - Quote
Will you ask CCP to double the current size of 0.0 space. I believe it will allow players to get involved in null sec shenanigans with the feeling they actually have a chance to effect and drive game content. I also believe that the current blocs would not be able to hold all that space, lead to the the breaking up of some power blocs. Hopefully the combination of fresh blood and dispersion of power blocs might attract new players to the game who feel like there is a new frontier to conquer so to speak. |
Sidus Sarmiang
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
37
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 04:05:00 -
[740] - Quote
These people will never understand that Mittani advocating a technetium nerf goes directly against the interest of Goonswarm while benefiting the game as a whole.
The real question they're asking, unaware that most of us know what it is already, is "Why aren't you working in my interest? Even though my interests are either fringe or do not benefit the game as a whole and no matter what you do I'll still display an irrational hatred of you." Nothing can be done that will convince them Mittani is doing anything but working to support Goonswarm at the expense of the game, and as a result they have rendered themselves irrelevant. |
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6088
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 05:28:00 -
[741] - Quote
Kolmogorow wrote:My question is about low sec: I'd like it to be possible for pirates to catch the cupbeers much more easily so that they cannot jump quickly through a gate laughing at the pirate. At the same time the cupbeers must have better tools to defend from being attacked by a pirate so that a long fight can happen (for the sake of fun). I also like the blobs at the gates to be removed (cupbeer cannot defend against blob and dies, not being a target for pirates anymore = unhappy pirate) but the gates still staying in low sec so that pirates and cupbeers can run and hunt between systems in low sec. Does your CSM program cover such a feature?
I literally have no idea what you're trying to say.
Bmblefck wrote: Whilst we are not all carebears, we do all to one degree or another rely on faction modules and the like from various LP stores. As you may be aware, these are horribly broken in terms of tag requirements, primarily to do with the frequency and distribution of anti-faction missions.
I like the idea of being able to checkbox pirate vs faction mission types. I'm not a big mission guy, but I love checkboxes.
Scooter wrote:Will you ask CCP to double the current size of 0.0 space. I believe it will allow players to get involved in null sec shenanigans with the feeling they actually have a chance to effect and drive game content. I also believe that the current blocs would not be able to hold all that space, lead to the the breaking up of some power blocs. Hopefully the combination of fresh blood and dispersion of power blocs might attract new players to the game who feel like there is a new frontier to conquer so to speak.
Nope. Most of nullsec as it stands is empty and uninhabited because the risk/reward balance is so ****, most folks park in hisec doing incursions or running L4s. Doubling the size of nullsec will just dilute a thin population more.
The issue you want to solve is risk/reward balance so there's a reason to live in null, make money, and fight over it. The Mittani, CSM7: Vote Here - One EVE. One Vote. One Chairman
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
59
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 16:38:00 -
[742] - Quote
Has there been any further discussion on marketing corporation shares, am I right in thinking itGÇÖs still years away?
Would you value the function as a potential tool in the armoury of conquest?
|
The Mittani
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6140
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 19:27:00 -
[743] - Quote
Not at all, sounds like a waste of dev resources. The Mittani, CSM7: Vote Here - One EVE. One Vote. One Chairman
The Office of the Chairman: A Thread for Constituent Issues |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 21:10:00 -
[744] - Quote
Ah Leader, how fare you today?
Question, how would you feel about the removal of barges/exhumers from hi-sec as a carrot/stick incentive for Industrials to advance into low and null? |
Takara Mora
University of Caille Gallente Federation
34
|
Posted - 2012.03.15 21:13:00 -
[745] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Ah Leader, how fare you today?
Question, how would you feel about the removal of barges/exhumers from hi-sec as a carrot/stick incentive for Industrials to advance into low and null?
LOL ... How about removing BS's from Hisec as a carrot/stick to get PvP'ers to move to low and null?
And while we're at it, why not remove a bunch of other functionality from the game as a carrot/stick method to get less people to join?
|
Aeron Sophus
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 01:18:00 -
[746] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Aeron Sophus wrote:What is your standpoint on the fact that bug hunters keep closing the bugs that report that EVEs sound engine doesn't uninitialize when closing EVE, which causes reproducible sound card hangs with every single Asus sound card?
(This isn't specifically about this bug, it just serves as an example; it's about the fact that 'the bug hunter issue' STILL exists, after years of volunteer bug hunters, they still close numerous perfectly valid bugs - repeatedly.) Obligatory 'eve has sound' joke goes here. From what I understand the bug hunters are volunteers, but I haven't looked into this as your post is the first I've heard of it. It might also be a known issue - ie, they know it's broken so they close it, but it never gets fixed by CCP, since bug hunters can't fix bugs, only find them and dump them on an issue list. Lateass reply, but here's another example of "bug hunters are broken": https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=609699
2 months. I mean, common.
Edit: Also, here's a semi-troll, semi-serious suggestion in relation to that: Get CCP to look into ITIL for some of their internal processes. Not necessarily to implement it, because god knows implementing ITIL is like implementing SAP, it mostly ends in catastrophic failure unless done extremely right, but to steal what useful process ideas it has. |
Susie Chow
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
48
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 02:05:00 -
[747] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Ah Leader, how fare you today?
Question, how would you feel about the removal of barges/exhumers from hi-sec as a carrot/stick incentive for Industrials to advance into low and null?
I don't think "carrot and stick" means what you think it means. |
Frying Doom
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
16
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 02:10:00 -
[748] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Scooter wrote:Will you ask CCP to double the current size of 0.0 space. I believe it will allow players to get involved in null sec shenanigans with the feeling they actually have a chance to effect and drive game content. I also believe that the current blocs would not be able to hold all that space, lead to the the breaking up of some power blocs. Hopefully the combination of fresh blood and dispersion of power blocs might attract new players to the game who feel like there is a new frontier to conquer so to speak. Nope. Most of nullsec as it stands is empty and uninhabited because the risk/reward balance is so ****, most folks park in hisec doing incursions or running L4s. Doubling the size of nullsec will just dilute a thin population more. The issue you want to solve is risk/reward balance so there's a reason to live in null, make money, and fight over it. Oh No.. I agree with the Mittani... I really am going to Hell Vote Issler Dainze for CSM7! http://community.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=470
Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge. |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
231
|
Posted - 2012.03.16 06:29:00 -
[749] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Oh No.. I agree with the Mittani... I really am going to Hell Is that what people call Deklein, land of the minng ops?
Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Xearal
SOL Industries Black Thorne Alliance
265
|
Posted - 2012.03.17 11:45:00 -
[750] - Quote
it's not really a 'regular' part of what you do.. but I'd like to know if you have any ideas or plans to help out industrialists and their eternal war with the UI to make more ships to blow up, as well as ways to make Industry more feasible in null-sec.
As it stands, the horrible UI is one of the main problems that industrialists face every day, more deadly than suicide gankers, more annoying than griefers, the clickfest and counter-productive UI for making items in Eve is always there. Improving this UI would make it a whoole lot easier for manufacturers to do their thing and less need to spend time clicking and wrestling with it, thus giving them more time to do other things, like sample their own product for various ends.
The second thing I'd like to bring up is null-sec industry. As it stands, manufacturing things out in null-sec afaik is a horrendous nightmare. Geting good logistics is a challenge ( and a welcome one ), but setting up a profitable manufacturing system out there is difficult at best, mainly due to the lack of easily available manufacturing slots, lab slots etc.
Major alliances are ( rightly so ), wary of giving people POS rights, because of the damage that a single person can do. Thus for an average alliance member, making things in a POS is a nono, meanwhile, because there's so few manufacturing slots available in stations compared to the number of average joes, using these is also not very feasible if you want to do large scale manufacturing.
The only other option for such a person would be to set up a shell corp and set up their own POS, using this POS however means being in said corp, which precludes being with your bro's in the alliance, or using 'dedicated' industry alts. Neither is a good prospect.
|
|
Gorki Andropov
Kerensky Initiatives
262
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 15:38:00 -
[751] - Quote
The Mittani wrote:Bmblefck wrote: Whilst we are not all carebears, we do all to one degree or another rely on faction modules and the like from various LP stores. As you may be aware, these are horribly broken in terms of tag requirements, primarily to do with the frequency and distribution of anti-faction missions.
I like the idea of being able to checkbox pirate vs faction mission types. I'm not a big mission guy, but I love checkboxes.
I think we can all relate to checkboxes. Make it so!
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3385
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:19:00 -
[752] - Quote
10,058 "WeGÇÖre a professional Merc Alliance, like PL" ~ snot shot, 2012 |
Igner Greyhound
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 16:19:00 -
[753] - Quote
So what's the first issue on the agenda for your second term, Chairman? |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
257
|
Posted - 2012.03.24 18:51:00 -
[754] - Quote
Gorki Andropov wrote:I think we can all relate to checkboxes. Make it so! Timers, now checkboxes.
We need checkbox poll education here as well.
Take all the tech Build all the titans Drop all the POSes
Bees incoming, nerf ERRYTHING ERRYDAY |
Temba Ronin
155
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 03:21:00 -
[755] - Quote
Congrats Mr. Chairman an impressive record setting victory, really well done! Votes count and your campaign was successful. |
Max Kolonko
High Voltage Industries Ash Alliance
161
|
Posted - 2012.03.25 10:38:00 -
[756] - Quote
Grats Mitens! Read and support: Don't mess with OUR WH's What is Your stance on WH stuff? |
Xearal
SOL Industries Black Thorne Alliance
272
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 08:26:00 -
[757] - Quote
Indeed, an impressive amount of votes, and I hope your 2nd term will be as successful as the first one. (though with less shitstorms to clean up than the last one )
Fake Edit: Yay for a spellchecker on the forums now!
|
Revolution Rising
Gentlemen of Better Ilk
120
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 21:52:00 -
[758] - Quote
Igner Greyhound wrote:So what's the first issue on the agenda for your second term, Chairman?
It's called damage control.
I think he needs a term in a mental asylum himself if he thinks his behavior is ok.
My EVE YouTube Channel |
esc shk
Handelskrieg Industries Goonswarm Federation
119
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 21:54:00 -
[759] - Quote
tell us more about taking the moral high ground in a videogame |
Eben Harper
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 22:00:00 -
[760] - Quote
All heil Chairman Maottani ,,!,, |
|
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
386
|
Posted - 2012.03.26 22:55:00 -
[761] - Quote
Oh, hello, what brings you here, fine member of the Federal Navy Academy ?
Or should I say...."Who gives a fsck about a NPC alt's opinion ?"
|
Arakkis Melanogaster
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:35:00 -
[762] - Quote
Thank you for your sincere and heartfelt apology. I feel you have gone a long way in removing the dark stain your presentation spread over the pristine dck and fart jokes of Fanfest. |
Pirokobo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:44:00 -
[763] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Ah Leader, how fare you today?
Question, how would you feel about the removal of barges/exhumers from hi-sec as a carrot/stick incentive for Industrials to advance into low and null?
Why stop at removing the barges when you can remove the people in them? |
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
187
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:48:00 -
[764] - Quote
So I was looking for the thread where you apologize for encouraging Fan Fest, and everyone watching the live stream of you being a drunken buffoon, to "make [a] guy kill himself". Could you link that please?
Thx.
Very Machiavellian btw. In a modern way. Smooth as a dropped bar of soap. http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/ |
Daviclond
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 02:52:00 -
[765] - Quote
Princess Bride wrote:So I was looking for the thread where you apologize for encouraging Fan Fest, and everyone watching the live stream of you being a drunken buffoon, to "make [a] guy kill himself". Could you link that please?
Thx.
Very Machiavellian btw. In a modern way. Smooth as a dropped bar of soap.
I'm not telling you, neener neener |
Algia Knightstorm
Cloak and Daggers Fidelas Constans
20
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 03:25:00 -
[766] - Quote
Princess Bride wrote:So I was looking for the thread where you apologize for encouraging Fan Fest, and everyone watching the live stream of you being a drunken buffoon, to "make [a] guy kill himself". Could you link that please?
Thx.
Very Machiavellian btw. In a modern way. Smooth as a dropped bar of soap.
Maybe some of you retards questioning him should have a read about what the guy Mittens called out had to say (loathe as I am to link an EN24 article, read up ******: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/03/27/failing-in-so-many-ways-the-mittani-%E2%80%93-hero/ ) |
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:13:00 -
[767] - Quote
Algia Knightstorm wrote:Princess Bride wrote:So I was looking for the thread where you apologize for encouraging Fan Fest, and everyone watching the live stream of you being a drunken buffoon, to "make [a] guy kill himself". Could you link that please?
Thx.
Very Machiavellian btw. In a modern way. Smooth as a dropped bar of soap. Maybe some of you retards questioning him should have a read about what the guy Mittens called out had to say (loathe as I am to link an EN24 article, read up ******: http://www.evenews24.com/2012/03/27/failing-in-so-many-ways-the-mittani-%E2%80%93-hero/ )
Unfortunately for Alex, the condition of the victim isn't the issue. People have gotten banned just for saying "kill yourself" on forums to someone. Compare that to this. Whether they "actually killed themselves" or "were offended" wasn't asked then, and it won't be asked now because it's not relevant. When he resigns over it, you'll know what I mean. http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/ |
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
209
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:14:00 -
[768] - Quote
Daviclond wrote:Princess Bride wrote:So I was looking for the thread where you apologize for encouraging Fan Fest, and everyone watching the live stream of you being a drunken buffoon, to "make [a] guy kill himself". Could you link that please?
Thx.
Very Machiavellian btw. In a modern way. Smooth as a dropped bar of soap. I'm not telling you, neener neener
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=86980
That's the apology thread. Looks like it will be even more "popular" than this one. http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/ |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:16:00 -
[769] - Quote
The mittani ordered my ratting dominix to be awoxed, now I'm calling the suicide hotline.
So many numbers to dial,............ must do it before the urge to do Ernest Hemingway finish move takes over.
|
Princess Bride
Corripe Cervisiam Trade Consortium
212
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 05:21:00 -
[770] - Quote
Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:The mittani ordered my ratting dominix to be awoxed, now I'm calling the suicide hotline.
So many numbers to dial,............ must do it before the urge to do Ernest Hemingway finish move takes over.
Oh, you're probably right. Best to keep mocking the issue. I'm sure this is nothing to worry about. http://eveprincessbride.wordpress.com/ |
|
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:23:00 -
[771] - Quote
Princess Bride wrote:Sephiroth CloneIIV wrote:The mittani ordered my ratting dominix to be awoxed, now I'm calling the suicide hotline.
So many numbers to dial,............ must do it before the urge to do Ernest Hemingway finish move takes over.
Oh, you're probably right. Best to keep mocking the issue. I'm sure this is nothing to worry about. Read the logs where The Wis jokes about suicide as The Mittani would be legally liable in the United States? When even the guy on the butt end of the joke is making light of the situation, maybe you ought to rethink your position on it.
Christ. |
Hrald
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
81
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 09:28:00 -
[772] - Quote
I AM OFFENDED ON BEHALF OF SOMEONE WHO MAY BE OFFENDED BY YOUR REMARKS, I DEMAND AN APOLOGY FOR HURTING SOMEONE ELSE'S FEELINGS I LIVE VICARIOUSLY THROUGH |
Zombatar
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:46:00 -
[773] - Quote
Please resign and reflect on your behavior.
I just watched your presentation and well... it was very hard to watch. Quite disturbing, no wonder the audience started to leave during your presentation...
I guess your tears are the best ones now. Everything comes back, you deserve this. |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
1186
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 16:50:00 -
[774] - Quote
This is why we can't have nice things. It's time to put an end to CCP's war on piracy. Fight your own battles and stop asking CCP to do it for you. |
SMT008
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
387
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 18:26:00 -
[775] - Quote
Zombatar wrote:Please resign and reflect on your behavior.
Don't push the man, you'll push me towards the cliff's edge, I might kill myself because of you.
Oh wait, you are a NPC alt, and no one ever gave any fscks about NPC alts opinions. |
Tyke Orlieveit
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
4
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 19:17:00 -
[776] - Quote
SMT008 wrote:Zombatar wrote:Please resign and reflect on your behavior.
Don't push the man, you'll push me towards the cliff's edge, I might kill myself because of you. Oh wait, you are a NPC alt, and no one ever gave any fscks about NPC alts opinions.
I'm curious as to the exceptionally aggressive tone that GoonSwarm appear to be taking towards all this mess.
Mittens ****** up, Mittens is dealing with it.
Or is this one of these "Defending our own" things?
As for "..no one ever gave any fscks about NPC alts opinions.." - Quite frankly, just because you are posting with a specific 'toon doesn't make you any more or less of a player. As far as I'm concerned, you're as much of an NPC as every other ****** in this game, whether you're in a corp, a main, or forum alt, as long as you're posting what you really feel and not hiding behind an alt to troll.
Mittens has put himself into a position where he is deemed accountable to the playerbase in lesser or greater degrees as the chair of the CSM, which is why the vocal section are shooting Jita and crying for his head.
I personally couldn't care less if he quits or stays in. I've no real feeling either way about him in either a leadership or CSM role, as far as I'm concerned he's one of billions of sacks of carbon and water out there.
If he stays, he needs to do good by the playerbase as is his requirement as a member of the CSM and is what I would demand of any other serving CSM member.. and that's all I care about. If he's going to let this, or believes this will, impair his ability to serve in the CSM, then it's his choice.
Whist this whole debacle could have been timed better, and the fact it's made it to a few gaming blogs certainly makes it more than awkward for CCP and Mittens, I'm not entirely certain that him just quitting and leaving the CSM is the way to go, but at the same time, vocal people are crying out for a head or blood.
One thing I'm confident in, despite my neutral to "Don't give a crap" feelings on him is that Mittens will make the right decision for the future of the CSM, despite anything else. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:01:00 -
[777] - Quote
On a serious note, please don't resign. People and mainly making a issue about this because it is the Mittani. What did he do, make a bad joke while he was drunk? He basically made fun of a person who went crazy and was bringing comical personal life drama into the game.
Naming the person, and (jokingly) suggesting people should troll him to suicide is a bad joke. (and asking people to group spam a person is a bit of a violation) And he apologized.
Also I might add the scandal didn't go any farther, the person in question didn't commit suicide, or have much of a problem. Its a bunch of what if's and but's.
Other members of the CSM and people in CCP have gotten away with worse then mere bad jokes, anyone familiar with Luk and xuadeath being infamous RMTers or running empires that do it. Giving away BPO's and getting a slap on the wrist.
He said it at fanfest, with a ccp moderator, and all the speal, if anyone was serious about speaking out against, player or ccp, why didn't they do it then? This is some serious afterthought bull, this is like the michal richards scandel though not being a blaentyly racist insult just a obvious joke, no one cares when it is said, then a day latter, people start caring suddenly about a stupid joke made while drunk, then they themselves likely said much worse while being drunk including reenactment of shitler speeches. |
Sephiroth CloneIIV
Vitriol Ventures BLACK-MARK
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:22:00 -
[778] - Quote
Zombatar wrote:Please resign and reflect on your behavior.
I just watched your presentation and well... it was very hard to watch. Quite disturbing, no wonder the audience started to leave during your presentation...
I guess your tears are the best ones now. Everything comes back, you deserve this.
I don't remember any of that mass walking out in disgust, it certainly didn't happen with the person who mocked and cohered people and degraded national identity by making them sing national anthems.
That's basically asking people to do stuff out of game to save stuff in game. Would you be ok, with that or people suggesting people video tape themselves doing sex acts, or nude pictures, so long as the goon's didn't do it.
Beyond eve university, most people talked about murdering alliances, humiliating, ransoming, and stealing. I find it the peak of bias and stupid to be full of hate for the mittani and just think everything else alliance panel people actually DID themselves in the game (not underlings or associates or friends, but they themselves) is peachy and dandy.
Furthermore, some speakers liberally talked about sex and seman, and were drinking. That's clearly not family friendly, and some serious moral police will likely get on that from the 'holylands'.
Now that the door for the moral police has been open, lets scrutinize everything in fanfest that might offend someone. |
Della Monk
Broski Enterprises Elite Space Guild
6
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:28:00 -
[779] - Quote
Please don't resign. Yeah, you ****** up. Everyone fucks up. Not everyone owns up. |
Radax Glenn
The Scope Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 20:43:00 -
[780] - Quote
Deplorable comments: Yes.
What I donGÇÖt like: I hadnGÇÖt heard of either party until yesterday. What is equally deplorable are players using this real life event, to settle old GÇ£in gameGÇ¥ scores. The issue is serious or itGÇÖs not. We canGÇÖt have it both ways.
If this Mitanni is guilty of anything GÇ£in gameGÇ¥, itGÇÖs for ingesting too much of the Charlie Sheen GÇ£Tiger BloodGÇ¥, while also GÇ£winningGÇ¥.
Step down from CSM: Yes. After all, he volunteered to do so in his apology letter.
Ban the account: Maybe.
|
|
Powers Sa
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2012.03.27 22:18:00 -
[781] - Quote
I don't want to bug you on jabber boss, but here's something that a guy on the internet thought of to adjust the factional warfare stuff, so I made a post. I'm reposting it here so you can send it to the dev guys who actually own the product. I didn't get that french guy's name , but he might like this:
A random internet commenter had a good idea.
There is a better way for Factional Warfare to flip sov/ownership: Turn the current static Bunkers into Nullsec-style Outposts, dockable only by the owning Militia. No need to lock off already-existing stations. No getting alts involved. Allow this Outpost to give certain benefits to owning militia; tax-free production, free repairs and clones, etc. Systems turned by putting this Outpost into reinforced, and popping it 24 hours later. Give it sentry guns to impede enemy camping. Make it a tactically important little piece of floating property. If your stuff is inside when the system turns, fight for it back, or jump into a clone inside. Give it cloning facilities, with the new owner able to revoke clone contracts. Obviously you still have to get the iHUB down before you can flip sov. This turns it into 16 hours instead of 8 hours.
This is a simple, easy way to tackle factional warfare. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 27 :: [one page] |