Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
41
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 18:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Was ready to do my voting but want to know where the candidates now stand on the Industry changes as this a major topic I am concerned with.
1. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Refining/Processing Changes. Please give details.
2. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Industry changes. Please give details.
3. With Regards to the POS standings changes are you for or against anybody be able to put up a POS in high sec? Why?
|
Angry Mustache
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
164
|
Posted - 2014.04.17 23:39:00 -
[2] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:Was ready to do my voting but want to know where the candidates now stand on the Industry changes as this a major topic I am concerned with.
1. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Refining/Processing Changes. Please give details.
2. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Industry changes. Please give details.
3. With Regards to the POS standings changes are you for or against anybody be able to put up a POS in high sec? Why?
1. I think the refining/reprocessing change is ultimately positive, but have lots of collateral damage. The scrap refining change prevent players from being able to recycle T1 modules and ships, and this waste factor actually gives CCP some balancing freedom. However, the change makes loot melting much less valuable, something that primarily impacts newer players who loot rather than blitz missions, as well as raise overall mineral prices, which makes flying more expensive. With scrap refining less effective, this could be grounds to undo the meta loot nerf that makes them refine into far less minerals than T1.
Requiring greatly improved ore skills for "perfect refines" has the same set of effects. On one hand, it allows greater specialization and makes refining skills far more valuable. On the other hand, it greatly increases the barrier of entry to the refining business. This might not affect entry-level miners as much as the meta might change from selling minerals to selling unrefined ore for processing by skilled characters. Allowing outposts/POS to refine better than NPC stations is a net positive because outposts and POS's can be contested/challenged, and competition is never a bad thing.
2. While the whole details have not been released, I'm overall in favor of the Industry changes based on what has released so far. More interaction is never a bad thing, and slight uncertainties in the otherwise rote industrial/manufacturing field can make it more interesting. Not having to wait for station slots for an isk premium will be a huge boon to newbies in the starter systems. As far as the UI changes go, I don't have enough experience to comment.
What's interesting to note right now is that industry right now is an ISK faucet despite slot fees. Slot fees as it stands are so low that the insurance from a ship exploding injects more isk into the economy than manufacturing takes out. Increased slot fees can help slow inflation. Variable slot pricing allows players to further compete with each other in terms of prices.
3. I think this change is ultimately irrelevant. RIght now, players without standings can pay a service fee to a shell corp with standings to plonk down their POS anywhere. The only thing that this changes is removing the middle man and letting players do this directly. The only people being hurt by this change are the people with those services. An official Member of the Goonswarm Federation Complaints Department.
vote Angry Mustache for CSM9-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326509&find=unread |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3394
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:37:00 -
[3] - Quote
While it's rather unlikely that everything else will be revealed before the election is over, you're not going to learn a whole lot asking until then, simply because these first two blogs are missing so much in the way of the meat of the changes.
Just an FYI. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3087
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:39:00 -
[4] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:Was ready to do my voting but want to know where the candidates now stand on the Industry changes as this a major topic I am concerned with.
1. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Refining/Processing Changes. Please give details.
2. What is your overall agreement or disagreement with the Industry changes. Please give details.
3. With Regards to the POS standings changes are you for or against anybody be able to put up a POS in high sec? Why?
1: No real problem with the refining changes. Yes, it's changing things. Yes, null-sec can do better than a high-sec station. It's not particularly significant, and gives meaning to skills which were, basically, pointless, other than to get T2 mining crystals. The main thing I want to happen is for skills to come into effect for POS refining as well.
2: There's not enough information out there to give an informed answer to this. Anyone that does is knee jerking a response. There are points of concern, but these may be mitigated in later blogs. Change is good. A new coat of paint really wasn't enough, which is what a UI change would be. The inability to lockdown blueprints in a POS is a concern. Copy times may be sufficient to mitigate this, they might not be.
3: Standings for POS were always a reason to not accept newbies into corp, as their standings would bring down the corp standing to the point kicking would have to happen to anchor a POS. That's not good, and it just lead to people circumventing the mechanic. As such, it was a bad mechanic. Removal doesn't bother me.
I'd like to see the addition of a mechanic, other that wardecs, to remove truly abandoned POS. Run through charters at an elevated rate when there's no other fuel, then have it free to shoot when there are no charters there (The Empires say 'no charters, no protection') Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
3087
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 00:40:00 -
[5] - Quote
mynnna wrote:While it's rather unlikely that everything else will be revealed before the election is over, you're not going to learn a whole lot asking until then, simply because these first two blogs are missing so much in the way of the meat of the changes.
Just an FYI.
This. So much this.
It's why I'm not running round like headless chicken. I have concerns wrt some of the changes, but they really need more detail. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Mike Azariah
DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited
1057
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 01:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yup, wait until all the info is out before you decide that the sky is falling.
m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 03:00:00 -
[7] - Quote
I appreciate the quick response to my questions.
I am not of the opinion the sky is falling.
I am neutral on the refining changes. I don't believe I get hurt by the changes and since my end result of refining stays the same it just seems to be more complicated than needed. If the change has a longer term goal then great, but to make it complicated to get the same result seems unnecessary. I agree with the the reprocessing of modules changes and the changes to buff nullsec just dont think the rest of it is necessary.
The only industry change that I am not in favor of is the POS standings removal. My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec. I understand eve is pvp and understand hi-sec is not safe. I just believe right now there is a good balance between safe and unsafe and that situation does not need to change. I just do not feel at this time the POS standings removal is a necessary change. This seems more PvP inspired than industry inspired without more information. It also seems to go against the desire to see more players move out of hi-sec.
It is unfortunate that the dev blogs about the summer expansion are not out before the CSM elections and it would be nice if the theme of the winter expansion were available also. I would rather put somebody in to office for what CCP is going to be working on than vote for somebody who's agenda is not in the ball park. I believe CCP has some idea of what they are going to do within the next year or two. I do not believe if you voted all PVE candidates in to office that CCP would significantly change there plans. Its good to have a variety of CSM members but I also think you want the expert players of that area CCP is going to change on the CSM.
Again thank you for your responses. And thank you for your hard work on the game we all love to play. |
Sugar Kyle
Calamitous-Intent Feign Disorder
552
|
Posted - 2014.04.18 21:20:00 -
[8] - Quote
Right now I like and do not like some of the changes. I'm holding off until we have all of the dev blogs. Some things may answer others. I'm not against change. I just dislike having pieces when the whole is on the way. Once we have them all we can see what needs to be addressed. Low Sec Lifestyle : An Eve Online Blog Candidate for CSM9 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3394
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 07:47:00 -
[9] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec.
Err... just like highsec POCOs gave nullsec alliances the ability to "take over highsec"?
(For the unaware we only had a few dozen POCOs at most, and transferred them over to RvB about a month ago as miniluv was tired of doing things that weren't suicide ganking)
Ask yourself a question though - all else equal, why would nullsec alliances want to drop POS in highsec when they can drop them in their own space, where they are both more easily defended and get a significant bonus to fuel consumption?
And then, if your answer is "to troll people, duh", ask yourself who's really getting trolled by setting up thousands of POS. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15149
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 09:05:00 -
[10] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:I appreciate the quick response to my questions.
I am not of the opinion the sky is falling.
I am neutral on the refining changes. I don't believe I get hurt by the changes and since my end result of refining stays the same it just seems to be more complicated than needed. If the change has a longer term goal then great, but to make it complicated to get the same result seems unnecessary. I agree with the the reprocessing of modules changes and the changes to buff nullsec just dont think the rest of it is necessary.
The only industry change that I am not in favor of is the POS standings removal. My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec. I understand eve is pvp and understand hi-sec is not safe. I just believe right now there is a good balance between safe and unsafe and that situation does not need to change. I just do not feel at this time the POS standings removal is a necessary change. This seems more PvP inspired than industry inspired without more information. It also seems to go against the desire to see more players move out of hi-sec.
It is unfortunate that the dev blogs about the summer expansion are not out before the CSM elections and it would be nice if the theme of the winter expansion were available also. I would rather put somebody in to office for what CCP is going to be working on than vote for somebody who's agenda is not in the ball park. I believe CCP has some idea of what they are going to do within the next year or two. I do not believe if you voted all PVE candidates in to office that CCP would significantly change there plans. Its good to have a variety of CSM members but I also think you want the expert players of that area CCP is going to change on the CSM.
Again thank you for your responses. And thank you for your hard work on the game we all love to play.
"Nullsec alliances" could 'take over' hisec now if they wanted to. Of course if they wanted to take over hi-sec, they wouldn't be faffing about in 0.0
Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras-á Mangala Solaris-á Mike Azariah-á Steve Ronuken James Arget-á Xander Phoena-á Sugar Kyle-á corbexx-á mynnna-á progodlegend-á Psychotic Monk-á Jayne Fillion
|
|
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 12:43:00 -
[11] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Killian Redbeard wrote:My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec. Err... just like highsec POCOs gave nullsec alliances the ability to "take over highsec"? (For the unaware we only had a few dozen POCOs at most, and transferred them over to RvB about a month ago as miniluv was tired of doing things that weren't suicide ganking) Ask yourself a question though - all else equal, why would nullsec alliances want to drop POS in highsec when they can drop them in their own space, where they are both more easily defended and get a significant bonus to fuel consumption? And then, if your answer is "to troll people, duh", ask yourself who's really getting trolled by setting up thousands of POS.
I did not think nullsec would take over hisec with the poco's. This is different. Maybe my wording is incorrect in Nullsec Alliances but I believe they have the resources more than a large Corporation.
With the refining changes ore compression at a pos will be available. If a nullsec alliance needs to ship ore now they will want the compression ore, correct? So why wouldn't want to do this themselves instead of paying somebody else? This would only require 1 POS so no concern here.
Just like the Code trying to charge miners mining permits, and I know Nullsec Alliances like their rent income. Lets just say there are 20 moons in the hisec system. If you charged a 50 mil fee per month, the cost of a weeks wardec that is 1 bil isk income.
So before the changes go live you find players with 7.0 faction standing to create a small corp to go around and drop small towers on the open moon spots. Currently you would not need to fuel them until they figure out the abandon tower issue. That holding corp is part of the Alliance. You advertise the spot for sale for 100 mil isk. Your profit for selling the location is 25 mil per moon. Also on the day of launch you can have a person in an industrial logged out at each system spot above 7.0 to log in as soon as the patch is applied and drop the small tower.
Small corporations can not defend a POS from large corporations or Nullsec alliances. I just do not see where the dropping of standings as a necessary change to the game.
I understand that as CSM members you have more knowledge than you can share and I respect that. If the change in standings has a bigger long term goal then great, if not, I do not agree with it. They should have left that out of the blog until they could better explain the need to drop that requirement if there is more too it. This multiple blog changes would not bother me in the winter expansion, Right now with the voting for CSM and determining who to vote for all the pieces should have been put out so that candidates could have voiced there opinions on the upcoming changes.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15151
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 18:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
To expand on this:
There are two conceivable rational motives for "nullsec alliances" to do what you're worried about
1) To secure a scarce resource for themselves
2) To deny a valuable resource to competitors
Given the time=money expense of securing 13,000 new hisec moons, not to mention the tens of thousands of existing moons you can probably work out that neither is a viable stratgey. If it takes 50 subcaps pilots 40 minutes to defang and reinforce, then 20 minutes to kill a POS, then that's 50 man-hours per POS. Assume that those pilots could otherwise be making 50M ISK in an hour. Therefore it costs 2.5B per POS, assuming that the POS is undefended and the replacement POS is never attacked.
Since 0.0 alliances primarily care about competing with each other, their time is far better spent attacking a single CSAA POS building a super (value 50-100Bn) than 20-40 hi-sec POS. Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras-á Mangala Solaris-á Mike Azariah-á Steve Ronuken James Arget-á Xander Phoena-á Sugar Kyle-á corbexx-á mynnna-á progodlegend-á Psychotic Monk-á Jayne Fillion
|
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
45
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 19:37:00 -
[13] - Quote
Thanks for the explanation. I agree the ROI is not there for the nullsec alliances.
I still do not agree with the removal of the standings. It is in my opinion a working game mechanic. Taking it away is dumbing the game down. When people complain about having to do something to achieve a goal the typically answer has been HTFU that is the way the game works. Id you want a POS without standings go to lowsec.
I was going to say I hope they will give a fuel discount to the hi-sec POS owners based on standings just like nullsec gets a discount for sovereignty when it is implemented but this would screw lowsec. So without more knowledge of CCPs direction here this change does not seem to necessary.
Thanks again for the comments and your dedication to making Eve better. |
Benny Ohu
Beneath the Ashes Margin of Silence
3039
|
Posted - 2014.04.19 20:20:00 -
[14] - Quote
i think that a mechanic that makes players do something that's so unrelated to what they want to do as a prerequisite is bad, especially as long and grindy as doing missions. and especially as missions and (pos stuff) require totally different skillsets
... that remark on fuel discount for pos owners with high standings is interesting, though. don't highsec starbases need special tickets from the empires to be run? is this a significant cost? reducing this particular cost for corps with high standings or even corps in factional warfare sounds cool |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3399
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 02:16:00 -
[15] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:mynnna wrote:Killian Redbeard wrote:My initial take is this is going to cause more wars and also gives the null sec Alliance's the ability to take over hi-sec. Err... just like highsec POCOs gave nullsec alliances the ability to "take over highsec"? (For the unaware we only had a few dozen POCOs at most, and transferred them over to RvB about a month ago as miniluv was tired of doing things that weren't suicide ganking) Ask yourself a question though - all else equal, why would nullsec alliances want to drop POS in highsec when they can drop them in their own space, where they are both more easily defended and get a significant bonus to fuel consumption? And then, if your answer is "to troll people, duh", ask yourself who's really getting trolled by setting up thousands of POS. I did not think nullsec would take over hisec with the poco's. This is different. Maybe my wording is incorrect in Nullsec Alliances but I believe they have the resources more than a large Corporation. With the refining changes ore compression at a pos will be available. If a nullsec alliance needs to ship ore now they will want the compression ore, correct? So why wouldn't want to do this themselves instead of paying somebody else? This would only require 1 POS so no concern here. Just like the Code trying to charge miners mining permits, and I know Nullsec Alliances like their rent income. Lets just say there are 20 moons in the hisec system. If you charged a 50 mil fee per month, the cost of a weeks wardec that is 1 bil isk income. So before the changes go live you find players with 7.0 faction standing to create a small corp to go around and drop small towers on the open moon spots. Currently you would not need to fuel them until they figure out the abandon tower issue. That holding corp is part of the Alliance. You advertise the spot for sale for 100 mil isk. Your profit for selling the location is 25 mil per moon. Also on the day of launch you can have a person in an industrial logged out at each system spot above 7.0 to log in as soon as the patch is applied and drop the small tower. Small corporations can not defend a POS from large corporations or Nullsec alliances. I just do not see where the dropping of standings as a necessary change to the game. I understand that as CSM members you have more knowledge than you can share and I respect that. If the change in standings has a bigger long term goal then great, if not, I do not agree with it. They should have left that out of the blog until they could better explain the need to drop that requirement if there is more too it. This multiple blog changes would not bother me in the winter expansion, Right now with the voting for CSM and determining who to vote for all the pieces should have been put out so that candidates could have voiced there opinions on the upcoming changes. What we learned from our experience with highsec pocos is that holding those pocos against a force that actually lives in highsec is a bit of a pain. Doable, yes, but a pain, and our group best suited to do that would rather be ganking haulers and freighters than defending and repping structures. And that was with something that required no maintenance or input beyond defense, which certainly can't be said of POS. Marmite might wind up tiring of shooting the structures themselves but I'm sure they'd delight in trying to gank fuel trucks, for example.
The removal of the standings requirement may be "dumbing things down", but there's so much bullshit surrounding how standings work that I'm not exactly sorry to see them go, either. If it were possible to use ones personal standings to anchor on behalf of a corp that might be another matter.
A fuel discount for standings wouldn't be a bad way to make them meaningful without making them required, though. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15161
|
Posted - 2014.04.20 16:58:00 -
[16] - Quote
Benny Ohu wrote:i think that a mechanic that makes players do something that's so unrelated to what they want to do as a prerequisite is bad, especially as long and grindy as doing missions. and especially as missions and (pos stuff) require totally different skillsets
... that remark on fuel discount for pos owners with high standings is interesting, though. don't highsec starbases need special tickets from the empires to be run? is this a significant cost? reducing this particular cost for corps with high standings or even corps in factional warfare sounds cool
IIRC, the "tickets" (starbase something charters or whatever they're called) are consumed at a flat rate and are a minor LP/ISK sink. They're not a significant cost. And as a point of principle, I think it's desirable that the highest "cost" of running a POS should be the need to defend it against other players.
With respect to standings, They're a pointless arbitrary barrier to being able to use a POS at all. I can't think of any good argument for adding them to a system that didn't have them in the first place. Far better to have the barrier be "some other guy has the moon you want, why not try and take it away from him?" than "you have to spend a few hundred hours grinding missions that you have no interest in at all in order to engage in a totally seperate field of gameplay". How about requiring players to complete 5 billion in market sales before they can access mission agents? Or building items that use at least 10 million units of minerals before they can place buy orders? Or research 10 BPOs to "perfect" before you can change the security toggle from green. Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras-á Mangala Solaris-á Mike Azariah-á Steve Ronuken James Arget-á Xander Phoena-á Sugar Kyle-á corbexx-á mynnna-á progodlegend-á Psychotic Monk-á Jayne Fillion
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
586
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 18:02:00 -
[17] - Quote
Being in null u really dont want to put your time in thousands of high sec posses, even most poco are transferred or even not. Looked afther as its too Much hasle. I feel mine are mostly reinforced to pick s fight. Removing the standings allows more players. To get down to bussiness. Which is good. Yeah discount might Be fun with standings, but standings can be used elsewhere also.
Ure asking csm. 9, while our current csm is well aware of the. Changes and the planning of them. If anything it makes. Sense they respond. None. Of the changes so far, are a surprise. Yearsago i saw stats about which kind of players stay longest in eve.ccp used to state high sec should be a transit zone for the bulk of players. Or niche.
I think csm 8 answer your questions pretty nicely atm |
Sunrise Aigele
Pemberley Enterprises BadWrongFun
28
|
Posted - 2014.04.22 20:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
mynnna wrote:The removal of the standings requirement may be "dumbing things down", but there's so much bullshit surrounding how standings work that I'm not exactly sorry to see them go, either. If it were possible to use ones personal standings to anchor on behalf of a corp that might be another matter.
A fuel discount for standings wouldn't be a bad way to make them meaningful without making them required, though.
I find myself agreeing with this. The idea is sound: if you want the convenience of using the infrastructure built by these large institutions, you must curry favor with them and you must scratch their back sometimes. It is not only plausible, it adds a cost to the decision. The choice to settle in a particular place becomes more meaningful. That is the pretty theory.
I hope the pretty theory is kept in mind! I do not want to lose the particular flavor of highsec to the deficiencies of an obsolete design. When PVE is redone, and if standings get a Crimewatch-style rethinking, I would like very much to see them return to their intended significance. |
Killian Redbeard
3dge of D4rkness
48
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 12:43:00 -
[19] - Quote
corebloodbrothers wrote:Being in null u really dont want to put your time in thousands of high sec posses, even most poco are transferred or even not. Looked afther as its too Much hasle. I feel mine are mostly reinforced to pick s fight. Removing the standings allows more players. To get down to bussiness. Which is good. Yeah discount might Be fun with standings, but standings can be used elsewhere also.
Ure asking csm. 9, while our current csm is well aware of the. Changes and the planning of them. If anything it makes. Sense they respond. None. Of the changes so far, are a surprise. Yearsago i saw stats about which kind of players stay longest in eve.ccp used to state high sec should be a transit zone for the bulk of players. Or niche.
I think csm 8 answer your questions pretty nicely atm
Yes the csm8 answered my questions but in a week they will no longer be in office and the new CSM9 members will be the ones working with CCP to finish up the summer expansion and then move on to the winter expansion. I appreciate the answers and the work that CSM8 did. The purpose of this was to help me decide who to vote for in the election. The match vote system does not get into the purposed direction that Eve is going only generalized questions about your style of game play. Being of the same play style does not necessarily mean that you will agree with the changes CCP is making. Being a highsec dweller does not mean that I will only vote for highsec players. If CCP said that the next year was all focused on PVP, I would not vote for somebody that is only going to champion industry/PVE and does not know anything about PVP.
|
corebloodbrothers
Volition Cult The Volition Cult
587
|
Posted - 2014.04.23 14:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Being in null u really dont want to put your time in thousands of high sec posses, even most poco are transferred or even not. Looked afther as its too Much hasle. I feel mine are mostly reinforced to pick s fight. Removing the standings allows more players. To get down to bussiness. Which is good. Yeah discount might Be fun with standings, but standings can be used elsewhere also.
Ure asking csm. 9, while our current csm is well aware of the. Changes and the planning of them. If anything it makes. Sense they respond. None. Of the changes so far, are a surprise. Yearsago i saw stats about which kind of players stay longest in eve.ccp used to state high sec should be a transit zone for the bulk of players. Or niche.
I think csm 8 answer your questions pretty nicely atm Yes the csm8 answered my questions but in a week they will no longer be in office and the new CSM9 members will be the ones working with CCP to finish up the summer expansion and then move on to the winter expansion. I appreciate the answers and the work that CSM8 did. The purpose of this was to help me decide who to vote for in the election. The match vote system does not get into the purposed direction that Eve is going only generalized questions about your style of game play. Being of the same play style does not necessarily mean that you will agree with the changes CCP is making. Being a highsec dweller does not mean that I will only vote for highsec players. If CCP said that the next year was all focused on PVP, I would not vote for somebody that is only going to champion industry/PVE and does not know anything about PVP.
If i am correct elections ended:) |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
3416
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 13:00:00 -
[21] - Quote
Killian Redbeard wrote:corebloodbrothers wrote:Being in null u really dont want to put your time in thousands of high sec posses, even most poco are transferred or even not. Looked afther as its too Much hasle. I feel mine are mostly reinforced to pick s fight. Removing the standings allows more players. To get down to bussiness. Which is good. Yeah discount might Be fun with standings, but standings can be used elsewhere also.
Ure asking csm. 9, while our current csm is well aware of the. Changes and the planning of them. If anything it makes. Sense they respond. None. Of the changes so far, are a surprise. Yearsago i saw stats about which kind of players stay longest in eve.ccp used to state high sec should be a transit zone for the bulk of players. Or niche.
I think csm 8 answer your questions pretty nicely atm Yes the csm8 answered my questions but in a week they will no longer be in office and the new CSM9 members will be the ones working with CCP to finish up the summer expansion and then move on to the winter expansion. I appreciate the answers and the work that CSM8 did. The purpose of this was to help me decide who to vote for in the election. The match vote system does not get into the purposed direction that Eve is going only generalized questions about your style of game play. Being of the same play style does not necessarily mean that you will agree with the changes CCP is making. Being a highsec dweller does not mean that I will only vote for highsec players. If CCP said that the next year was all focused on PVP, I would not vote for somebody that is only going to champion industry/PVE and does not know anything about PVP.
Speaking from experience last year, by the time CSM9 takes office the vast majority of Summer will be fairly well settled, minimizing their ability to provide input. CSM9 contributions will be to Winter 2014 & Summer 2015. Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
15214
|
Posted - 2014.04.24 22:41:00 -
[22] - Quote
mynnna wrote: Speaking from experience last year, by the time CSM9 takes office the vast majority of Summer will be fairly well settled, minimizing their ability to provide input. CSM9 contributions will be to Winter 2014 & Summer 2015.
Confirming this. Here is my CSM9 endorsement list - vote for diversity of expertise : Ali Aras-á Mangala Solaris-á Mike Azariah-á Steve Ronuken James Arget-á Xander Phoena-á Sugar Kyle-á corbexx-á mynnna-á progodlegend-á Psychotic Monk-á Jayne Fillion
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |