| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Eve University
Ivy League
   |
Posted - 2009.10.19 21:45:00 -
[1]
What?
I have developed a website based on the dutch StemWijzer, a website that allows you to compare different political parties. The website presents the user with a list of statements ("PvP should be optional", "Trade orders should have a 1000 ISK minimum increment", etc), and compares the answers the user gives to the answers given by CSM candidates. Using this comparison the website then calculates a match percentage, neatly identifying which candidate represents the user's views the best. It may sound confusing, just try it out here: http://match.eve-csm.com.
I maintain a full discussion topic on general issues here.
What do I need from the Missions & Complexes forum?
I need statements to fill my questionaire. These statements need to cover all dimensions of the game equally in order to give all candidates fair representation. Statements also should be carefully formed so they do not show bias. I'm posting similar requests in other forums.
The statements have 5 answer options that we cannot deviate from: strongly disagree, disagree, no opinion, agree, strongly agree.
A few examples of good questions:
* All level 4 missions should be moved out of high sec.
* Meta 0, T1 loot should be removed from NPCs.
A few examples of bad questions:
* In what space do you spend most of your time? (you cannot answer this with agree/disagee)
* Unnecessarily cumbersome game mechanics related to contracts, the market, and science/industry should be streamlined or eliminated. (A loaded question, nobody will disagree that 'Unnecessarily cumbersome' mechanics should be changed)
So please, if you have any statement suggestions, post them here!
Director of Education :: EVE University
Chairman of the CSM
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.19 22:49:00 -
[2]
Wow we disagree quite spectacularly. Your answers seem very contradictory IMO; for example I don't see how you can possibly reconcile your opinion that suicide ganking should be viable and that suicide gankers should not receive insurance payments.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Fille Balle
Ballbreakers R us
|
Posted - 2009.10.19 22:49:00 -
[3]
Cheers! EvE really needs something like this. I Guess I'll start then:
1. Lvl4 highsec missions make way too much isk/h
2. Fly in and kill the rats is all the entertainment you need from missions. No need to make it more exciting
3. Ninja salvaging is totally balanced, and there is no need to change this mechanic
4. It shouldn't be possible to get all the materials to build a battleship from mission loot
5. The mission turn down timer is too long
6. Having the option to choose not to recieve any missions vs. empire factions would be balanced and welcome
7. Static complexes should be reintroduced
8. Highsec exploration is a viable career
9. More Marauders are not strictly needed, but they would be a welcome addition to the game
10. Lvl5 missions offer a reasonable isk/h vs. risk when compared to other means of income
11. Lowsec missions should not be buffed, highsec missions should be nerfed
12. Missions should not be the only means to obtain standings with npc corps/factions
13. Missions are far too easy, even for beginners. Nobody ever dies in a mission
14. Highsec missions are too much risk when compared to the rewards they offer
15. The sleeper AI should be introduced to complexes/missions in highsec
16. If the sleeper AI is introduced, there is no need to increase the rewards for highsec missions
I'm sure I could come up with more, but I'll let others have a go.
PS: These statements don't necessarily represent my own opinion, but are more or less made to throw potential candidates off their guard.
|
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 01:33:00 -
[4]
bump
Director of Education :: EVE University
Chairman of the CSM
|
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 03:21:00 -
[5]
 Originally by: Liang Nuren
for example I don't see how you can possibly reconcile your opinion that suicide ganking should be viable and that suicide gankers should not receive insurance payments.
The reconciliation of these two is quite easy: suicide ganking should be viable while not receiving insurance payouts for death due to CONCORD intervention after aggressing a neutral ship.
It might be the case, for example, that CONCORD will react in a time determined not just by the system security status, but by the target's insurance level and their corporation's tax contributions to CONCORD. That is, a corp can elect to contribute eg: 3% to CONCORD (ISK sink), for which CONCORD will respond faster.
On the flip side, CONCORD's baseline response rates can be dropped way down - 5s in 1.0 systems, down to 20s in 0.5.
So while you're not getting insurance payouts on your suicide ganking fleet, you get far more time in which to gank the target.
CONCORD intervention could even progress through tiers - each hisec system might have a limit on the number of CONCORD pew pew/neut/tackle ships available. Thus if you suicide gank someone in a 0.5 system, there might only be 15 tacklers and 2 battleships available. The tacklers would arrive, start warp scrambling, attempt jamming, etc. As the battleships blow up miscreants, they move to the next target. Thus a ganking fleet of 10 ships would have several minutes in which to blow up their target while getting randomly jammed, neuted, disrupted, etc. The loss of the suicide ganking ship should be inevitable, but in lower-sec systems a coordinated pirate gang could get decent returns on their investment.
[Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
War.Pigs.
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 04:30:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Mara Rinn
The loss of the suicide ganking ship should be inevitable, but in lower-sec systems a coordinated pirate gang could get decent returns on their investment.
The loss of a suicide ganking ship IS inevitable already. Suicide ganking would hardly be a viable mechanic it cost 4 billion ISK to suicide gank a freighter. If you're going to make such a ridiculous claim as that suicide ganking is a viable tactic, then I demand that 100% of all loot everywhere drops.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Mara Rinn
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 04:55:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Liang Nuren
The loss of a suicide ganking ship IS inevitable already.
Yes, as it should be. My suggestion was that the loss doesn't have to be immediate and that a gank-fleet might have the opportunity to get more salvos off in 0.5 systems than in 1.0 systems. Does that make sense?
Quote:
Suicide ganking would hardly be a viable mechanic it cost 4 billion ISK to suicide gank a freighter.
Can you describe how getting more salvos in before being popped by CONCORD isn't a major buff on the way CONCORD works today? If you can get twice as many salvos off, it stands to reason that you need half the number of ships to do the gank, doesn't it? Or perhaps you could use smaller (and thus cheaper) ships. This will reduce the cost of the gank fleet, and the loss of insurance won't hurt you as much.
Quote:
If you're going to make such a ridiculous claim as that suicide ganking is a viable tactic, then I demand that 100% of all loot everywhere drops.
Suicide ganking is a viable tactic, you just have to be careful about your choice of targets, which means that you avoid indiscriminate suicide ganking of anyone flying through a particular gate.
[Aussie players: join channel ANZAC] |
Dierdra Vaal
Caldari
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 22:47:00 -
[8]
we're gearing up to gather the full list. get your suggestions in before we decide on a final list!
Director of Education :: EVE University
Chairman of the CSM
|
goazer
Amarr
Dark Amarr Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 22:57:00 -
[9]
Average that pilots really do in high sec lvl 4 missions is around 15 million ISK per hour. They do salvage, they do take breaks, they do loot, or skip loot and salvage and just cash out LP's.
The hardcore without breaks mission running can give you those wild 40 million ISK per hour, or even more, but that's just with good missions.
LVL4 missions are fine like they now are.
Most of the gazillionmegamillion mission runners doesn't have the will to be a mindless drone and perform like one...
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.10.21 23:43:00 -
[10]
pve should be made more like pvp
pve should have higher risks
if pve were made more risky should rewards be increased
level 4 missions should be moved to lowsec
Level 5s should be allowed in high security
Neut towers in level 5s are a lame gimmick to make them "unsoloable"
eve needs new mission content
eve needs new exploration content
|
|
|
goazer
Amarr
Dark Amarr Brotherhood
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 18:13:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Chainsaw Plankton
pve should be made more like pvp
pve should have higher risks
if pve were made more risky should rewards be increased
level 4 missions should be moved to lowsec
Level 5s should be allowed in high security
Neut towers in level 5s are a lame gimmick to make them "unsoloable"
eve needs new mission content
eve needs new exploration content
PVE doesn't need to be like PVP, nobody is making money with PVP anyway. You need ISK for PVP. And if you don't plan on setting up your own corporation and doing hours and hours of thinking to make profit, missions offer good, relaxed way to do so.
EVE needs less hypocritic 1337 PVP'ers who are flaming about mining or missioning. Nearly everyone has mission alt anyway.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2009.10.22 18:20:00 -
[12]
Originally by: goazer
PVE doesn't need to be like PVP, nobody is making money with PVP anyway. You need ISK for PVP. And if you don't plan on setting up your own corporation and doing hours and hours of thinking to make profit, missions offer good, relaxed way to do so.
EVE needs less hypocritic 1337 PVP'ers who are flaming about mining or missioning. Nearly everyone has mission alt anyway.
so you think it would be good to know if a csm candidate thinks that or not?
(although tbh I would really love a few missions where I could fly a MWD blaster kronos, or actually required flying your ship, rather then tank and spank. and I would really love it without the hassle of going into wormholes.)
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |