Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1681
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:34:00 -
[391] - Quote
Joyitii wrote:Mining is usually considered as a semi afk activity and there are lots of out crys that I've seen saying that they want it to stay more or less that way. It is a fairly relaxed profession and should reflect that, leave the high isk out in low/nul where people are much more willing to pay attention and aren't doing homework/cooking/laundry or what have you.
This is a decision regarding to mining development that has to be considered extremely carefully. I understand that some miners enjoy the semi-afk game play it allows, but this is also the same quality to mining as an activity that makes it a prime target for griefing.
Miners who want to protect mining as a semi-afk activity must also relinquish their rights to complain when the Goons come and kill their barges, or Hulkageddon keeps them docked for a week or two. Some do, most donGÇÖt.
I think weGÇÖve all settled with mining as being a boring, afk activity only in the absence of CCP offering something much more engaging. I think most miners would prefer to spend a couple of hours with an entertaining feature that requires their full attention, than spend half the day babysitting something valuable that can be taken from them in a momentGÇÖs notice and jeopardize all the profit they could have earned had they been at their computer.
IGÇÖm trying to approach the mining issue with respect to the negative impact it has had on the entire social fabric of EvE for years now. The mining/ganking/botting argument circle has been going around and around endlessly and I feel itGÇÖs such a waste of time when we could simply come up with something fun to play instead. Mining remains one of the most outdated professions (along with industry) in terms of development; I see no virtue in preserving a relic from the past if CCP can be convinced to dedicate the resources needed to iterate upon the core system.
|
Indius Lux
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 16:39:00 -
[392] - Quote
Joyitii wrote:I disagree a few of these points. I don't think we disagree, I'd be happy to see more emphasis on scannable sites. The spawning sites I mentioned would be on overview, but their migration and distribution around system would decrease the can fields we see currently. We don't disagree on what the Survey Scanner should do; I just think that a big rock might have no ore in it and a small rock might have a lot. The only way to tell that should be via the Survey Scanner, but currently it doesn't really matter what rock you mine, it all puts out the same amount per cycle just the quantity before it's exhausted is different. And I'm sure that those making their income off of mining would put up a fight over making their job more complicated, but I don't think there's anyone who thinks mining is anything other than boring. Turning a boring activity into an interesting one should have a net positive effect on the userbase.
As you mentioned, there's a thread for this kind of stuff, and this probably isn't the place to get into a detailed and exhaustive analysis of mining. I just saw a trivit about rocks smashing into each other and physics engines which got me off on a tangent: I don't mine because it's boring, I don't PvE because it's boring, it can be fixed and Hans is my candidate (though I'm sure I'd rather he push iterating security and getting FW some love before fixing things I don't do because they are boring)
Carebears and Pirates for Jagerblitzen! |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 17:02:00 -
[393] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Joyitii wrote:Mining is usually considered as a semi afk activity and there are lots of out crys that I've seen saying that they want it to stay more or less that way. It is a fairly relaxed profession and should reflect that, leave the high isk out in low/nul where people are much more willing to pay attention and aren't doing homework/cooking/laundry or what have you. This is a decision regarding to mining development that has to be considered extremely carefully. I understand that some miners enjoy the semi-afk game play it allows, but this is also the same quality to mining as an activity that makes it a prime target for griefing. Miners who want to protect mining as a semi-afk activity must also relinquish their rights to complain when the Goons come and kill their barges, or Hulkageddon keeps them docked for a week or two. Some do, most donGÇÖt. I think weGÇÖve all settled with mining as being a boring, afk activity only in the absence of CCP offering something much more engaging. I think most miners would prefer to spend a couple of hours with an entertaining feature that requires their full attention, than spend half the day babysitting something valuable that can be taken from them in a momentGÇÖs notice and jeopardize all the profit they could have earned had they been at their computer. IGÇÖm trying to approach the mining issue with respect to the negative impact it has had on the entire social fabric of EvE for years now. The mining/ganking/botting argument circle has been going around and around endlessly and I feel itGÇÖs such a waste of time when we could simply come up with something fun to play instead. Mining remains one of the most outdated professions (along with industry) in terms of development; I see no virtue in preserving a relic from the past if CCP can be convinced to dedicate the resources needed to iterate upon the core system. A large reason that it is griefed is also due to miners not fitting any tank whatsoever and then the very small crowd of loud people complaining about it all over the forums. There are PLENTY of people who suck it up and take the risk or tank up their battle hulks and don't complain about it on the forums because they know how and why their ship got blown up. On the post that I mentioned earlier there are complaints about mining turning into some kind of minigame or quicktime event. Changing the things that I've mentioned would in my opinion keep things closer to the core of what eve is. Player made content - risk of being scanned down and being shot up. Going to low and null and taking those big risks of a ship being blown up. I know that the player made content comment is going to get me flamed all to high hell but I think that keeping the mechanics of mining (Point laser - Shoot rock) close to being the same but the logistics (Having to scout out the best part of a belt to mine from) behind it all much more deep will satisfy the most amount of people. |
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 17:05:00 -
[394] - Quote
Indius Lux wrote:Joyitii wrote:I disagree a few of these points. I don't think we disagree, I'd be happy to see more emphasis on scannable sites. The spawning sites I mentioned would be on overview, but their migration and distribution around system would decrease the can fields we see currently. We don't disagree on what the Survey Scanner should do; I just think that a big rock might have no ore in it and a small rock might have a lot. The only way to tell that should be via the Survey Scanner, but currently it doesn't really matter what rock you mine, it all puts out the same amount per cycle just the quantity before it's exhausted is different. And I'm sure that those making their income off of mining would put up a fight over making their job more complicated, but I don't think there's anyone who thinks mining is anything other than boring. Turning a boring activity into an interesting one should have a net positive effect on the userbase. As you mentioned, there's a thread for this kind of stuff, and this probably isn't the place to get into a detailed and exhaustive analysis of mining. I just saw a trivit about rocks smashing into each other and physics engines which got me off on a tangent: I don't mine because it's boring, I don't PvE because it's boring, it can be fixed and Hans is my candidate (though I'm sure I'd rather he push iterating security and getting FW some love before fixing things I don't do because they are boring) Carebears and Pirates for Jagerblitzen! I'm glad that we agree on more than I had initially thought! The comment about rocks hitting each other rubbed me the wrong way too. I however decided to stay quiet since I thought that there were starting to be too many posts in this thread about mining where it could better be discussed elsewhere. Anyway here I go on another one... |
Mortromain
Lazy Settlers
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 18:45:00 -
[395] - Quote
Hi Hans,
i just read your pdf and tried to read all your intervention on this post. While i like some things (farming SS only in low sec is a great idea), i have an awful feeling about your SS system changes
In your pdf, it seems like you want to make the low sec a wide place for free for all FW : PvP without consequences.
But there are already ways to do this (FW, mutual wardec, NPC 0.0 and RvB), why would you want low sec to be like this?
I live in low-sec, i earn isks through trading and PvE and enjoy PVP from time to time, i know pirates are around and i like it. I like the risks, even though i earn less than i would in high sec. But if every one can shoot me without consequences, this would not be possible anymore. Low sec is not a battle arena, it's a place were PvP is more likely to happen and you must be prepared for it. I don't want it to become a place where every one can do anything without a second thought, EvE is a game where your actions matter, and this is great. Destroying a passing ship is not consensual PvP, it's piracy and should be treated a such.
Living in low sec is hard, if anyone can go in it, kill me a bunch of time and return to high sec when they are broke, making twice as much money as i do, i'm doomed. (i'm just realizing that this is what pirates are living against anti pirates)
Don't get me wrong, i don't want low sec to be secure. But it must be (as it is now) between high sec and null-space.
Some of your answers in this post made me think that somehow you share my vision of low-sec, but i don't think this is consistent with what you are proposing in your pdf.
So my question : - Do you think that low sec should be a place where people can live in doing other stuff than PvP? or should it just be a battle arena where anyone can shoot at anything? |
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
131
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 19:35:00 -
[396] - Quote
I agree with Hans. The mining community will need to figure out what balance they want b/w preserving the semi AFK activity and more rewarding content that could be the mining profession. This isn't the thread for it though.
I'd also like to say that you shouldn't expect too much from CCP in the upcoming year about changes to the mining profession and don't expect any candidate including Hans to hail in major changes wrt to this profession. CCP will always have their own agenda and the CSM simply acts as a liason to provide feedback and ensure the development process goes smoothly. This year's agenda will be on 'war' so vote for your candidate with that in mind. I'm sure Hans or any CSM candidate will try to voice the concerns of miners or whichever constituents they represent, but just keep in mind how CCP operates.
Apparently, once you create a sig. You can't completely delete it. So this is my sig...for now. |
Little Brat
The Mighty
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:32:00 -
[397] - Quote
Greetings, all players need to be represented on the CSM. 8% of players live in 0.0; 67% live in 0.5 or above. Votes for candidates should be allocated based on population. It is absurd the CSM should be so misresented as it was last year. I've played EVE since September 2003. I've done everything except FW. Am going to support you, let me know if in my modest means I can help. QUESTION: I hate botting, there is a lot of it going on. I propose that at the announcement "Request for docking permission" the pilot would have to enter a randomly generated password for docking permission to be granted. Comment? |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:32:00 -
[398] - Quote
Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1688
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:44:00 -
[399] - Quote
Grumpy Owly wrote:Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting
Thanks for the inquiry, Grumpy Owly !! I specifically discuss Malcanis's bounty hunting system as part of my core platform. I encourage you to read my platform document, it's linked in the second post in this thread, let me know if you have any other questions after reading what I have to say about the subject.
I appreciate your interest in my campaign! |
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:52:00 -
[400] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Grumpy Owly wrote:Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting Thanks for the inquiry, Grumpy Owly !! I specifically discuss Malcanis's bounty hunting system as part of my core platform. I encourage you to read my platform document, it's linked in the second post in this thread, let me know if you have any other questions after reading what I have to say about the subject. I appreciate your interest in my campaign!
Yes apologies if I seem to have come accross ignorant to your support to correcting BH as it stands. I had to post to everyone to ensure impartiality. Perhaps lazy of me I guess, but the open thread for the discussin wasn't getting an responce from candidates. Largely I appreciate you are busy and juggling many balls etc so I understand largley why.
Where possible can I request if you would afford a few moments to posting a stance on the topic in the linked thread I provided. It would be nice to see a holistic view of the subject.
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1688
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 20:59:00 -
[401] - Quote
Sure thing, Grumpy. I'll be happy to summarize my thoughts for you, I have been asked a few questions now that require more detailed answers now so I'll catch up when I get home from work.
Thanks for asking! I appreciate your patience. |
Vordak Kallager
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
103
|
Posted - 2012.02.15 22:41:00 -
[402] - Quote
Little Brat wrote:Greetings, all players need to be represented on the CSM. 8% of players live in 0.0; 67% live in 0.5 or above. Votes for candidates should be allocated based on population. It is absurd the CSM should be so misresented as it was last year. I've played EVE since September 2003. I've done everything except FW. Am going to support you, let me know if in my modest means I can help. QUESTION: I hate botting, there is a lot of it going on. I propose that at the announcement "Request for docking permission" the pilot would have to enter a randomly generated password for docking permission to be granted. Comment?
This would certainly help the botting problem, but it would also be a massive inconvenience for actual players and therefore, I don't think it is a good idea. Having to input a PW just to dock all the time? Yikes! Hans Jagerblitzen for CSM7 |
Mystical Might
The Imperial Fedaykin
77
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 02:26:00 -
[403] - Quote
What're your thoughts on... LOKI BOOSTAZ. And boosting T3s in general? (Can you haz pl0x remove dem pl0x? I won't even be mad). |
Indius Lux
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 02:29:00 -
[404] - Quote
CCP has demonstrated that it's in their own best interests to address botting; their largest effort to date cut server CPU usage by 30%. That team must still be in place in some form, they just need to be given some authority to address the issue. I remember when I went through an anti botting phase and petitioned numerous bots without ever receiving a response, it's clearly an issue of manpower. I think the clearest path here is to a) iterate security b) make asteroids require a modicum of intelligence and attention to return the best yield c) make missions behave more like the advanced AI CCP has already shown Remove the fertile grounds that make botting possible while enhancing user experience: Hans for CSM
|
Galatica789
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
15
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 11:11:00 -
[405] - Quote
plus 1 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
2966
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 11:38:00 -
[406] - Quote
Little Brat wrote:Greetings, all players need to be represented on the CSM. 8% of players live in 0.0; 67% live in 0.5 or above. Votes for candidates should be allocated based on population.
But votes are allocated based on population: 1 vote per account. Hi-sec has 67% of the vote.
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/ |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
266
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 12:20:00 -
[407] - Quote
Mortromain wrote:Hi Hans,
I just read your pdf and tried to read all your intervention on this post. While i like some things (farming SS only in low sec is a great idea), i have an awful feeling about your SS system changes
In your pdf, it seems like you want to make the low sec a wide place for free for all FW : PvP without consequences.
I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.
Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.
Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Mortromain
Lazy Settlers
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 13:05:00 -
[408] - Quote
Cearain wrote: I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.
Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.
I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop.
and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec.
FW already is an arena for consensual PvP. |
Cearain
Imperial Outlaws
266
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 14:20:00 -
[409] - Quote
Mortromain wrote:Cearain wrote: I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.
Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.
I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop. and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec. FW already is an arena for consensual PvP.
I think you are probably right that this will bring more people into low sec looking for pvp. This in turn might mean that pvers will have more people looking to kill them per system. That would likely mean somewhat fewer pvers. I tend to think it would be a net increase for low sec though.
However if this happens ccp could do at least 2 different things to offset this. 1) they could make more low sec systems like they did with black rise. This would mean there are no longer more people per system and pvers could still find a quieter system for pve. 2) They could give some increases in the rewards pvers get in low sec.
The end result would mean more people are in low sec doing what they want to do. Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815
|
Joyitii
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:12:00 -
[410] - Quote
Cearain wrote:Mortromain wrote:Cearain wrote: I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.
Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.
I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop. and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec. FW already is an arena for consensual PvP. I think you are probably right that this will bring more people into low sec looking for pvp. This in turn might mean that pvers will have more people looking to kill them per system. That would likely mean somewhat fewer pvers. I tend to think it would be a net increase for low sec though. However if this happens ccp could do at least 2 different things to offset this. 1) they could make more low sec systems like they did with black rise. This would mean there are no longer more people per system and pvers could still find a quieter system for pve. 2) They could give some increases in the rewards pvers get in low sec. The end result would mean more people are in low sec doing what they want to do. I do really think that they should increase the number of lowsec systems too. It'll make it harder to track down people in those systems and add a false sense of security to have more people come out and stay a while. Personally I'd love to mine in lowsec but at the current time there are just too many people roaming the systems at pretty much all hours. Plus more systems adds to the already large universe which I have a feeling may become fairly cramped if all things on the horizon go well. |
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1708
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 15:54:00 -
[411] - Quote
Mortromain wrote: - Do you think that low sec should be a place where people can live in doing other stuff than PvP? or should it just be a battle arena where anyone can shoot at anything?
Excellent question. Low sec should provide both, in the end, I donGÇÖt see them as mutually exclusive. Many of my corpmates do not earn their income through PvP, they earn it from the many PvE activities there are to do in the region.
Pirates are the main group of players that earn their isk through PvP, though there are some individuals in the militia who loot enough to get by. The vast majority of us in the low sec casual PvP crowd are usually engaged in other activities, such as FW missions, exploration sites, static plexes, and generalized ratting, mining, and industry.
All of these activities not only need to be protected, they need to be enhanced. Low sec doesn't suffer a total lack of content, its just that the reward doesn't scale up enough to properly entice high sec players to take the "risk" and play in low sec.
The reason I say GÇ£riskGÇ£ in quotes is because I like to be real specific about which activities I consider to carry a chance-based negative outcome. Risk to me is flying a large ship blindly through a gate, with no scout, and no defensive modules such as a warp core stabilizer or cloaking device. Most low sec pilots donGÇÖt do these things, and those that do deserve to lose their ship.
The fact is, most ratting, missioning, exploration, mining, and hauling can all be done relatively risk free, if done in the proper ship, using the proper fitting, and the proper piloting techniques. Defensive scanning and working with friends goes a long way towards making low sec a lot less scary. You really have a choice 95% of the time whether to engage in PvP, or whether to avoid it if you so desire.
None of the low sec proposals I endorse really change that reality. When I talk about low sec being fight club, or a battle arena, IGÇÖm specifically referring to supporting those of us that PvP against each other for sport. The Jack Dant proposal, for example, removes the GCC flag from two pilots of negative security status engaging each other on a gate, GCC and sentry fire would still apply to a pirate attacking a mission boat or hauler.
I believe its possible to simultaneously increase the rewards for the non-PvP activities in the region, and still make it easier for those that want to PvP against each other without the legal restrictions of high sec or the alliance politics of null sec interfering. The pilots who simply want to run PvE or harvest resources in low sec would retain all the same tools for protection that they have today.
The real danger, as you pointed out, is in low sec becoming like null. I do NOT support measures like allowing bubbles in lowsec that would hamper the ability to move and operate freely, provided the pilot is in the proper ship or properly scouts the way. In null, interdiction ability dramatically changes both the tangible risk of jumping through a gate and the risk of warping to an object. There needs to be a hard line drawn between the two regions, because the impact on casual play (both PvE and PvP) is immense.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1708
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:05:00 -
[412] - Quote
Little Brat wrote:QUESTION: I hate botting, there is a lot of it going on. I propose that at the announcement "Request for docking permission" the pilot would have to enter a randomly generated password for docking permission to be granted. Comment?
I hate botting too, but unfortunately this specific request I think might be a bit heavy handed. It would work great for preventing bot activity, but it would severely hamper PvP, because like Vordak pointed out youGÇÖd see a lot of ship deaths when a pilot fails to type fast enough.
The way we should fix botting, in my opinion, is to fix the core activity and game play such that artificial intelligence can no longer substitute for human intuition. There is a reason we donGÇÖt see PvP bots GÇô there are too many variables. I think itGÇÖs possible to get mining and missioning content into that realm as well, with some development effort. When we do , the enjoyment level of the game increases for everyone, and its a far better goal to be striving for than simply adding password-type stop gap solutions.
|
Mortromain
Lazy Settlers
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:23:00 -
[413] - Quote
well to be more specific, blocking SS loss to -2 as long as your not podkilling is my problem, this kind of allow piracy without drawbacks. On the other hand, allowing someone to shoot at negative status without drawback when in low sec is fine with me. |
K8 Solo
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 16:42:00 -
[414] - Quote
Hans is why I am in Faction Warfare today.
He's a good guy, he's a smart guy, and in terms of fairness and consideration, one of the best people I've met in EVE so far.
Anyone that lives in lowsec or highsec, or even wanders there from time to time for a change of pace would be well off to vote for him. He will do a great job of representing us.
|
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
1714
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 17:23:00 -
[415] - Quote
Mortromain wrote:well to be more specific, blocking SS loss to -2 as long as your not podkilling is my problem, this kind of allow piracy without drawbacks. On the other hand, allowing someone to shoot at negative status without drawback when in low sec is fine with me.
Cearain made the excellent point that sentry fire itself is only a roadbump to piracy and doesnGÇÖt really GÇ£protectGÇ£ the mission runner or miner wandering through low sec. Pirates can use logistics to overcome this barrier quite easily, so you still have to use measures like cloaks, stabs, scouting, and safety in numbers to minimize losses.
If players with any negative security status became fair game to fire upon, that to me is a far greater penalty to breaking the law than simply being shot by a low sec sentry gun. Gate guns only restrict the type of ships pirates can use, they donGÇÖt stop them from doing their job.
High sec players wanting to move to low sec and PvE or mine successfully have to learn basic self-defense techniques anyways, and none my proposed changes to low sec affect the usefulness of those techniques. Once a pilot learns to scout, cloaky travel, and scan for danger, gate guns become negligible in terms of their impact on true GÇ£riskGÇ£. TheyGÇÖre tinfoil protection at best, so IGÇÖm fine with lifting them under the right circumstances.
|
Deen Wispa
Screaming War Eagles Incorporated
134
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 19:10:00 -
[416] - Quote
Mortromain wrote:Cearain wrote: I don't think many people in low sec are deterred from ganking you due to the anti-pvp ss mechanics. Either they have decided they will not shoot neutrals, or they likely blow up your ship if they think they can get away with it.
Also he is not trying move all of low sec to the sisi. Ships and modules will still cost isk so PVP will still have consequences.
I aggree that people in low sec already made their choice about whether they will shoot neutral or not. However, they will either have to forget about high sec at some point or to stop. and many people don't come to low sec because of this SS system. These changes might make casual piracy too easy. This could be good (i mean more people = more fight), but low sec should be a place where people live, not some sort of toilets where people come doing **** and leave. I'm afraid of a lowsec becoming as dangerous as nullsec. FW already is an arena for consensual PvP.
Your logic that pilots will need "to forget about hisec at some point or to stop" is iffy. Because tons of pilots have been trying to balance their outlaw status and keep it above -2 just so they have the freedom to enter hisec. I'm one of them. Quite frankly, I hate trying to balance it and Hans solution could make my life a heck of alot easier.
In an ideal world, lowsec should be a place for 'long term' residents but no one to my knowledge has really presented a viable long term fix that can work within CCP's development framework. Have you found someone who has presented an alternative framework for lowsec that you'd like to bring to our awareness? I have some issues with Han's platform on lowsec but it's still the most REALISTIC solution I've seen so far.
It can be argued that nullsec is safer than lowsec. Once you get past the initial bubble camps, it's practically empty. Apparently, once you create a sig. You can't completely delete it. So this is my sig...for now. |
Timmy Tebow
Saevos Aviation Saevos Aviation LLC
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 19:50:00 -
[417] - Quote
I hope I didn't miss these elsewhere in the thread, but I have three questions for you:
1) How do you feel about time dilation and the potential impact it has on CCP in regards to demotivating them in upgrading server hardware?
2) PLEX/GTC prices are too damn high. How will you leverage your influence on the CSM to bring down the price of game time paid with isk?
3) How should CCP reward veterans for their longevity in playing this game instead of punishing them via "end-game" nerfs?
Thanks for answering and good luck in your campaign! |
Mongo Edwards
Grey Templars Ushra'Khan
6
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 20:51:00 -
[418] - Quote
You got all 3 of my votes Hans!
FW/low sec needs an advocate on the CSM and I applaud you for stepping up to run. |
Bob McGenericname
Angry Mustellid Iron Oxide.
7
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:18:00 -
[419] - Quote
Timmy Tebow wrote:I hope I didn't miss these elsewhere in the thread, but I have three questions for you:
1) How do you feel about time dilation and the potential impact it has on CCP in regards to demotivating them in upgrading server hardware?
2) PLEX/GTC prices are too damn high. How will you leverage your influence on the CSM to bring down the price of game time paid with isk?
3) How should CCP reward veterans for their longevity in playing this game instead of punishing them via "end-game" nerfs?
Thanks for answering and good luck in your campaign!
Allow me to answer, using my own style of drunken shitpost-fu
1) Wow, Timmy, that's a really bad question. Like, you should feel bad for how bad that question was. TiDi is something that probably won't touch us lowsec warriors, and it's apparently making the game a whole shitload more playable out in null
2) While you're at it Hans, could you use GM market fuckery to drop the prices on Gyrostabilisers? You can do that, right? Just make **** on the market cheaper? That's a thing
3) You know what I have in rewards for longevity? A whole fuckload of SP. Like my ships are 10-20% better, just because it's my dumb ass in front of the wheel. That's pretty nifty.
In conclusion, your questions are really bad and you should feel bad for them. Kill yourself and give me your stuff |
Ugleb
Sarz'na Khumatari Ushra'Khan
162
|
Posted - 2012.02.16 21:53:00 -
[420] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Ugleb wrote:+1 for being a non-null sec candidate that does not appear to be frothing at the mouth over the null sec bloc domination.
Please continue to present your hi/low sec experience as your main asset, and not harp on on about those evil null sec ppl.
Well, the null sec bloc domination is a serious issue, but I promise to keep my froth under control. The issue isn't with "evil null sec ppl" anyways, I have no hard feelings against any of the players themselves. I also believe that most of the 0.0 alliance leaders elected to the CSM govern with the best intentions. However, no council member is immune to their own bias, so we must also secure a voice on the council that will fight to protect the interests of empire citizens. Quote:Oh btw, I suspect the bit in your manifesto about asteroids moving about and colliding might kill TQ when it tries to track all those extra objects moving around in the physics engine thingy. It would be like hundreds of drakes spamming missiles continuously, but happening in every system all at once. ;)
So maybe we shouldn't ask CCP to do that bit. There isn't any harm in asking, they can always have a laugh and say "No." A new physics engine is, admittedly, not the most efficient way to improve mining, we can probably better tackle the boredom factor by addressing the mineral distribution within the asteroids, and better tackle the botting problem by implementing a visual texture-based solution. The reason I discussed asteroid movement is because developmentally, mining remains in such an infant state that it invites much more imaginative changes than other features. I wanted readers to have a sense for how I personally envision a more thrilling mining environment, despite there being obvious technical considerations.
You might have just earned my vote as well as my +1, well done.
Yes I do agree that null sec was probably over represented in CSM 6, and I say that as someone who has spent the vast majority of my considerable EVE-time out there.
I think your incremental changes approach to low sec/FW is practical, but I'd warn against being overly conservative. You're absolutely right that it is the PVP that should be incentivised over the PVE elements of FW, but I think that some deeper reaching changes need to be made to the mechanics then simply redistributing rewards.
But mostly, occupancy needs to be made important. That has always been FW's key failing and the core reason why I have spent years in null sec rather than in FW. I love my RP, but pointless objectives are pointless. http://uglebsjournal.wordpress.com/ |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 26 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |