EVE Search - Avalloc declares that he's running for CSM again!

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Avalloc declares that he's running for CSM again!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.29 03:53:00 - [31] Originally by: SirMolle InaCustard User Interface one thing that particularly bothers me is the visibility/accuracy of the various timers. these are tucked away where they are barely visible. can you clonk some heads to sort this out? Which timers specifically? I'm already proposing that CCP add a new UI console for tracking reinforcement timers for one's Alliance. Whether it is POS, iHub, or Station.
Tenbux Tincan	Posted - 2010.04.29 04:15:00 - [32] Will you propose that destroyers be changed to not suck?
Flikoo	Posted - 2010.04.29 19:21:00 - [33] Originally by: Avalloc Originally by: SirMolle InaCustard User Interface one thing that particularly bothers me is the visibility/accuracy of the various timers. these are tucked away where they are barely visible. can you clonk some heads to sort this out? Which timers specifically? I'm already proposing that CCP add a new UI console for tracking reinforcement timers for one's Alliance. Whether it is POS, iHub, or Station. He might mean the session change timers. I've found they are terrible and aren't accuracte at all (It displays a 15 seconds session change timer when I jump in through a gate. A cloak should be 30 seconds, and I should be seeing around 25s when I actually load grid and such.) Also, can you ask for Market UI improvements? I find the market EXTREMELY laggy when loading up info on the products such as buy/sell orders, and price history and the such. I'm curious as to if you or and of the other members every inquired about removing some of the session timers (like joining a fleet) or even shortening them.
rochrius Caldari Skies Tis Moiras Amici Noctis	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:17:00 - [34] Would you do anything to also improve the station inventory? Right now, even though you can search, I think it needs different tabs where we could get goods ready to ship. This would greatly help with organization when making a contract for example. As it is now it is very clustered looking at upwards of 500 items at once. Would you do anything to try and make drone control a little bit easier for the use. In this thread or somewhere else someone mentioned the idea of more video tutorials for new players. Would you also try and get more videos released by CCP who's main intent is to further the storyline or give new players a brief rundown of past events?
SirMolle InaCustard	Posted - 2010.04.30 07:58:00 - [35] Originally by: Flikoo Originally by: Avalloc Originally by: SirMolle InaCustard User Interface one thing that particularly bothers me is the visibility/accuracy of the various timers. these are tucked away where they are barely visible. can you clonk some heads to sort this out? Which timers specifically? I'm already proposing that CCP add a new UI console for tracking reinforcement timers for one's Alliance. Whether it is POS, iHub, or Station. He might mean the session change timers. I've found they are terrible and aren't accuracte at all (It displays a 15 seconds session change timer when I jump in through a gate. A cloak should be 30 seconds, and I should be seeing around 25s when I actually load grid and such.) Also, can you ask for Market UI improvements? I find the market EXTREMELY laggy when loading up info on the products such as buy/sell orders, and price history and the such. I'm curious as to if you or and of the other members every inquired about removing some of the session timers (like joining a fleet) or even shortening them. wow, my question was really poorly worded and i was quite stoned. i was indeed referring to session change timers, although aggression timers really need to be clearly visible, as well as your proposal for the alliance side timers. these are all sorely needed as they affect gameplay so much, whether on the personal or alliance level. for instance aggression/session change timers could be centralised around the rest of the ship readout hub, giving clear data as to when they run out. these timers are often a case of life and death for a pilot trying to run through a gatecamp, and are so poorly representated as to be almost useless in curent form. i also like the idea of the alliance level stuff :)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:15:00 - [36] Edited by: Avalloc on 01/05/2010 02:15:15 EVE Tribune Interview that was conducted last week.
Ratnose Banker	Posted - 2010.05.01 12:51:00 - [37] Nice website as always. Dominion was supposed to attract more people to 0.0(just like Exodus), obviously didn't. What do you think can be done to get more people to move out of empire space?
Yristor	Posted - 2010.05.01 13:46:00 - [38] What are your views on the amount of communication - devblogs, forum announcements, new features pages etc - that CCP provides? (Setting aside tutorials etc, as you stated above that improving documentation could be one area to improve...)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 22:21:00 - [39] Originally by: CobraStylez With conflict be spurred by fights over moon resources and sovereignty structures which require capital ship fleets or large battleship fleets to effectively attack or defend, what is being done to resolve the crippling lag issue? Or will POS and sovereignty structures be rebalanced to move fleet combat away from large fleet combat and towards smaller, more strategic fleets? CCP is working on the lag impact brought on by Dominion. They have been hosting test sessions on Singularity though to gather data. What they're doing behind the scenes, Ii don't know. CSM5 will no doubt ask for an update during the first Summit coming up in June. Originally by: CobraStylez The value of moon minerals changed with Dominion such that certain minerals which are regional became more valuable than other minerals of equal or greater rarity. Technetium being the prime example. Was this intentional or an unforeseen consequence of the re-balancing? Will we same the same un-even distribution of valuable resources with the introduction of Planetary Interaction? Only CCP knows the answers to these questions since they have the accurate data. Players can only speculate. Originally by: CobraStylez The re-balancing of super capital class ships and the introduction of fighterbomber drones has changed how capital fleet engagements are fought. A super carriers make great anti-capital ships with fighter bombers however they can also be used to incapacitate POS modules (turret batteries, ECM batteries, anything that is anchored outside the POS shields) and can easily shoot incapacitated modules through 99% resists and destroy them. A well fit super carrier can also tank a well armed POS. I understand the need for an anti-capital ship weapon such as fighter bombers, and the need for a super capital class ship to have a reasonable tank, however it seems out of balance for both to be use simultaneously with no drawbacks. While I think the re-balance of super capital ships (super carriers AND titans) has been overall a good thing, are super capital ships and fighter bombers going to be revisited for a "fine tuning" pass any time soon? I believe that the impact of fighter bombers on POS modules needs to be looked at by CCP. It'll be something I'll bring up (along with other CSM, no doubt.)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 22:34:00 - [40] Originally by: rochrius Would you do anything to also improve the station inventory? Right now, even though you can search, I think it needs different tabs where we could get goods ready to ship. This would greatly help with organization when making a contract for example. As it is now it is very clustered looking at upwards of 500 items at once. I'd be willing to bring it up for a vote and see what CCP would be willing to do. Perhaps tabs could be created and a menu system added that is similar to how you setup an Overview. "Only show: Blueprint Originals" Originally by: rochrius Would you do anything to try and make drone control a little bit easier for the use. I would like to see special hotkeys for drone control become a reality along with an even better ui for using them. Originally by: rochrius In this thread or somewhere else someone mentioned the idea of more video tutorials for new players. Would you also try and get more videos released by CCP who's main intent is to further the storyline or give new players a brief rundown of past events? I'd make the suggestion and try to gather numbers to show CCP that the players want more videos.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 22:42:00 - [41] Originally by: Ratnose Banker Nice website as always. Dominion was supposed to attract more people to 0.0(just like Exodus), obviously didn't. What do you think can be done to get more people to move out of empire space? Thank you for the compliment, Ratnose. :) Better documentation of what life in 0.0 entails for one. No-one wants to go out in 0.0 without knowing how the mechanics of that area work because they may risk losing everything they own. And I'm concerned about how the addition of Treaties will impact 0.0 living. Sure, it'll bring people out but it'll strengthen power blocks even more. You won't have combat going on like it should in 0.0 but rather constellations/regions of people playing SimEVE.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.02 18:30:00 - [42] Edited by: Avalloc on 02/05/2010 18:30:34 Originally by: Tenbux Tincan Will you propose that destroyers be changed to not suck? How (in your opinion, and please elaborate) are Destroyers sucking at the moment?
Ratnose Banker	Posted - 2010.05.02 22:11:00 - [43] I think main problem people have with destroyer hull is that it has no tank and the sig of a cruiser. Personally sabre is one of my favorite ships and with the upcoming insurance changes which sound like increased insurance for dictors I will fly it even more. On the other hand I have gone on many roams in a thrasher and been near instapopped by a bc/bs which I think is kind of stupid because they aren't really so superior to frigates to justify that level of fragility. A second T2 destroyer with more interceptor-like bonuses (-% mwd sig modifier, tracking bonus, etc) with no ability to fit sphere launcher would be very nice imo.
H Tecon	Posted - 2010.05.03 18:19:00 - [44] Hello Avalloc, Just a quick message to offer my support to your efforts for re-election. There has been some mention of the issues involving mining. One thing that I see that I really would like to see changes or at least clarified for my own knowledge is the problem of "bot" miners. Is using a 3rd party program to run your mining ship day and night acceptable in CCP's view? The first time I lost a Hulk in high sec during the first Hulkageddon I was really taken by surprise. It was by a very well organized hunting pack that locked me down, warp scrambled me and had me sitting in my pod in under 8 seconds. I wont go into the details of my emotions moments after that. It has occurred to me after learning to live with it and then move on that Hulkageddon is really the only true equalizer for honest miners and "bot" miners. As a hard core industrialist with 3 mining accounts I welcomed Hulkageddon 2 with open arms. I watch their kill board daily hoping to see the names of the many "known offenders" bot mining, that I see daily while mining. But this still remains a ongoing problem because most bot miners don't use hulks. I am not sure what the answer is. Do you have any suggestions or ideas on this? Thanks, Noceth-
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.03 20:01:00 - [45] Originally by: H Tecon Hello Avalloc, Just a quick message to offer my support to your efforts for re-election. There has been some mention of the issues involving mining. One thing that I see that I really would like to see changes or at least clarified for my own knowledge is the problem of "bot" miners. Is using a 3rd party program to run your mining ship day and night acceptable in CCP's view? CCP doesn't find the use of botting acceptable and I plan to question them about their detection methods because I hear from a lot of players that mining bots a continuing problem. Originally by: H Tecon The first time I lost a Hulk in high sec during the first Hulkageddon I was really taken by surprise. It was by a very well organized hunting pack that locked me down, warp scrambled me and had me sitting in my pod in under 8 seconds. I wont go into the details of my emotions moments after that. It has occurred to me after learning to live with it and then move on that Hulkageddon is really the only true equalizer for honest miners and "bot" miners. As a hard core industrialist with 3 mining accounts I welcomed Hulkageddon 2 with open arms. I watch their kill board daily hoping to see the names of the many "known offenders" bot mining, that I see daily while mining. But this still remains a ongoing problem because most bot miners don't use hulks. I am not sure what the answer is. Do you have any suggestions or ideas on this? I would like to see a system added to reward miners for being "active" during the mining process. Say add a small mini-game while the lasers are hitting the rocks. If you do well in the mini-game you'll pull in more ore than normally. This would help make mining a little more interactive too. Thank you for your support, H Tecon!
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.04 19:55:00 - [46] Week 3 entries for Plex Promotion end tomorrow.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.05 01:44:00 - [47] voting is open http://www.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=292
Lee Anderson	Posted - 2010.05.05 02:08:00 - [48] 1st off you have my support will you be bring ideas to the board this time around that will help newer alliances to get a foot hold in null sec? I.E. sov bills don't cost as much?
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.05 04:49:00 - [49] Originally by: Lee Anderson 1st off you have my support will you be bring ideas to the board this time around that will help newer alliances to get a foot hold in null sec? I.E. sov bills don't cost as much? Yes, I believe the Sov costs needs to be adjusted. There needs to be better incentive for new Alliances to venture out into 0.0 and I feel Dominion missed the mark.
Hurff Blurff	Posted - 2010.05.05 19:58:00 - [50] Avalloc, you have my vote, even though you're a Goon.
Mynxee Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.05.06 05:20:00 - [51] Although I am a competing candidate, just wanted to say good luck in your campaign! If we both get elected, I look forward to working with you on CSM5. Life In Low Sec
Caldari Deteis2105	Posted - 2010.05.06 12:02:00 - [52] I normally wouldn't like a goon, but you come across as very friendly and honorable. Good luck in your campaign!
Retlok	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:44:00 - [53] Hello Avalloc. I'd like to thank you for your plex promotion. It was the catalyst in spurring me to be more active in the CSM process, I'm not sure that I'd have actually posted questions of my own without that little nudge. As for my question for you, I would appreciate it if you would discuss your position on the issue of transferable kill rights and the fixing/creation of a viable bounty hunter system. My own personal feelings are that this would increase pvp in low/hisec and adds a very sandboxy game play element into EVE that is weak if not missing currently. Thanks!
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:04:00 - [54] Originally by: Retlok Hello Avalloc. I'd like to thank you for your plex promotion. It was the catalyst in spurring me to be more active in the CSM process, I'm not sure that I'd have actually posted questions of my own without that little nudge. And thank you for taking advantage of the promotion and helping the CSM process grow. Originally by: Retlok As for my question for you, I would appreciate it if you would discuss your position on the issue of transferable kill rights and the fixing/creation of a viable bounty hunter system. My own personal feelings are that this would increase pvp in low/hisec and adds a very sandboxy game play element into EVE that is weak if not missing currently. Thanks! I'm for transferring kill rights. It would add a new dimension to the PVP in Empire. It would promote a whole new occupation of players acting as vigilante.
Vladimir Logoffski	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:43:00 - [55] Avalloc once pulled me from a burning building. True story.
Xyfu Minmatar Shadow's of Ezra On the Rocks	Posted - 2010.05.07 08:18:00 - [56] Originally by: Vladimir Logoffski Avalloc once pulled me from a burning building. True story. Avalloc saved my pregnant cat from a burning building when he had no unbroken limbs, using nothing but his teeth. He also gave me 5 dollars. It was a good day. _____ ^ That is a sig line. It should be there without me having to put one in.
xDiakonu	Posted - 2010.05.07 16:49:00 - [57] I am sure that the issue has been brought a number of times before but I wonder about your comment over the issue. I am talking about the amount of armor, shield, energy logistics have contributed to the battle. If the amount is recorded into the kill mails somehow then many players would enjoy flying logistics and this would result in much longer lasting and satisfying battles. This could basically be done by adding the player to the kill mail if he has repped a player who had aggro on the target/damage dealers in the km; same thing seems to work when repping someone in empire - then the repper gets aggro too. Healing (or armor/shield rep as it is known in EVE) and buffing (or warfare bonuses) are very old and well known concept in most of the MMORPG world. A wise developer would make people comfortable playing "healers" since this makes the game much more deeper and interesting for everybody. Playing healing character is not that rewarding in most of the games (compared to the damage dealers) but in EVE it is even worst. Virtually you get no record for your contribution to the battle.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.07 19:20:00 - [58] Originally by: xDiakonu I am sure that the issue has been brought a number of times before but I wonder about your comment over the issue. I would support any proposal to give "healers" in EVE some recognition for their efforts. However I can't think of a reasonable way of doing it which wouldn't or couldn't result in killmail whoring. If you showed up on killmails for repping the guys who killed the target you would only have to pulse your reps once on the big damage dealers to show up. And if you showed up on the lossmail it'd be a "welp" situation since you obviously didn't heal the guy enough. Again, I wouldn't reject either of these in hopes CCP could come up with a solution that works. The key here is creating a proposal which states that the playerbase wishes for repping to have some static proof of participation in EVE and let the Devs sort out the how. In nearly every MMO I've played I have personally played the healer role. I have many fond memories of epic battles in EverQuest with my cleric and also in WoW with my priest. Thank you for taking the time to ask this question, xDiakonu.
Adolf Shtinkenfinga	Posted - 2010.05.09 06:40:00 - [59] How do you feel about changing the fact that you can't rename your ship unless you are inside it?
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.10 18:10:00 - [60] Originally by: Adolf Shtinkenfinga How do you feel about changing the fact that you can't rename your ship unless you are inside it? I support making that alteration to the game code if CCP can do it. You should be able to change ship names from anywhere via assets panel.

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.