Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
951
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 18:15:53 -
[391] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I don't get where these people claiming that CCP are changing AWOXing to protect newbies.
I do not advocate this, but if you wanted to make a change to PVP to protect newbies, you would prevent lowsec gatecamping. THAT is where newbies lose ships to mistakes all the time, particularly in lowsec systems that sell skillbooks.
Removing AWOXing is nothing but a change to protect career highsec players and to reward recklessness. Competently led corporations were seldom infiltrated, and if a disloyal member got in, they seldom did damage with blue on blue highsec attacks - the disloyal member might land tackle, but other loyal members would arrive on grid before anyone was killed. Personally I feel the new AWOX settings are potentially hazardous because if we accidentally shoot a corpie then CONCORD will come and kill us. So I will be leaving it as 'unsafe' as before. And before someone points it out I know I'm the only girl in my corporation. I'm speaking theoretically.
With the safe option turned on you would only be able to shoot a corp mate with safeties set to red, otherwise your safeties would prevent you from shooting. That being said I leave my corp on 'unsafe' as well.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4726
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 20:47:54 -
[392] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:'We' were considering giving you are votes for the CSM candidacy as we like some of your ideas such as renovating the wardec system to increase the costs if a large force wishes to attack a small or tiny force. We also liked your idea of giving small percentage increases eg to mining yield for pilots who stay in the same player-run corporations for say three months or more. I think you also gave support to, I think it was Steve Ronukens idea , to bring some kind of sovereignty aspect or control of systems to high sec. That idea interests me but it would have to be tightly controlled and well thought out. Otherwise it would end up like the situation with high sec POCOs which to my mind isn't healthy. It sounds like you would also like to remove high sec from the game which I don't really agree with. Can you explain your thoughts again on this policy ?
I do not want to remove highsec. EVE should be balanced on a sliding scale of risk vs reward, with wormhole space and nullsec offering the highest rewards alongside the highest risk, rookie systems offering almost no reward and almost no risk, and highsec and lowsec somewhere in the middle of those two.
Highsec's two defining traits are the presence of large quantities of neutrals among whom a minority of predators may be hiding, and the fact that the defender has significant but not overwhelming advantages in any conflict (CONCORD in ganks, ability to call in allies in wardecs, ability to have armed neutral assistance when you shoot a suspect, etc).
The game can and should have areas like this.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4729
|
Posted - 2015.02.25 23:11:25 -
[393] - Quote
My suggested voting platform:
1: Sabriz Adoudel 2: Tora Bushido 3: Steve Ronuken 4-14: Fill all of these out with candidates of your choice that are not Mike Azariah. If you do not have enough candidates you care about, pick ones at random.
The reasoning:
Ideally I'd like to get voted up on my own rights. However, if I am not elected, under STV a 1 Sabriz 2 Tora vote is (almost) equivalent to a 1 Tora vote. I feel Tora is the second best highsec predator candidate and would be a huge asset to the CSM whether I am elected or not, and my voters might help put Tora over the line.
Steve R probably doesn't need help getting over the line but I don't think this should be left to chance. The CSM needs someone with his unique skillset.
Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes. While he presented these changes as 'quality of life' changes, they have been major balance changes that have further damaged the (already seriously bad) risk to reward imbalance present in highsec incursion farming. EVE was made actively worse by these changes. Regardless of any positive qualities Mike may have as a person or organizer, EVE would be better if his feedback on game balance issues is marginalized or ignored.
It may seem that his feedback is irrelevant if you do not participate in incursions yourself, but the enormous amounts of liquid ISK poured into the economy by incursions transforms the game economy considerably. This is true of nullsec ratters as well, but null ratters do at least drive small gang fights and occasionally larger conflicts.
Under STV, it is an optimal voting strategy to fill your ballot with candidates that have a fringe chance of being elected if you wish to reduce one particular candidate's chance of getting elected.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:51:56 -
[394] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes.
And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607
This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convenience CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.?
Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4749
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:54:26 -
[395] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes. And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convenience CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.? Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".
If I had known how busy I would be IRL at that time, I would never have initiated that event.
Real life can surprise you at any time.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4761
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 09:46:50 -
[396] - Quote
Well, I've now voted.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Zealous Miner
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 15:15:46 -
[397] - Quote
All of my ballots have you at the top. I wish you luck in your campaign.
I voted for Sabriz Adoudel for CSM10. You should too.
www.minerbumping.com
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2440
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:24:13 -
[398] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.
What content have you organised for players?
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
959
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:50:28 -
[399] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes. And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=366607 This is the extent of your skills? If you cannot convenience villains to be evil then how will you convenience CSM or CCP that your view has any merit.? Its been nice that your friends have assisted answering questions for your campaign, but is that really an viable option at a summit? Maybe you can keep asking for a toilet break to batphone through to James315 for the "real answer".
I don't think you know what the word convenience means.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
959
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:51:57 -
[400] - Quote
I've spread the word wide, no less than 30 accounts have you at the top.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4778
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 02:16:35 -
[401] - Quote
Here's an image of a kitten to thank my voters.
http://ashcreekanimalclinic.com/clients/14298/images/kitten10.jpg
That kitten really hopes I get elected.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Bam Stroker
Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion
411
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 04:38:52 -
[402] - Quote
Good luck Sabriz. As an AUTZ candidate I've been mindful to give you equal mention along with myself and Cagali when I've posted or spoken about the CSM in the context of EVE Down Under.
I'm running for CSM X because I want to empower the community builders of New Eden and help make a richer social environment both in and out of game. I'll need your support.
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 07:50:56 -
[403] - Quote
admiral root wrote:GetSirrus wrote:And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.
What content have you organised for players?
I am not the one running for CSM with a platform of "content creation". Neither are you - but by all means keep answering for Sabriz. Confirmation of the point I made.
The aim here is Player Driven Content, you get this right?! So if Incursions are "risk free" then the blame lies with those fail to bring that risk. It is obviously important to someone. Now Sabriz cites RL - totally fine, I trust everything is in hand going forward. But no one else takes up the torch, including you. This clearly demonstrates that is not important enough. |
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
85
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 07:55:28 -
[404] - Quote
Tengu Grib wrote:I don't think you know what the word convenience means.
Well Sabriz did understand what I was asking and the answer I received was satisfactory. But since you did not, I have since edited it for clarity. Note especially for you, it was typed slowly, you don't read very fast if you takes days to notice.
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
684
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 09:07:21 -
[405] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:I don't think you know what the word convenience means. Well Sabriz did understand what I was asking and the answer I received was satisfactory. But since you did not, I have since edited it for clarity. Note especially for you, it was typed slowly, you don't read very fast if you takes days to notice. Wow, so much bitter.
I'm not sure why you are implying an in-game effort to create content has any relevance to the purpose and daily activities of the CSM. Of all the roles it has grown to fill, running in-game contests isn't really something the CSM is for.
Sabriz, I have cast my multiple ballots for you. You have had an uphill battle for a seat with all the competition this year, but I am optimistic that your campaign has reached many and you have a shot at one of the last seats. Your thread has the most likes of any, and only Tora's has more views.
People, if you haven't voted and you want an engaging New Eden full of excitement, conflict, and energy; a New Eden where a proper risk and reward balance drives players towards evermore hilarious destruction; putting Sabriz as your #1 is a really good idea.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5192
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:10:17 -
[406] - Quote
Black Pedro wrote:I'm not sure why you are implying an in-game effort to create content has any relevance to the purpose and daily activities of the CSM. Of all the roles it has grown to fill, running in-game contests isn't really something the CSM is for. I imagine it's because a CSM candidate (where candidates are expected to have enough time to essentially have the CSM as a second full-time job) claiming to be a content creator (purely because all gankers seem to feel they create more content than any one else) while simultaneously failing to create content because of out of game commitments is falling down on both the content creation and the ability to free up time for the CSM.
Black Pedro wrote:People, if you haven't voted and you want an engaging New Eden full of excitement, conflict, and energy; a New Eden where a proper risk and reward balance drives players towards evermore hilarious destruction; putting Sabriz as your #1 is a really good idea. Except that's not how it's going to happen. I mean first of all Sabriz only wants content for one group of players - people who want PvP from the comfort of highsec and want to force people who have no chance of beating them to have to fight back. Secondly, even if he makes it to the CSM, he won't have control over the direction of the game. It's more likely he'll be seen as overly negative, be involved less in CSM processes and ultimately be a wasted vote.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2443
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 17:52:30 -
[407] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:admiral root wrote:GetSirrus wrote:And you were instrumental in a dismal failure to organise creative content for players against incursions.
What content have you organised for players? I am not the one running for CSM with a platform of "content creation".
Running on a platform of content creation in no way requires him to run events. Also, RL happens. Of course, to an NPC with a blank killboard, none of this will make much sense as you're just here to troll. Thanks for keeping the thread bumped though.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
968
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:31:36 -
[408] - Quote
Vote Sabriz!
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
Tengu Grib
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
968
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:33:01 -
[409] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:Tengu Grib wrote:I don't think you know what the word convenience means. Well Sabriz did understand what I was asking and the answer I received was satisfactory. But since you did not, I have since edited it for clarity. Note especially for you, it was typed slowly, you don't read very fast if you takes days to notice.
lol don't have to get hissy I was just making fun of the typo. We all make them. I apologize if I don't check the forum often enough on weekends for your liking. I typically only check it while I'm at work.
Sabriz for CSMX!
Consider voting Tora as well.
|
GetSirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
86
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:37:24 -
[410] - Quote
admiral root wrote:Running on a platform of content creation in no way requires him to run events. Also, RL happens. Of course, to an NPC with a blank killboard, none of this will make much sense as you're just here to troll. Thanks for keeping the thread bumped though.
You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in.
Some time past it was discovered that Devs are prohibited from suicide ganking. The almost immediate acusation from various elements including James315 was that "you are not playing our game". So here we have a candidate representing a play style - "but is not playing that game".
the ad hominem card cannot be played at this time. troll hits your post for 3 points, lose a turn. (that what you wanted?) |
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4781
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:07:48 -
[411] - Quote
Still digesting the Sov devblog. Posted only minor thoughts in that thread so far.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Jenshae Chiroptera
The Volition Cult
1039
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:02:43 -
[412] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:.... Secondly, even if he makes it to the CSM, he won't have control over the direction of the game. It's more likely he'll be seen as overly negative, be involved less in CSM processes and ultimately be a wasted vote. *Puts cynical hat on* "I think anyone that cares about the game rather than being a breathing advertisement for their group will probably be a frustrated person and waste of a vote."
They have managed to keep this going for 21 pages with some help from the CODE Fanatics, despite a lot of open hostility, so there is determination at least.
GetSirrus wrote:admiral root wrote: Thanks for keeping the thread bumped though. You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in. Just saw this. Ahahahahahahahaha!! Thanks! *Wipes away a tear*
CSM Ten movement for change.
CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids.
Status: Rabid carebear
Blog
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4783
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:45:31 -
[413] - Quote
For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.
Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.
I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4783
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:03:44 -
[414] - Quote
A few more thoughts on the sov devblog, as it's kinda a big deal. Direct copy/paste.
OK, a few more thoughts.
Firstly I need to think more about the primetime issue but my gut thought is that it will lead to a lot of stalemates, where a weak-but-viable AU TZ alliance has one constellation, a stronger EU TZ alliance has the adjacent two, and neither can dislodge the other. Stalemates could lead to boredom, or could lead to a system of (fun) permanent war. Existing coalitions will probably splinter into groups based upon their timezone and this is probably bad.
Secondly, the defensive bonuses for ratting and mining (but not for exploration?) need to be more interchangable. The idea of the overhaul is that you want people using space. If you own one system, mining in it, ratting in it, running non-combat exploration sites in it and killing hostile players in both your system and adjacent systems should all contribute to your defensive bonuses and should all be interchangeable.
To a mining-oriented nullsec sov holder, the present system says "We don't care that you'd rather be mining. You need to drop that and rat." This isn't good. Let players choose *how* they use their space and reward them for using it, don't tell them they have to focus on 50% ratting 50% mining.
Thirdly, if the present system goes ahead unchanged, there will be a massive flood of additional nullsec mining. A small change here would be a good thing as more mining fleets means more fleets to ambush, and more fighting over null belts means more fights that might escalate. But the economic effect will be a drastic devaluation of null minerals, and the game impact will be a dramatic increase in the number of bots mining in null. I will go as far as to predict that these changes will lead to a 20% (or larger) increase in the number of trial accounts running mining bots in ventures in nullsec, and nullsec wars will be won (in part) by having enough of these bots running to keep your defensive indexes maxxed out.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
admiral root
Red Galaxy
2443
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 04:16:24 -
[415] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in.
Well played, NPC.
No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff | No-one hates you, none of us care enough for that.
Sabriz for CSM
|
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
687
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:12:27 -
[416] - Quote
GetSirrus wrote:You should know that being bumped is not always the best position to be in. Ain't that the truth!
I honestly can't tell if you are being ironic or not, I think probably not, but you get a like anyway.
GetSirrus wrote:Some time past it was discovered that Devs are prohibited from suicide ganking. The almost immediate acusation from various elements including James315 was that "you are not playing our game". So here we have a candidate representing a play style - "but is not playing that game". These same devs have on multiple and repeated occasions made it explicitly clear that suicide ganking is an intended mechanic in the game. It's pretty strange to claim that something the developers put in on the game on purpose isn't part of the game.
But really, if you read Sabriz's campaign statements or look at her vote match answers you can see that she isn't running on a "pro-suicide ganking" platform. I think most reasonable people agree (just go read all the candidates vote match answer to the question) that suicide ganking is important for the game and doesn't need any major changes including Sabriz.
I voted for Sabriz because of his ideas and experiences in highsec war and corporation mechanics, and his understanding of industry and production, not to mention that he is clearly an intelligent person that cares about this game. I think he would make an excellent representative of a playstyle that has not only been under-represented on the CSM, but as you point out, one that the developers may not have as much experience with because of CCP rules.
If you think otherwise, don't vote for him. That is how the system is suppose to work.
Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5195
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:16:24 -
[417] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.
Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.
I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLu8_rEQL0 :D
I wouldn't fault a CSM member for it either, but surely you can see why someone would see it as a bad sign that someone who's going for a platform of content creation and aiming to take on a second full time job might be scrutinised if during just the campaign they've already had their real life commitments collide with their scheduled activities. Whether there's good reason or not is irrelevant, people want a CSM member who will be active. If someone were prone to illness and often had to go away for weeks at a time for example, while they would not be faulted, they also wouldn't be a good choice for CSM.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Sabriz Adoudel
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
4784
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:19:59 -
[418] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.
Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.
I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLu8_rEQL0:D I wouldn't fault a CSM member for it either, but surely you can see why someone would see it as a bad sign that someone who's going for a platform of content creation and aiming to take on a second full time job might be scrutinised if during just the campaign they've already had their real life commitments collide with their scheduled activities. Whether there's good reason or not is irrelevant, people want a CSM member who will be active. If someone were prone to illness and often had to go away for weeks at a time for example, while they would not be faulted, they also wouldn't be a good choice for CSM.
I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone.
Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
5195
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:50:23 -
[419] - Quote
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone. Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
|
Kaarous Aldurald
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
11969
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 13:26:37 -
[420] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Sabriz Adoudel wrote:I do not expect the circumstances involved to repeat, but a family member having serious health issues can happen to anyone. Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?
I can't. In fact, I am wondering if you sprained your arm reaching so far.
"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
One of ours, ten of theirs.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |