|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6946
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:54:00 -
[1] - Quote
After much thought, I'm going to run for CSM election this year.
What are my qualifications: First and foremost I have been playing EVE for over 6 years. I've seen a lot, done a lot, connected with a lot of other players and I have a pretty wide experience of the game (and some pretty wide gaps in that experience, as I will freely admit). I have lived in Sov 0.0, NPC 0.0, lo-sec, hi-sec and W-space. I'm not an intense meta-gamers, I don't hang out in the "Cool" jabber channels, I'm not in any kind of alliance leadership position. My perspective is that of a humble grunt, and my philosophy is informed by that.
Secondly, and more visibly, I spend a great deal of time thinking and discussing EVE. Anyone who reads these forums knows that. I'm always ready to learn from people who know something I don't, and I spend a fair amount of time trying to help people who don't know things I do. Running for the CSM is a logical extension of that.
Finally, I am - no false modesty here - a ~good poster~. I can present a reasoned, logical, structured argument, and I can follow one when it's presented to me. If I am elected, I will represent my philosophy to CCP effectively. I will also make the attempt to increase the communication between the CSM and you, the players with regular reports and posts right here on this forum. I will not hide these communications away on a blog, they will be here, on record, where you can respond to them.
What is my philosophy I believe in EVE. I think it's something special in the gaming world, and I think that what makes EVE special is worth protected and supporting. I believe in the freedom of players to interect with each other, and the right of players to determine how those interactions result with the minimum of NPC interference. I believe in making changes to EVE that increase the possibilities of player ineraction, and that provide gameplay opportunities. If you send me to Reykjavik, you will be sending a message to CCP that you want that emergent, player-driven narrative to be the core and centre of EVE.
If you like, you can get a moredetailed idea of my thoughts about EVE on the articles I have written for TheMittani.com. Please note that I am completely unaffilated with the CFC, and there is no specific Goon input into my campaign, nor will there be in my actions as a CSM.
I also wrote a hi-sec manifesto in this forum, which specifically laid out my thoughts on hi-sec. I think it also showcases my general philosophy on EVE.
What's your alignment? My election campaign has no official standing in any EVE coaltion. I am a member of the Initiative., which is currently in the HBC, but I have not sought permission or asked support from anyone in the HBC to run for election. I believe the HBC will run their own "official" candidate.
Enough about me: Ask questions. MatrixSkye Mk2: "Remember: You consent to unconsensual PVP the moment you press the "Undock" button." |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6949
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:58:00 -
[2] - Quote
Could you expand on your question. Ideally, include some nouns. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6949
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:06:00 -
[3] - Quote
Not forgotten
I will definitely be making the case to CCP for a full rework of sov outposts. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6950
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:Holy ****. That's actually a shockingly well-considered and well-presented platform.
You probably already have my vote, unless somebody else posts a really stand-out platform
Nice of you to say. Please do ask about any specifics you're interested in. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6964
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 06:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Jake Warbird wrote:Honestly thought was a troll when I clicked the link on your sig. Will get my vote.
Then you've learned that everything I say should be taken literally and at face value.
One thing that I am particularly concerned to do is to raise the perceived value of the CSM in the eyes of the players. Ultimately, the CSM derives its legitimacy from the support of the players at large, and voting levels are still way too low. Obviously I believe that the CSM has an important role to play and can really add value to the development process, and I also believe that almost all the CSM candidates that have been elected have done their honest best to fulfill their role. But the prevailing culture of hostile cynicism towards any political process, which is amplified to an extreme by the nature of the playerbase in EVE (they're EVE players!) makes it very difficult to have an unemcumbered, objective conversation on the subject. Increasing the level of player engagement with the CSM will in turn increase the value of the CSM in the eyes of the CCP Devs with whom the CSM interact. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6965
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 06:37:00 -
[6] - Quote
mynnna wrote:I've never seen Malcanis' highsec proposals before, but now that I have, I'd support them when (if (who am I kidding, when)) I run for CSM myself. It's a pretty good approach.
Thanks! It's a true compliment to get an endorsement like that. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
rswfire wrote: Also, rather ironic that someone made a comment in that very proposal about you running for CSM7 and you quickly shot it done with an insult...
At the time I was coping with the news that my father had been diagnosed with cancer. Making the commitment to run for CSM was not something I felt able to do at that juncture.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:35:00 -
[8] - Quote
rswfire wrote:I imagine my opinion won't be popular here, but I feel I must tell you that I cannot support you.
I assume you're able to take constructive criticism. My reason is that I do not believe you speak for all of the players of Eve. I think some of your ideas ("manifestos") are tailored to how you personally would prefer to see Eve evolve rather than how it has and what others would prefer. If you can't put your personal bias aside, then my vote would be to cast a vote for someone I know will not support my personal beliefs about Eve.
It's not possible to 100% represent the views of "everyone in EVE", and I'm not even going to pretend that I'm going to do so. I'm quite open about what my game philosophy is. It's no secret. Of course I think I'm right. If I thought I was wrong, I'd think something else, and then I'd be right again. This is what is called "having an opinion". I did my level best to construct the hi-sec manifesto to accomodate people who don't play the way that I do. In fact the whole point of the manifesto was to cast aside old habits of thought about hi-sec players (ie: bias) - invcluding the habits that those very players had grown into themselves - and to try and make a realistic, non-judgemental analysis of the situation. See the piece I wrote called The Big Lie for my further thoughts along those lines.
If you have a differing view of what hi-sec could become, then by all means, nail your own manifesto to the door and let us have a look at it. Will you be able to cast aside your own "bias" and make it "represent everyone"? I think when you try, you'll find it's rather harder to do than it is to demand.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:49:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dyvim Slorm wrote:Looks promising, I do like your Hi Sec proposals and a rework of the wardec system in particular.
You might note that the manifesto was actually written in late 2011, before Inferno and Retribution were released.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:58:00 -
[10] - Quote
rswfire wrote:
I can appreciate what you're saying. I really can. There are two diverging topics here though.
1. I've read many of your posts; not just the ones about high-sec. You don't exactly come across as someone who is professional and polished. Well, until now. And you just don't strike me as someone who has my interests at heart, and that's okay. I hope people spend the time to really research all of the candidates and choose whomever is best for them. I shouldn't say you should support everyone's ideas; that's obviously not possible. The point I was trying to make is that a good representative does their best to support a middle ground whenever possible. I don't know that you would do that. I just don't see that in your posts.
There are some issues where I would support a middle ground. There are others where I am not willing to compromise an inch. I disagree that a good representative always compromises, because apart from anything else, that outlook is extremely easy to game. Why would you vote for someone who doesn't believe in any issue enough to stand firm over it?
rswfire wrote: 2. I don't think high-sec is broken. I've yet to see any reasonable argument that it is. It doesn't need to be changed. It is an area of space that has evolved in its own right. What is so wrong with that? From my point of view, as I've shared once or twice now in other posts, you guys just want to turn high-sec into low-sec or null-sec. For what purpose...?
You have radically misunderstood my aims. The entire point of my manifesto was not to "turn hi-sec into null", but to turn hi-sec into an area of the game that supports hi-end play, instead of being a starter area whose population has outgrown the original conception. Hi-sec should absolutely be different from 0.0 and even lo-sec, and I made (or thought I'd made) that extremely clear.
Can you highlight for me the specific part that led you to believe that I want to turn hi-sec into null? I've been thinking of updating the manifesto, and it would be very helpful of you to assist me to avoid such misunderstandings in future.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:08:00 -
[11] - Quote
I'm quite happy to discuss with you here, because other potential Malc-voting players might have similar concerns. If someone is thinking "Well I would vote for Malcanis, if only he didn't want to turn hi-sec into 0.0" then this is my chance to earn their vote - even if I don't get yours. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:13:00 -
[12] - Quote
My "non compromise" issues are basically player freedom and player interaction. So proposals like "I want to be able to hire NPC escorts" will always get 100% opposition to me.
Compromise issues are stuff like ship balancing. EG: I might want to see the Eagle reworked into a fast hit-and-run role lke the Vagabond, but I'd be willing to accept a rework of medium railguns that made it a worthwhile sniper (although admittedly it's very hard for me to imagine how that would work, but that's a different thread).
So bascially, "philosophy" stuff doesn't get compromised on; mechanics stuff can be approached more flexibly. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:39:00 -
[13] - Quote
rswfire wrote:Malcanis wrote:I'm quite happy to discuss with you here, because other potential Malc-voting players might have similar concerns. If someone is thinking "Well I would vote for Malcanis, if only he didn't want to turn hi-sec into 0.0" then this is my chance to earn their vote - even if I don't get yours. Malcanis, like I said before, I didn't just read your manifesto. I read your posts. Here's one you write a few days ago. Malcanis wrote:*Does not vote
*Sulks when people who do vote get their candidates elected
*Responds by not voting next time
*Is hi-sec. It's pretty clear to me you have a low opinion of those in high-sec. Care to retract that? For reference, it was posted here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2435748#post2435748
I have a low opinion of those who expect results to be handed to them when they haven't even tried to gain them for themselves. That specifically includes people demanding special privileges for "hi-sec" CSM candidates (despite the fact that no robust definition of what a "hi-sec" candidate is ever advanced). That's not every player in hi-sec - as I have repeatedly confirmed, I keep characters in hi-sec myself. Numerically speaking I am more of a high-sec player than a 0.0 player.
I have a similar low opinion of players in lo-sec, 0.0 and W-space that want things handed to them. They don't tend to talk much about the CSM though. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
rswfire wrote: Also, you suggested in your manifesto that no one be allowed to re-enter certain parts of space that were too secure. That sounds to me like someone who wants to turn high-sec into low-sec.
The specific idea was the the new player spawn systems should be restricted in this way, to allow new players to run the tutorials and learn basic game control skills without interference. I think that this could be done without instantly turning The Forge into Curse. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6970
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 16:19:00 -
[15] - Quote
fukier wrote:Malcanis wrote:Could you expand on your question. Ideally, include some nouns. The Who? hmm i like you might activate an alt just to vote for you... edit: Sorry to hear about your dad... hope he is better now
He's fine now :) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6992
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 08:27:00 -
[16] - Quote
Kenpachi Viktor wrote:Now that Hans has stated he is not running for CSM 8.
Wait what?
Man that's a shame. Working with Hans was one of the things I was looking forward to.
EDIT: Yeah his blog confirms it. Welp. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6994
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:22:00 -
[17] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Lord MuffloN wrote:I have seen few men as articulate and sharp as Malcanis, having had the pleasure of working with him I must say I find few candidates as qualified or suited for the position, and if I can spare a few votes myself from voting outside any TEST candidate, Malcanis is my go to guy. Can't you guys just skip the messing around and make Malcanis the HBC bloc vote candidate this time around?
I believe the HBC are sponsoring Dovinian again. I'm happy to be an independant. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6998
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 07:36:00 -
[18] - Quote
Inggroth wrote:Will probably get my vote (and possibly of some others i know).
Still: i want a broad stance on the type of gameplay i care about - 0.0 non-bloc sized PvP aka. pretty much everything that doesnt involve shooting a sov structure at some point. Solo, small gangs (up to a full squad), medium gangs (up to a full wing), (semi)-consentual gang vs. gang engagements.
Do you have any ideas of your own on how to make people in 0.0 undock or care about PvP except when their space or main source of passive income (Tech) is in danger?
Yes indeed I do. Basically, as a point of game philosophy, sov alliances should explicitly derive their strength from their members, not from any one specific structure or resource. That means that things like Tech moons" should be in the "nice to have, but not essential" category, not the "if you don't have them then you're a second class alliance at best" category. This has some pretty far reaching implications, but as an absolutely vital and very urgent first step, I want CCP to make it viable for the 0.0 players to start repatriating most of those hi-sec alts back to their own space.
When it's worth while for 0.0 players to do their mining, ship building, invention, R&D etc etc etc in their own space, then the population of sov 0.0 will rise dramatically (my best guess is that it would at least double, probably more). And all those guys in belts and anoms, hauling ore and datacores, attending to research POS and so on an so forth, those guys right there should be the foundation of a sov alliance's wealth and power, and by their presence and by their importance, right there you have your "small gang" objectives. And that in turn will give "small gang" obectives for the defenders too.
Inggroth wrote:How do you feel about ideas that are/were at some point being discussed? (~farms and fields~/reducing eHP of structures/scrambling rats/constellation-wide structures inhibiting ratting potential/delayed local/ you name it)?
Now i'm aware of the fact that CCP pretty much shelved everything directly affecting 0.0 for the near future apart from revamping POSes. I also understand that a CSM member cant magically make CCP do stuff. Still, i want to know how in your opinion the part of the game i care about could should look like.
It's pretty discouraging that the "Farms And Fields" project seems to have been basically ignored. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the situation in 0.0 is getting pretty desperate. Right now, there's not really much incentive to actually hold space other than as long term speculative investment that it might be worth having someday. CCP should have learned the lesson of 2011, that the patience of players isn't infinite.
Now all my comments above refer specifically to sov space. I know very well that you gentlemen live in Curse. When you think about how busy and active Curse can be when several alliances are living there in a relatively compact region of space, that's a good analogy for for the level of action I'd love to see in sov space as well. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6998
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 07:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:@Malcanis
Glad to see your platform is as sensible as your posting. My only question is what would you do to try and improve lowsec (specifically non-FW, CCP seems to forget about us) beyond the extensions of your Manifest? More industrialists trying to run the gates is good, but I would rather be able to describe where I live as something other than "Nullsec without bubbles, but gate guns".
Regardless, I wish you luck sir. +1
Lo-sec is a conundrum, I freely admit. When you say "improve", what exactly do you mean by "improve"? "Improve for whom"? Defining the problem is the first step in constructing the solution. I feel that I have a fairly clear idea of what sov 0.0 should look like, but I freely confess that I'm not as sure about what kind of lo-sec we should be working towards.
At the moment, lo-sec is a haven for small independent corps, and it's a ghetto. I can easily think of quite a few ideas to raise it up from ghetto status, but by the very act of making the space better, there's a danger to that "small corp haven" status. CCP did well to make Faction Warfare more attractive, and that has surely increased both the PvP activity and the economic activity in lo-sec. Would you like more of that? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 09:12:00 -
[20] - Quote
Milton Middleson wrote:Quote:At the moment, lo-sec is a haven for small independent corps, and it's a ghetto. I can easily think of quite a few ideas to raise it up from ghetto status, but by the very act of making the space better, there's a danger to that "small corp haven" status. FW is, despite being very lucrative, not owned or unduly influenced by massive blocs. I think the key to that is that the wealth of FW cannot be effectively excluded from or occupied and space can't really be controlled. Extend that general idea to the rest of lowsec in some fashion. Regardless, with Hans not running again, it's all down to reputation. Malcanis is the only candidate so far who has +repped me on the other EVE forum, so he gets my vote.
Basically I'm really cautious about making sweeping proposals for lo-sec. I lived in lo-sec as a pirate for a few months, but I certainly don't think that this gives me any standing to speak authoritatively on behalf of the lo-sec community as a whole. I've asked Hans to help with giving me some insight on the FW issues, but even that's only a part of lo-sec. The last thing I want to do is be involved in inflicting a "Dominion" on lo-sec. I'd rather do nothing than do that.
I'm not quite so sanguine as you are that FW is immune to either being controlled by outside powerblocs or evolving into powerblocs itself.
The only idea that I've ever really been enthusiastic about is making lo-sec the focal area for trading and making boosters, so that people would have a reason to go there. But that's pretty small beer really. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 09:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
Wescro wrote:What do you mean by "no troll this time"? What happened last time?
This
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:00:00 -
[22] - Quote
Vilnius Zar wrote:Perhaps I missed it somewhere but what's your stance on jump bridges, jump capable ships and power projection?
It's a complex subject, and I don't think that it's amenable to 1-liner catch phrase solutions.
Jump Bridges I am basically happy with at the moment. They don't contribute to power projection (you can't isntall them until you've held the space for weeks); they're a great quality-of-life enhancer for the low level alliance citizen, they're one of the few perks of owning sov. I supported the Jump Bridge nerf limiting JBs to one per system, but I definitely don't think they need any further nerfs. Even if I did, I would utterly oppose nerfing them until CCP have put in some significant changes to the way sov 0.0 works to make it into a more viable space for the average alliance member to conduct his daily business in.
Jump Capable ships: they definitely have a place in EVE. Whilst I don't really like the idea of being able to move whole fleets across the map in a few minutes, the secondary and tertiary implications of removing or significantly nerfing cyno-jumping are so huge that I am frankly nervous of going down that road. I think it's best to accept jump ships belong in 0.0 and that we're always going to have to take them into account.
IMO The essential first step to dealing with excessive power projection is to build in greater incentives to stay close to home. If you read up, you can see that my idea of sov 0.0 is a busy, lively, labor-intensive local economy. That implies a substantial effort to protect that local economy, or accepting that whilst you're on campaign, your alliance has to live on accumulated reserves. "There are no reinforcement timers on a mining op."
I'd also like to see the potential economic density of 0.0 (that's a fancy term for "how many people can make a living in a given area") greatly increased. A busy trade hub or mission hub in hi-sec can support hundreds of players. A fully upgraded 0.0 system is barely able to support half a dozen ratters. If we can get CCP to restructure 0.0 space to encourage alliances to have a relatively small amount of highly developed, intensively utilised space (insert appropriate Civ 5 mechanism for analogy purposes here!), then I think power projection issues will take care of themselves, at least to a certain extent. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:20:00 -
[23] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote:Would you care to reveal your thoughts concerning moon goo (specifically, from tech moons)? Do you think the alchemy changes went far enough, do you think a geographical redistribution of tech moons is warranted or do you have something else in mind?
The current situation with tech moons is still DumbGäó
Obviously alchemy has helped to mitigate the issues, but the fundamental problems are still there, most specifically the terrible distribution of Technetium moons.
What I'd really like to see is the solution proposed by a clever person whose name temporarily escapes me, which is to basically completely redo the distribution of the R64s, so that each R64 is heavily concentrated in a single quadrant of the map. And then to redo the moongoo requirements for tech 2 items such that each race relies on a different R64. So it might be possible for a coalition to dominate the R64 for Caldari ships or Minmatar ships, but it would require them to control the whole of 0.0 to monopolise the top earning moons in the way that we see now.
In any case, the top-earning moons still earn far too much. Alliances should derive their wealth from the activity of their memberbase, not from lifeless structures which are miled by an elite few.
Kinis Deren wrote: Are you in favour of "wormhole stabilizers" or other such mechanics to grant WH access to large fleets?
No I am not. To me they directly destroy one of the things that makes W-space distinct from 0.0. If you want big fleet action, then you should be looking at sov null. Building might empires and having epic huge space battles between them is what sov 0.0 is for. Bringing big fleet action into W-space would change it as radically as bringing CONCORD into lo-sec.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:30:00 -
[24] - Quote
Kinis Deren wrote: Low sec appears to take the crown for most active PvP region in New Eden (2012 Dotlan stats kills/jump). Do you think sov null is close to achieving "blue donut" status (i.e. an equilibrium state maintained through NIPs, NAPs & other inter-coalition agreements)? How would you encourage conflict in sov null or do you think the current drivers are sufficient?
I've been playing long enough to have seen 3 or 4 previous iterations of "A new era of peace of prosperity" imposed on 0.0. They didn't last long because humans gonna :human:, and boredom leads to squabbling leads to grudges leads to hate leads to awesome spacefights.
I think the current situation is maybe a little different because the 2 largest blocs have far better internal political stability, and also a culture that promotes the value of the humble grunt. This makes them more durable, and also more inclined to like each other because of similar ideology. But as I said above, much of the problem is structural: once you've claimed the good moons, who cares enough about the actual space to fight for it for any reason other than to score points over the current owners (Eg: the recent HBC campaign vs -A- was definitely not fought because the HBC wanted -A-'s valuable space, but because they wanted -A- as an organisation extirpated).
Basically once the space itself, rather than just a few good moons, is worth fighting for, I think we'll see more fighting for it. When more of the economy is local, more of the politics will be as well. At the moment, the fighting pilots of the whole CFC can go help SMA defend their tech in Venal. When doing that means leaving their mining ops, research POS, trade good haulers, etc, in Fade or Cloud Ring vulnerable I think we'd start to see some cracks appear pretty quickly. In those circumstances, I'd expect blocs like the CFC and the HBC to radically consolidate the area of space they want to directly claim. The follow on consequence from that is that local politics will follow the EVE pattern of "Yes but what have you done for me lately?" and the squabble -> grudge -> hatred -> spacebattles chain will quickly result. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7002
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:58:00 -
[25] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Malcanis wrote:Kinis Deren wrote:Would you care to reveal your thoughts concerning moon goo (specifically, from tech moons)? Do you think the alchemy changes went far enough, do you think a geographical redistribution of tech moons is warranted or do you have something else in mind? The current situation with tech moons is still DumbGäó Obviously alchemy has helped to mitigate the issues, but the fundamental problems are still there, most specifically the terrible distribution of Technetium moons. What I'd really like to see is the solution proposed by a clever person whose name temporarily escapes me, which is to basically completely redo the distribution of the R64s, so that each R64 is heavily concentrated in a single quadrant of the map. And then to redo the moongoo requirements for tech 2 items such that each race relies on a different R64. So it might be possible for a coalition to dominate the R64 for Caldari ships or Minmatar ships, but it would require them to control the whole of 0.0 to monopolise the top earning moons in the way that we see now. In any case, the top-earning moons still earn far too much. Alliances should derive their wealth from the activity of their memberbase, not from lifeless structures which are milked by an elite few. Just restoring the supremacy of r64s would go a long way towards fixing moon materials - nobody complained about moon distribution when dyspro and promethium were kings of the hill since although there were good regions and bad regions they were much more widely distributed, its only when that title fell to a regionalised r32 material that it became an issue. Moonshuffling has its own set of associated problems - not least that it hands the initiative to large organised groups who have the manpower to quickly scan down areas of space for the new moon locations (there's still no complete and accurate moon map after nearly 10 years). R64 supremacy plus some secondary method of sourcing materials (whether that be ring mining or something else) to allow bottom-up supply of the market would put Eve in a much healthier position.
Moonshuffling can't possibly give the "large organised" groups more of an advantage than they already have, since the largest, best organised groups already own all the tech moons right now.
Agreed re: secondary methods, although Alchemy is already one such method.
Oversupplying moongoo would shift the bottleneck to invention, which would mean datacores, which would mean that the T2 revenue went to hi-sec. I am anxious to avoid this outcome. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7003
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:51:00 -
[26] - Quote
Di Mulle wrote:Bad news for my current CSM representatives... Malcanis will definitely steal some of my votes. Fully endorsing and wishing all the best.
No no, it's great news for them. They will be able to read my posting in the CSM forum as well as the public one! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7007
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:02:00 -
[27] - Quote
:Tinfoil: and rumours abound about how exactly the moongoo rebalance that was supposed to reduce the Dysp/Prom bottleneck came to create an even tighter, more geographically concentrated bottleneck. The best that can be said about the change was that it occurred in a period when CCP didn't listen to the players as attentively as they do now. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7009
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:19:00 -
[28] - Quote
When I made that off-the-cuff suggestion, I conceived that the new players wouldn't remain in the 'gated' systems very long, since they'd be pretty boring. They'd literally just be a place to learn basic gameplay/UI skills and starting tutorials. But it's not a policy I have any firm ideological commitment to or anything. Don't read too much into it. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7009
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:24:00 -
[29] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:Malcanis wrote::Tinfoil: and rumours abound about how exactly the moongoo rebalance that was supposed to reduce the Dysp/Prom bottleneck came to create an even tighter, more geographically concentrated bottleneck. The best that can be said about the change was that it occurred in a period when CCP didn't listen to the players as attentively as they do now. I think the NDA breach at the time made it clear nobody realized this was going to make tech the big deal: a CSM member got booted for mass-purchasing neodymium after being told of the changes. As it turned out, you needed to do some fairly careful math to realize neo wasn't the bottleneck: clearly, CCP and the CSM at the time didn't do it. (edit: also given the public rationale for the changes the guy doing the changes clearly didn't even know what bottlenecking was)
Hmm that doesn't accord with my recollection: I seem to remember that the elite spreadsheet crew in Market Discussion (particularly Akita T) spotted the tech bottleneck almost immediately, and tried quite hard to get CCP to acknowledge. But CCP were pretty much "We're done talking about this, enjoy your :18 months: while we focus on spacebarbie monocoles" Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7010
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:13:00 -
[30] - Quote
Ah, I misread his "nobody realised...". He meant nobody realised until the changes were released. Gotcha. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7010
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:18:00 -
[31] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Varius Xeral wrote:Your views on the place of moongoo are excellent. "An organizational perk, but not absolutely necessary to be remotely competitive" is about as perfect a place for moongoo as you can get. I'd be willing to state that the majority of people who comment on moongo don't even know that it was never the intent for technetium to be the bottleneck, nor even the nature of the bottlenecking inherent in current t2 extraction and production that is the ultimate cause of all the moongoo issues.
The knee-jerk reaction seems to be "remove moons" or something else similarly extreme, while even in their broken state they have provided half a decade of decent gameplay. If done right for once, moons absolutely have a place in Eve, as they are an organizational reward and, all else being equal, an excellent way to provoke fights. Actually the current top down financing and the fact that it is afk mining to the extreme needs to go. Active moon mining via a ship would be great and give industrialists something else to stare at for hours. But I wont ramble more in Malcanis's thread. Vote Malcanis for a better tomorrow
Since you're supporting me, it would be churlish of me to remind you of your vow to leave CSM politics, so I won't. Instead I'll invite you to feel free to ramble away if you have any issues you'd like to know my position on. I hope to win a CSM seat, but I don't want it enough to lie about things I care about, so ask away. The more questions asked & answered, the more issues people will know how I stand on, and the better they can judge whether I'm the correct candidate for them to vote for.
This is my soapbox, and if I'm ready to ask you to entrust me with the considerable responsibility of representing you, then I'm ready to answer your queries. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7010
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:19:00 -
[32] - Quote
Incidentally, I specifically disclaim any promises to make tomorrow better. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7013
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:48:00 -
[33] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Malcanis wrote:This is my soapbox, and if I'm ready to ask you to entrust me with the considerable responsibility of representing you, then I'm ready to answer your queries. Given who you're addressing, be careful what you ask for.
Yes indeed, but if I can't cope with that problem then I'm going to make a very poor showing... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7013
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:49:00 -
[34] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Malcanis wrote:Incidentally, I specifically disclaim any promises to make tomorrow better. It would be hard to make some parts of EvE suck more than they do today. Null for example As to me staying out of politics, well we all new the odds of that happening, I was after a quote that I got but now that CSM member is not running again so that spoiled my fun
Well I've addressed nullsec in quite some detail already Was there anything I've not covered to your satisfaction?
PS No whiteknighting please; I'll slay my own trolls. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7014
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:27:00 -
[35] - Quote
My second-hand medieval weapon business is off to a good start! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7017
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 11:14:00 -
[36] - Quote
Roime wrote:Awesome news! Will vote.
Question: What do you think about the current NPC corps? My view is that improving them would be crucial for player retention, and that this could be achieved by introducing CCP employees or supported volunteers to be leaders and tutors in these corps.
EVE is a very complex game, and not only the first days, but the first month can be a confusing experience. New players are mainly directed towards missioning by the scripted tutorials, or making ISK via mining. And as we know, this is far from the complete EVE experience older players enjoy, and the vast universe trailers describe. I'm afraid many players never make it past their first experiences in the starter corp.
Handholding, solid advice and co-operation and encouragement to leave the starter area and professions for the full experience.
This would be accompanied by mechanics that reward player action, and guide towards graduation from the starter corps- they are educational institutions, after all. Achievements and awards, carrot instead of stick. But it would also be impossible to linger forever in the NPC corp, unless you'd be promoted to a tutor or leader. Graduated students, or those that don't complete their studies in the allocated time frame would either move to player corps, remain as designated tutors (after passing approval by existing staff) or be transferred into the other NPC corps, which would operate under different mechanics, ie. lesser protection and advantages.
I think being able to have characters in NPC starter corps, protected under mechanics that were designed only to protect new players, is broken and easily exploitable by older players, fully compliant with Malcanis' law.
My thoughts on how NPC corps could be developed and improved are detailed in the hi-sec manifesto thread.
The tl;dr is that NPC corps have a valid place in EVE, because hi-sec is (or should be) about convenience play and not everyone has the time, schedule or inclination to join a player corp. But that doesn't mean that being a member of an NPC corp can't be made more involving.
Basically, I think players should be able to choose which NPC corp they want to belong to, and different NPC corps should have different advantages and different drawbacks and challenges. There should certainly be more complexity - joining a Caldari Megacorp that has a 'Cold War' going on with another megacorp should give you a big standings hit to that other megacorp (or even open warfare with their members - a very small scale version of faction warfare). Joining a government/Navy organisation should involve you in faction warfare. Other corps might vary the cut they take of your earnings. Different NPCs corps might also offer different facilities like easier jump clone access, better refining, limited access LP stores, partial diplomatic immunity for players with very low faction status (eg: you might join a Caldari megacorp with good trading relations with the Minmatar; you'd still be hostile to Gallente Faction navy, but you'd be able to travel into Minmatar space as if your standing to them was +2.0 higher than it actually is). And so on. There are lots of possibilities.
Basically, it should matter which NPC corp you choose. And the NPC corps with the pros/cons that suit a particular playstyle, whether mining, trading, missioning, hauling, whatever, will then tend to accumulate the players who do the relevant professions. This will mean that players in NPC corps will generally be associating with other players who share their interests. This will promote and enable player interaction, and might even help to facilitate those players in forming their own player corps. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7020
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 15:54:00 -
[37] - Quote
Weaselior wrote:What areas of EVE do you think you understand particularly well vs what areas are you relatively weak in understanding?
If you mean geographically:
Good understanding: Sov 0.0, NPC 0.0, hi-sec Some understanding: Lo-sec Limited understanding: W-space
If you mean in terms of gameplay mechanics, then I have limited experience (ie: I have dabbled but not in any serious way), in invention, ship manufacturing, exploration, suicide ganking, espionage, L5 missions.
I have some experience (ie: I do them regularly or I used to do them a lot, but not as my primary focus these days) in trading, cloaky warfare, belt ratting (including faction/officer spawn hunting), small gang PvP, piracy, POS management, corp management, 0.0 mining.
I have lots of experience in: fleet warfare, forum warfare (hey it's a part of EVE), scouting, dying in dictors, anomalies, missioning (both pirate and hisec), helping individual new players (this is a hobby of mine)
That's probably not a complete list but it'll do for now Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:55:00 -
[38] - Quote
Shalia Ripper wrote: P.S. His ass is legendary.
It would be false modesty to deny this.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:56:00 -
[39] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Malcanis wrote: Oversupplying moongoo would shift the bottleneck to invention, which would mean datacores, which would mean that the T2 revenue went to hi-sec. I am anxious to avoid this outcome.
Mynnna could probably answer that better, but with FW as a major source of datacores, I don't think the revenue would be going to high sec.
Empire then. The "money" part of T2 should go to 0.0. That's not to say that hi-sec should be excluded from the process, but 0.0 is where you should be to make the big bucks out of it. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:59:00 -
[40] - Quote
Terranid Meester wrote:Good to see someone who speaks fairly clearly going to put their name forward.
Theres talk of datacores & moon mining, so whats your position of PI as a possible replacement for moon mining & constructing things like datacores, skillbooks, implants etc. Surely it is something that needs iterating on in the future because lets face it, Tyrannis wasn't actually that special in delivering. It could even involve DUST 514 with mercs blowing up/capturing moon mining bases etc.
As a mainly high sec/low sec player, industry is a concern for me, in that it could be so much more.
Are you arguing that moon mining should be obsoleted entirely? That's a very radical change, and I think I'd need to hear from you exactly what problems you think this would fix and how gameplay would be improved before I could comment further. If there's one good thing about moon-mining it's that valuable moons are excellent fight-generators; I'd want to see the opportunities and motivations for fighting in 0.0 diversified a hell of a lot further than their current paucity before I endorsed removing any.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 08:00:00 -
[41] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Malcanis wrote: Oversupplying moongoo would shift the bottleneck to invention, which would mean datacores, which would mean that the T2 revenue went to hi-sec. I am anxious to avoid this outcome.
Mynnna could probably answer that better, but with FW as a major source of datacores, I don't think the revenue would be going to high sec. I could probably reverse engineer production and make an educated guess as to how many datacores Eve uses, but that wouldn't tell us whether the majority from from FW or if they're still from R&D agents. That said, I disagree that it would shift the bottleneck - my gut feeling is there would be no bottleneck. You'd get it looking like minerals did when drone alloys were a thing; some stuff was more valuable than others, but it was all pretty dang cheap. That wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in this context though, as it would be an avenue to achieve the "keep moons top down but not too valuable so you can't live entirely on them" goal he stated a couple pages back. e: And my apologies to Malcanis, I sometimes feel like I'm hijacking your thread.
You're more than welcome to post in my thread. All your posts have been very valuable. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:02:00 -
[42] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Malcanis wrote: If there's one good thing about moon-mining it's that valuable moons are excellent fight-generators. They were excellent fight generators.
They still are. Raiden's Neodymium moon in T-8 has seen 6 or 7 big fights over it so far, with several hundred ship losses over the last 14 days, from my personal experience.
And Black Legion have stirred up a hornet's nest by attacking SMA's Tech moons in Venal. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:28:00 -
[43] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:About goddamn time.
Well this is the year that EVE comes out of open beta. What better time to choose? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 11:07:00 -
[44] - Quote
Speaking of exiting Beta, Ytterbium's post on updating EVE's embarrasingly antiquated PvE is something that I absolutely intend to relentlessly follow up on, as this has been one of my pet issues almost since I started playing EVE.
It has been 10 years. It's not too soon for EVE to have PvE that's more than a blatant "To Do: rats" placeholder. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7065
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 12:37:00 -
[45] - Quote
One hopes that Ytterbium will write it up into a devblog, but people tend to take those as pretty much a formal commitment these days. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7070
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:39:00 -
[46] - Quote
psycho freak wrote:So you finaly decided to do it ay mal?
Good i cant think of anyone better for the job tbh you defo got my vote
known mal ingame for around 6 years had many a debate about eve with him in our channel but somthing i will say he is a fair and very trust worthy man
like a said we dont allways see eye to eye but there is no better man for the job imho
p.s. no nurfs mal haha gl bro
NERF ALL THE THINGS!
haha no seriously thanks for the endorsement mate, spread the word. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7077
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:11:00 -
[47] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:Speaking of exiting Beta, Ytterbium's post on updating EVE's embarrasingly antiquated PvE is something that I absolutely intend to relentlessly follow up on, as this has been one of my pet issues almost since I started playing EVE. It has been 10 years. It's not too soon for EVE to have PvE that's more than a blatant "To Do: rats" placeholder. "Why are we considering changing PvE like this? That is because we are running missions and PvE content ourselves, and we are not particularly fond of the stale state PvE is in EVE Online right now." Just make them do this. Make them do PVE for, say, a week at a time, then invention, POS mining, POS reaction, manufacturing, PI, etc etc etc. Sooner or later I'm sure they'll go "you know what? this sucks dicks, we've got to fix this". You never know, they might accidentally improve some of those things, too.
Personally I loved the "right now", as if PvE in EVE used to be dynamic, unpredictable and exciting, but lately things have just slipped a bit below that standard.. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7080
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:22:00 -
[48] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Heh. PVE being dynamic, unpredictable and exciting.
Good joke, that.
There's no intrinsic reason it can't be. Certainly it could be a lot more dynamic, unpredictable and exciting than it is. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7086
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:13:00 -
[49] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Let's say you could only push for one thing to change about non-empire industry, what would you think would make the most difference? Not counting POS revamp or moon changes.
If i only get one wish it would be for modular outposts capable of being upgraded to allow a fully invested nullsec system to be the equal of a good hisec ssystem. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7087
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:25:00 -
[50] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:Malcanis wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Let's say you could only push for one thing to change about non-empire industry, what would you think would make the most difference? Not counting POS revamp or moon changes.
If i only get one wish it would be for modular outposts capable of being upgraded to allow a fully invested nullsec system to be the equal of a good hisec ssystem. Is it a matter of 100% refining, or just the costs of having enough slots for a real industrial base?
I'll. Post a proper answer later after I've read the CSM minutes but the short answer is no. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7095
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:21:00 -
[51] - Quote
Anslo wrote:"Vote for me! I can fix high-sec!"
Is from a nul-block.
Yeahno. My vote's going to Herr Ronin.
Ronin is in a nullbloc too, but don't let the facts get in the way of your decision. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7096
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:03:00 -
[52] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Malcanis wrote:Rengerel en Distel wrote:Let's say you could only push for one thing to change about non-empire industry, what would you think would make the most difference? Not counting POS revamp or moon changes.
If i only get one wish it would be for modular outposts capable of being upgraded to allow a fully invested nullsec system to be the equal of a good hisec ssystem. Is it a matter of 100% refining, or just the costs of having enough slots for a real industrial base? I'll. Post a proper answer later after I've read the CSM minutes but the short answer is no.
To expand: there are several problems with sov nullsec. One of them is, as you have accurately identified, the sheer carrying capacity available. There needs to be a way to add an very large number of research and production lines to sov stations to level the evident imbalance of a single hi-sec system being able to outproduce entire developed 0.0 regions.
Another aspect is that there need to be specific advantages to producing in 0,0 to outweigh the very great game mechanics advantages. So 0.0 stations need to give some compelling advantage to offset the actuarial cost of (to name but one) no CONCORD protection or (to name another) the chance of the station being captured whilst all those long research or production jobs are running. In short there need to be straight up financial advantages to producing in 0.0 to compete with the huge subsidies that producers in hi-sec get. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7096
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:51:00 -
[53] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Any thoughts on suggestions like changing the manufacturing costs to one based on mineral values, as opposed to today's values of 2k isk or less pr maelstrom?
To be perfectly frank a hard numbers modification like that is better coming from someone like corestwo. I had hoped to enlist V.V. into leading a solid proposal like that, but apparently ideological concerns predominate.
One idea that I did have was to promote T2 production in 0.0 by adding a manufacturing upgrade to 0.0 outposts that would allow production from invented BPCs that ignored the negative MEs. That would give T2 production in 0.0 a solid advantage to offset the overheads, without being open to abuse by enabling players to refine finished goods to end up with more stuff than they started with.
If you recall my hi-sec manifesto, I did suggest a possible (for example) -1% per 0.1 sec level ME & PE penalty (So producing in a 1.0 system would require (for example) 10% more minerals and take 10% longer than in a 0.0 system. But that was more to encourage a shift to 0.5 or 0.6 systems. I'm not sure that it would on its own be enough to enable viable 0.0 production of bulk items like battleships. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7105
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 07:30:00 -
[54] - Quote
Jacabon Mere wrote:Are you married?
This is unironically relevant to whether I vote for you or not.
I think that's too personal to be relevant. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7105
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 07:43:00 -
[55] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Good stuff on the whole.
In principle, that's absolutely the sort of thing what I'd like to see. However, your standings penalties are applied way too early. Civiliam stations should not as a matter of course shoot at other civilians unprovoked. Merely being a member of another megacorp isn't sufficient. Also there needs to be a good spectrum of corp styles available and not all of them need to involve being unexpectedly blapped by NPCs.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7115
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:34:00 -
[56] - Quote
A quick note on POS:
Everything about deploying, using and managing POS is unacceptably horrible. POS should be a centrepiece of EVE life: the whole point of a sandbox is that it's based on player created content. Hobbling the ambition virtually every EVE players has, to have a little corner of space to call his own, is bad game design and bad business. If there's one thing that would improve live in ALL areas of EVE, it would be to make POS more accessible and less of a horrible burden.
Declining to fix POS because "only a small percentage use them" is the worst reason I can think of. The fact that only a small percentage of players use such an important, powerful feature should be a red flag, a flashing alert, a blaring siren that something is badly wrong. And I'm am frankly sceptical that it would take the entire development resources of CCP for a full expansion cycle to deliver significant improvements. If CCP say that it would be too expensive to deliver "perfect" POS, well then I will have to take their word for it at the moment.
But I flatly don't believe that they couldn't give us at least a few of the more desperately needed improvements with much less resources. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7116
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:51:00 -
[57] - Quote
Or ship maintenance arrays.... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7116
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:51:00 -
[58] - Quote
LET MY PEOPLE DOCK, CCP! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7133
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 12:46:00 -
[59] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Malcanis wrote:In principle, that's absolutely the sort of thing what I'd like to see. However, your standings penalties are applied way too early. Civiliam stations should not as a matter of course shoot at other civilians unprovoked. Merely being a member of another megacorp isn't sufficient. Also there needs to be a good spectrum of corp styles available and not all of them need to involve being unexpectedly blapped by NPCs. Pff! You obviously haven't played enough dystopian-future RPGs. Would Renraku unceremoniously off any shadowrunner in Shiawase's employ that they encounter? Of course they would! Pod pilots aren't civilians GÇö they're free-roaming WMDs who have in the past shown themselves perfectly willing to ram stations and make them burn for 4+ yearsGǪ shoot them and bill the clone for the ammo, I say! Anyway yes, like I said: the numbers were just place-holders to demonstrate what could be done and what the consequences would be. It needn't be anywhere near that severe. The main point is really that corps would impose both limits and flat modifiers, so even if you ground enough standings to not be particularly affected by the negative modifier, they still don't like you very much on pure principle, and that the granularity of standings could (and should) be used for far more things than just let you run missions and/or get a good tax dodge out of itGǪ and not all of those things should be positive.
The basic idea is that you'd have some NPC corps that give really nice benefits and those would also be the ones with the harshest drawbacks/dangers. And you'd have 1-2 others that just tax you your 11% and don't do much for you other than provide a chat channel (Interbus would be good for this). And a wide spectrum of intermediates. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7148
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:28:00 -
[60] - Quote
Tippia wrote: Come to think of it, why is it that when I manufacture Falcons in a Lai Dai station, there isn't some obstructive and lethargic foreman who waddles up and says GǥSheeee, docGǪ I don't know if we have the tools for those parts. What's this? A 4.5 microfurlong bolt? Sorry, we only do metric here. I could order the bits, but it'll cost yaGǪ 10% because you're such a swell guy.Gǥ (And who offers you a discount whenever you try to build Basilisks because they have a pallet of left-over nanoglue that hey haven't been able to shift.)
Whilst I love a good troll as much as anyone, I think I'll hold off on advocating that particular idea until I hear someone complaining that T2 manufacturing is too simple and straightforward. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7154
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:26:00 -
[61] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You will have my vote... whenever the election is, that is.
April, I believe. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7166
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:31:00 -
[62] - Quote
Shootmenot dammit wrote:You are a very good poster and I'm thinking about giving you my votes, even though I never voted in a CSM election before. Your forum contributions have been useful to me over the years, and I more or less endorse your opinions on several relevant issues. I'm, however, concerned about your affiliation. Can you convince me that you are truly independent and that you are not applying solely to represent the interests of a major powerblock? Your list of blues, for instance. You openly said this about them when you weren't blue: http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1492296&page=29#850Quote:"TEST, an alliance that openly encourages the membership to bot, and actually has an alliance rule against reporting bots" Do you hold the same views on your (now) allies? Quite a lot of TEST and GSF pilots seem to be supporting you openly, and in order to vote for you, I need to know that there is no stupid HBC/CFC agenda involved. Thanks in advance for your comments.
What would it take to convince you? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7168
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:12:00 -
[63] - Quote
Expanded answer (posting from a smartphone does not encourage going into detail)
If you're determined to believe that I'm a "company man" HBC stooge then there's not much I can do about that. Maybe I could show you screenshots of the HBC forum thread discussing the HBC primaries to determine who will be the "official HBC candidate"? Hint: It Is Not Malcy.
I don't decide which coalition INIT. belongs to, and I'm not about to leave the friends I've made in INIT over the last 3.5 years to prove a point. I'm reasonably content to be in the HBC and TEST have dealt fairly and generously with us, but I certainly don't think that means I owe them any special favours in the CSM.
Yet the fact is that many of the things that I sincerely advocate will benefit both the HBC and the CFC. I want trickle-up based alliance income, and that favours alliances with large, active memberships. But they won't exclusively benefit from those proposals; everyone in 0.0 will (or so I believe) - the ElitePVP groups will also benefit greatly if my ideas are accepted too, for instance.
And while many Goons and TEST players have posted in support of my ideas, I have never had any problem with disagreeing with someone whatever alliance they may be in. Indeed, here is an example dating from... this afternoon. In short: I agree with many players. Some of them are Goons or TEST or whatever. I disagree with many players. Some of them are Goons or TEST or whatever.
Re: Botting. I am now and always have been absolutely opposed to botting in all its forms. I accept no excuses for doing it, and I take gleeful pleasure in seeing botters punished. In my limited contact with TEST since we joined the HBC, I have seen no advocation of botting, discussion of botting on the forums (there is in fact an explicit rule against discussing EULA breaking activities) and I haven't seen any TEST bots or spoken to any reliable source who has. Are there bots in TEST? I'd be pretty naive to think that there weren't any. But I'd be dishonest if I said that I'd seen any signs of mass botting. At worst, the scale has been reduced to the level where it can be kept discrete.
I've also seen zero evidence that there's any official or unofficial HBC policy in favour of botters. My personal suspicion is that CCP Sreeg's campaign last year has been successful enough to at minimum make the alliance leadership distance themselves from such activities. Handling bot ISK is highly hazardous now, and getting half the alliance leadership banned is too great a strategic risk. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:04:00 -
[64] - Quote
Dar Saleem wrote:mynnna wrote:I've never seen Malcanis' highsec proposals before, but now that I have, I'd support them when (if (who am I kidding, when)) I run for CSM myself. It's a pretty good approach. I would vote for you, love your science and industry posts, think your knowledge would be great asset As long as I dont have to pick between you and malcanis I will be happy
Why choose?
*points to Power Of Two offer Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:21:00 -
[65] - Quote
Arduemont wrote:Malcanis, you have my vote.
Although we don't always see eye to eye in the discussions we both partake in, you always hold a level head and have coherent and well thought out arguments. And importantly, like myself, you are willing to concede a point when we are wrong.
I do have a question for you though. I have very rarely seen you post any comments at all in discussions about potential Avatar Gameplay Content. I'm personally a strong advocate of putting development time into working on what has ultimately been another neglected feature, our Avatars. What is your stance on Avatar based gameplay?
Wut? I've posted plenty of times about Avatar gameplay.
The tl;dr is that I believe that in the long term, it's essential for EVE's continued survival, because it offers a solution to the problem of adding new things to do in a persistent world game that's already a decade old. It's increasingly difficult for CCP to add new spaceship things to do without treading on the toes of existing things to do. That's why we see twenty fixes and updates of old content for every new thing that gets introduced these days. Avatar gameplay offers an end run (OK, walk) around this obstacle.
But.
It's evident that CCP don't have the technical chops to pull it off right now, and they're still working out exactly what they want to do with WiS. We've seen what happened when they tried to surf on through with a wave of awesome and nose candy. Unifex's statement on WiS was pretty unequivocal: it's on a back burner, pending that clear idea (and those technical chops). Right now, it's not a viable investment of CCP's development resources.
I mourn the loss of the resources spent so far, but we have to be realistic. CCP have to devote their resources now to what will pay off. Go look at the "Small Percentage" POS threadnaught in this very forum - there are lots of other big projects competing for those resources where we do have a good idea of what needs doing.
When I win the Euromillions lottery and buy CCP, I'll fund the restarted WiS project immediately. Until something of that ilk happens, there's a limited return on effort of discussing it, I'm afraid. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:27:00 -
[66] - Quote
Shootmenot dammit wrote: But if you are giving me your word that you are independent, perhaps I could grant you the benefit of the doubt. That much I could grant you.
Look at it from a point of view of my own self interest: If all I was doing was trying to get a seat on the CSM in order to effect the HBC party line, why bother to run at all? It would be hugely less effort to just vote for whoever the official HBC candidate was and get the same effect.
However, I will give you my word that I will in all cases do what I think is best for EVE, not just for the HBC, or even for INIT. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:29:00 -
[67] - Quote
Shootmenot dammit wrote: Either the HBC was not what you thought, or you don't mind mingling with crooks.
There's a third possibility, which is that they have modified their policy. I think this is most likely.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:30:00 -
[68] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:EDIT: If you want a more substantive issue where I disagreed with the CFC line, go look up the Jump Bridge nerf thread. I was definitely on the other side of that argument! Which side, the one going all "hurr durr JBs are power projection and must be nerfed"?
No, the one where CCP said they were going to limit JBs to one per system. That was in 2011 I think? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:43:00 -
[69] - Quote
In any case I will repeat that I'm happy with JBs as they are and I don't think they need any further nerfing. The way to reduce the bad effects of power projection is to give alliances compelling reasons to be close to home, not to put further hobbles on the already gimped and disadvantaged sov 0.0 lifestyle. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:12:00 -
[70] - Quote
Raid'En wrote:Malcanis wrote:I also wrote a hi-sec manifesto in this forum, which specifically laid out my thoughts on hi-sec. I think it also showcases my general philosophy on EVE. That was interesting. As someone who didn't came to EVE for *tears*, and still don't like them, and that often play on high with alts, I liked your ideas (mostly those about making low/null pockets INSIDE HS systems). Dunno what "true" carebears would think about it however, given if I still like a lot the security of high sec, I play most of my time outside it. What I really like on HS is the ability to be safe while travelling, to be able to engage the autopilot when I'm bored and don't haul valuable things, or to move ships between locations without having to check every gate for some camp. When I do that I don't want to be bothered with risks, it's like driving on a road which cut a forest ; you don't want bears or wolves to attack you on the road. However, if I leave the road and enter the forest, cause I saw something blinking on it, which seems interesting, I have no issue falling in a thieves trap. But I want this safe road being available, for when I need it. About that, I really disliked the Orca nerf ; for me it was being safe (hard to kill ; need more than one ship) and able to autopilot at the cost of an expensive and extremly slow boat. A transport ship is not, people may risk attacking you without knowing if it's valuable or not, so you can't autopilot, even if your cargo is empty there's still more risk.
Yeah the theme of the manifesto was that hi-sec should be a place where you can, at your convenience, choose your level of risk (and consequently, reward).
Some days I get home tired and stressed from a bad day at work and all I really want to do is run a couple of missions and chat with my friends. Then I log into my hi-sec alt and do that. So I absolutely understand the :effort: you're talking about, and you will understand that the last thing I want to do is "turn hi-sec into 0.0" and spoil my EVE "vacation spot".
But I want to make hi-sec offer more opportunities for excitement and fun for people who are the opposite of me, and rather than occasionally wanting somewhere quiet, they occasionally want to dabble with a bit of risk. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:14:00 -
[71] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:In any case I will repeat that I'm happy with JBs as they are and I don't think they need any further nerfing. Personally, I think they were pretty nerfed when they were put in the game as they were, the nerf just made that worse. And I think that when (if) they actually make nullsec not **** to live in, they should completely unnerf JBs and let us design the JB network to our desire, with only distance being the limiter. Malcanis wrote:The way to reduce the bad effects of power projection is to give alliances compelling reasons to be close to home, not to put further hobbles on the already gimped and disadvantaged sov 0.0 lifestyle. Mainly by fixing industry and the sov system, I presume. And, of course, making local activity actually being used to fund the alliance itself, so interdiction of local activity does hurt the wallet, and incentivizes home defense.
Precisely. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:37:00 -
[72] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:malcanis wrote:Get rid of JBs before the whole of 0.0 is just two big powerblocks presiding over their bot empires. Changed the tune on JBs a bit since then, then. :v:
Yeah, nothing about that prediction came true.
EDIT: OH, OK that's not fair. Yes I was wrong about how much JBs contributed to force projection. That said, I stand by my position that a whole gate jump between JBs isn't the end of the world either. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:43:00 -
[73] - Quote
What's that you say? You want me to advocate cyno mass limits and nerfing Titan bridging instead? Well, if you're suuuuuuuure that's what you want.... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:53:00 -
[74] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Actually, I keep playing with the idea of just removing jumpdrives altogether, at the very least from offensive ships. vOv
I do like the strategic and tactical complexity they add. Perhaps we ought to just allow people to warp from one system to the next if they're prepared to spend a couple of hours to do so...? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7190
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 12:03:00 -
[75] - Quote
Skippermonkey wrote:I'll vote for you as long as you promise to hit Trebor over the head with a rolled up newspaper if he pulls the 'spam all the inboxes' trick to get himself elected again
Duly promised. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7200
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 16:13:00 -
[76] - Quote
Varius Xeral wrote:I'm looking forward to malcanis winning because then I won't have to think for myself about eve problems for a year knowing that my general views are well-represented
which, of course, means more time for p0rn
I like it when people think. Hopefullly I'll help get some changes made that will give you something to occupy your mind Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7214
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:20:00 -
[77] - Quote
Golar Crexis wrote:So first of all I hope you get in to CSM 8, You have always advocated in a sensible, logical way and that is something that is always needed on the CSM.
Now for a policy question.
What are your thoughts on the new Rat AI? Do you think its ok for people who live in null-sec and particularly gurista's space to get a free concord?
What I'm referring to is the rats attacking someone trying to kill the ratter...
I'm kind of conflicted. On the one hand I can definately see how it would annoy any Pizza, who basically makes their living with such activities. I know it can be frustrating even trying to get on grid with a ratter, never mind then getting popped by rats as soon as you do.
On the other hand.... yeah I don't see why the ratter should be the one who necessarily has to always to deal with the all rats as well as being attacked. I guess I'd go for an interim fix that just gives rats a percentage change (modified by how many rats there are on grid) to attack the new arrival on grid. If that sounds like wishy washy weasel words it's because they are; I just can't think of anything cleverer that that right now. I'll keep thinking about it and if I do, or if someone cleverer than me makes a good proposal I'll revisit this issue.
Long term, the answer is to have better rats that require PvP fits and are optimally dealt with by groups of players. Until then there's no obvious solution that will make everyone happy. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7214
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:46:00 -
[78] - Quote
mynnna wrote:To throw in my two cents, my understanding of that issue (I've run into it myself and it's cost me kills, it's infuriating) is that it's a bug in the AI. But, I haven't really been able to get CCP to comment, either. If it's intended then it's just dumb. From an RP or simply "this makes sense" standpoint, there's little reason for rats to take a hostile stance towards ANY newcomer when they are quite literally battling for their lives against the ratter, and that even goes for things like mining vessels, salvagers, haulers, etc. Attacking that Noctis that showed up and is literally looting your buddies might be offensive, but you'd think they'd be worried about staying alive first. Attacking a newcomer who's first hostile action is towards the very ship you are yourself fighting is even more daft Malcanis wrote: Long term, the answer is to have better rats that require PvP fits and are optimally dealt with by groups of players. Until then there's no obvious solution that will make everyone happy.
I'd caution against this, though. The idea of a move towards unification between PvP and PvE is a great one and I've got nothing against that. Grouping, however, should not be mandatory. Optional, yes, to tackle harder sites, but solo content for the more casual type should be available as well. The trick is balancing reward of solo content vs group content so that one is not heavily deserted for the other. Thus, the reward of group content should exceed that of solo content but not by a whole lot, or alternatively provide a unique reward. In theory, deadspace complexes fill that sort of niche now, though in practice many of them are soloable and those that aren't can be multiboxed. I'm not sure how much a new AI and more player-like rats would address the latter. e: I ought to get my own thread started one of these days instead of just waiting until the "official" candidacy period opens...
Agreed, grouping shouldn't be required, but on the other hand it shouldn't be penalised either; 90% of EVE's PvE content is optimally rewarded by autistic, solo, repetitive, predictable playstyle. I would rather err on the side of favouring group activity. You'll notice that I said "optimal" not "required". Yes, plexes, but plexes are a minority activity as far as PvE goes. Incursions are an example of required grouping. It's quite easy to imagine a rework of anomalies for instance that splits the anoms into those suitable for a single ship (and therefore not realy worth bothering with for a group) and those suitable for a group (and therefore not really feasible for a solo ship).
There's no reason that all missions, for instance, have to be all solo-orientated. Missions used to be very much a group activity back in the day, but difficulty got nerfed and ships got a LOT better so now it's more efficient to solo them. Reduce or eliminate the penalty for declining a mission, let people cherry pick the ones that suit them, whether solo ones or group-orientated ones.
Or better yet: tiercide missions. Turn level 1 missions into the "solo friendly" ones, level 4s into the "better bring some friends", (With level 2/3 being the intermediate steps) and have the agents increase the difficulty of the missions & the reward they give you based on your completion stats.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7221
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:29:00 -
[79] - Quote
Mag's wrote:I don't normally vote mate, but will for you.
I'm just pleased you're voting.
(Slightly more pleased you're voting for me ofc) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7221
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:45:00 -
[80] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Malcanis wrote:Mag's wrote:I don't normally vote mate, but will for you. I'm just pleased you're voting. (Slightly more pleased you're voting for me ofc) You're welcome bud. It's more the fact that your right for the job with common sense, which isn't all that common these days. Anyway I blame Tippia, his sig made me do it.
Tippia is a menace to all right thinking citizens, and should be made to drink a cup of hemlock. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7231
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:13:00 -
[81] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:awesome news
what's your stance on making industrial structures (after buffing them ofc) :accessible: to enemy forces ? (read: thievery)
Please expand on this: what do you mean, exactly? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7231
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:15:00 -
[82] - Quote
Sure OK.
I suppose I knew that doing this would mean getting a microphone. Might as well get it over with now. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:47:00 -
[83] - Quote
Chokichi Ozuwara wrote:Malcanis wrote:One thing that I am particularly concerned to do is to raise the perceived value of the CSM in the eyes of the players. That's hard to do because democracies are typically built around race, culture, language etc. It's very hard to erect a [sic] functioning democracy from scratch. Also, the game is very anarchistic, and the effects of the CSM are very limited. Not to mention, the CSM doesn't actually wield any obvious political power. Normally voting blocks form around special interests. I dislike government and politics, but I admire the guys who run for CSM (most of them) because it's not a high profile, high reward job. But for those same reasons, it's difficult for the CSM to really gain much stature, which suits my anarchist nature just fine. That said, I wasted 3 votes on Trebor the spammer last go around, and this time, you'll get all 3 unless someone else blows me away.
No, it's hard to do for some more specific reasons:
(1) General faith in our RL political culture is pretty low. People have difficulty in restraining themselves from applying that cynicism to internetpixelspaceship politicians as well. Ankhgate, Larkgate and Mittengate did not help in this respect.
(2) The CSM gets caught up in the forum metagames; hi-sec vs 0.0, bears vs gankers and so on. The forum warriors do not recognise neutrality.
(3) The CSM is still a very young and evolving institution. Each one has been significantly different from the previous one. There's not really a perception of continuity, and I think people don't really feel confident in what they're supposed to expect. and confused expectations are very hard to live up to.
(4) The internet. The constant drive towards the lowest common-denominator one-liner discourse. It's simly just easier to write off the CSM with "Just a PR stunt" or "Just nullsec puppets" or whatever. Despite the easily available evidence to the contrary, these lines still get thrown out because people simply can't be bothered to deal with a more complex reality. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:55:00 -
[84] - Quote
Xander Phoena wrote:Malcanis wrote:Sure OK. I suppose I knew that doing this would mean getting a microphone. Might as well get it over with now. Excellent. Drop me a line on any of the contact in the post with whenever is likely to best suit yourself. As I say, I will be starting interviews on/around 9th Feb all the way through to the election itself but I can be as flexible as possible.
Mail sent. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 13:50:00 -
[85] - Quote
I think a few more tackling rats about the place wouldn't hurt either. As you say it's essentially impossible to catch a ratter who's watching local. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:42:00 -
[86] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:Malcanis wrote:Gilbaron wrote:awesome news
what's your stance on making industrial structures (after buffing them ofc) :accessible: to enemy forces ? (read: thievery) Please expand on this: what do you mean, exactly? Evil pirates should be able to steal from the (buffed) industrial structures. Not everything that's in there, but maybe a daily production out of a technetium moon, some bpc's from a laboratory, a batch of minerals from a refinery, PI stuff, reactions in process.... I you name it. All that with mechanics in place to protect the owner, some kind of siege cycle, a Window set by the owner when stuff is actually 'available for pickup'. Maybe better protection (read: shorter processing time, smaller processing batches....), when more money is invested or when the player has set up his industrial chain better It's not a very fleshed out idea, but it's buzzing around my head for some time now
Wht problem does this solve? What good does it accomplish? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:36:00 -
[87] - Quote
I'm not against mechanisms allowing people to steal things, but this sounds like a lot of work for something not many people would bother doing. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:25:00 -
[88] - Quote
Those are good objectives in fact they're pretty much more core issues, but I just don't think that your idea will do all that much to promote them. If it was really easy from a development point then I'd give it a "sure, why not", but it sounds pretty complex and there are about 10 more immediately urgent POS things I would like CCP to fix first. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:03:00 -
[89] - Quote
if you mean promote motivations, then there sheer fact of having people in 0.0 actually out in space doing day to day stuff seems like the biggest small gang buff I can imagine. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7233
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:26:00 -
[90] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:so, do you consider gatecamping and hunting lone miners and ratters who will dock/cloak/warp to a POS if they do pay attention to local something really exciting and something that would promote actual fights (fights = both sides trying to kill each other)
If we make it so that alliances rely on "trickle up" income, rather than tapping moongoo, then they'll have a much greater incentive to defend the activities of the member base. If they don't defend their miners, ratters, shipbuilders, etc etc, then they don't have any ISK I want to get away from the paradigm where the strength of an alliance relies on lifeless POS, rather than it's members. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7242
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 12:33:00 -
[91] - Quote
vikari wrote:Can you give us your opinion on three specific issues you believe CCP needs to address within CSM8's year of office and briefly what those changes should consist of?
This is a cheeky one, because the the effects from the input that CSM x has are usually seen during the term of CMS x+1. So if I say I want pink huntlegruffs to be available as LP store reward pets, they're not likely to actually be introduced until after my term is over. When pink huntlegruffs do get introduced, everyone points at me and asks why, if I'm such a huntlegruff lover, didn't I get them introduced in my CSM term?
That said, I'm more interested in results than credit, or even re-election. So I'll nail my theses to the door.
In descending order:
-The long awaited, desperately needed rework of sov 0.0. Sov 0.0 has seen no improvement since Revelations 1 (Dominion made things worse). The result is now seen: most of 0.0 is a sterile wasteland, because any activity other than mining moons and building supercaps, and producing ratting ammo and cap boosters is uneconomic to pursue there for anything except RP reasons.
The most pressing issue as far as I'm concerned is to bring the boys back home. Make it worthwhile for 0.0 players to repatriate their hi-sec alts. It's literally an insult that even after an alliance has claimed space, secured it from hostiles, installed stations, paid the swingeing sov bills and put in such infrastructure like jump bridges as is available, that it's still far more effective to do their production in hi-sec and JF it up. In fact it's not even possible to produce enough to support themselves.
-Per my hi-sec manifesto: a fresh look at what hi-sec is supposed to be for.
-To raise the profile and perceived value of the CSM amongst the playerbase as a whole. I'm under no illusions that this is any easy task, but I think it's vital to start now. I know for a fact that CSM 7 have worked hard and produced good results for us, but to far too great an extent, they've done it behind closed doors. Anyone who's had a job knows that it's what your manager sees you doing that counts when it comes to pay rise time. I want to make sure that the CSM gets the credit for the work it does (and ofc mistakes it makes), and I want to make sure that every potential voter is aware the CSM exists next term. I'm not shooting for 100% participation; as long as there's a statistically significant increase, I'll consider my efforts well rewarded.
Ultimately, the CSM derives its legitimacy from the support of the players. The importance to the players of engaging with the CSM process is now greater than ever, because the CSM has greater access, greater influence and greater importance in the development process than ever before. CSM 5 & 6 walked through fire to get this for us. CSM 7 used it get results for us. CSM 8 needs to make sure that everyone knows the value of the pot we're playing for. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7245
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:36:00 -
[92] - Quote
I'm not saying that these 3 are the only areas which could stand to see sme work, but they're my big issues.
Also: dat typo "CMS" Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7266
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:41:00 -
[93] - Quote
FYI: I am frequently insulting. I try not to be abusive though, and I prefer to attack the bad argument than the argumenter.
I can't think of any reason not to add as many standing slots as might be required. You don't really need CSM representation for such a specific issue, though; have you put that into the "little things" thread? I've had good success with getting specific, low deveopment overhead changes through that. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7266
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 14:21:00 -
[94] - Quote
Callduron wrote:A good manifesto would be concise clear and preferably bullet pointed. Eg 1) Ponies in low sec plexes 2) bigger roids in high sec etc etc. So we can see what you stand for...
Thank you for the advice. I will take it on board when I create my 'official' campaign thread after CCP formally accept my candidacy. It's good of you to take the time to support my campaign with constructive criticism, and I must say it's encouraging to me to see players who previously weren't much involved with the CSM take more of an interest in it. You have given me my first success in my 3rd CSM goal before I have even started. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7269
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:11:00 -
[95] - Quote
Rich vs poor.
As per the article I wrote on the subject, which perhaps you might like to familiarise yourself with after all, there's no reasonable way to adjest the balance between "rich" and "poor" that can't be joyously exploited by the rich, short of CCP confiscating everyone's stuff and evenly redistributing it. And even if they did that, I'd be prepared to bet you my share of the take that within a month, we'd have players with at least 3 orders of magnitude of net worth than others.
We just need to accept that just as some are better at combat PvP, others are better at market PvP. I'm not even sure why this is a problem. 10 poor guys can easily take on 1 rich guy with 10x their combined NAV in any enterprise except getting richer, and if they cared about being rich, they wouldn't be poor (EVE is an Objectivist dream in many ways).
As for old players vs new players, which is an entirely seperate question... I'll deal with that tomorrow when I'm less tired. It's a large, complex and touchy subject. The tl;dr of my thoughts is that the framing is fallacious: it doesn't need to be "old vs new"; we need to look at it from the perspective of "this group of old, new and intermediate players vs that group of old, new and intermediate players" and to make sure that new (sub-90 day) players have viable roles in those groups across a wide range of activities.
T2 vs tiercided T1.
There definitely needs to be a reason to fly a T2 ship; they're 20x the price and they take a lot more skills. Although cost alone isn't balance, it's a factor in balancing.
Any T2 ship should be able to do at least one role (and a proper role that's actually any use, not bullshit like the Eagle's "scratch your name in their paintwork at 200km" role) much better than the T1 equivalent. The balancing team's job is to identify those roles in the combat metagame, assign them to T2 ships, and then balance them to fill those roles superlatively - and with specific respect to HACs I don't envy them the job! All I can say is I suspect that we're going to see some T2 ships looking very different to what we've come to expect, and that's for the good: ships doing new and unexpected things is what keeps EVE fresh. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7270
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:32:00 -
[96] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Callduron wrote:high risk high reward high sec gameplay (done - by Incursions). Just to throw my two cents into the argument, calling incursions "high risk" at this point is... amusing. They may have been high risk when they first came out, but my understanding is that over the years, players have mastered them. I believe that the point of the general ideas Malcanis proposed was that risk pretty much must come from players to have teeth, because no matter how good the AI, players will master and trivialize it in time. Therefore, things like highsec L5 missions whose mission deadspace pockets actually count as lowsec and so on.
This is a good example of an unspoken assumption being articulated. Thanks Mynnna.
You are running, right? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7271
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:40:00 -
[97] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Malcanis wrote:Rich vs poor. As per the article I wrote on the subject, which perhaps you might like to familiarise yourself with after all, there's no reasonable way to adjust the balance between "rich" and "poor" that can't be joyously exploited by the rich, short of CCP confiscating everyone's stuff and evenly redistributing it. Balance is achieved not, I agree, by parity of wealth but by evening out power. I listened to Elise reminiscing about soloing 200 people with his titan in the old days on a podcast (possibly Declarations of War). And I thought while it's a cool story this is exactly what we need to get away from, a gameplay situation that is fun for one person and sucks for 200 others. One of the iconic images of Eve history is the Goon rifters tearing down the old and established. That can't be done if one older player is worth dozens of young players. As Eve ages we need to make sure it's possible for the poor to bring down the rich which won't happen if pvp is HACs or gtfo. That's why I see the Retribution Cruiser tiericide as one of the most important redistributions of wealth in Eve history. It didn't give impoverished new players more money. It gave them more value for the ships they can afford.
I unreservedly agree with you on all these points. The only one I'd comment on is the second, and that's to say that possible isn't the same as easy. Yes, Goons started out in Rifters, but it certainly wasn't by Rifters alone that they prevailed, but by working with other groups, by innovating their group processes, and above all by having an exceptionally coherent and vigorous internal culture (Oh look, another article!) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7271
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:14:00 -
[98] - Quote
Callduron wrote:I've just read and very much enjoyed your articles on lex malcanis and goon culture.
Regarding the effort required to become king of nullsec. Frankly I don't care who is king. What concerns me is that king ruling the whole map. If the test/fa thing blows over and PL drives into the drone regions we could see an all blue null within a year, at least as far as sov and infrastructure is concerned. I would much rather see a patchwork quilt of rival warlords.
I have no inside knowledge on whether the HBC and CFC want this to happen but if they did who could stop them?
If the players who live in sov space want to make sov space an "all blue" then who are you or I to tell them they shouldn't? Isn't the point of a sandbox to build what we want how we want? Others are free to try and stop us, of course - then it comes down to who's better at building sandcastles, and whose sandcastle was better designed and built.
So much for player freedom. The other side of the equation is of course the mechanics that CCP overlay that space with, which inventivise and reward specific sandcastle styles. At the moment the horrible "You've got a week before you need to get serious about dealing with this" Dominion sov system means that it's possible for one large group to dominate the whole of 0.0 -there's no reasonable power projection nerf that will mean than the CFC can't move its fleet within a week. And there's no real downside to concentrating all of a wide-spread bloc's forces into a single point, because the moons keep on gooing even when your fleet is 6 regions away. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7271
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:01:00 -
[99] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Malcanis wrote:Anslo wrote:"Vote for me! I can fix high-sec!"
Is from a nul-block.
Yeahno. My vote's going to Herr Ronin. Ronin is in a nullbloc too, but don't let the facts get in the way of your decision. Yeah, no, he's not. How 'bout them facts? Vote Herr Ronin for someone who REALLY knows high-sec.
Oh he's left now has he?
I think Ronin's going for a very different consituency than the one I'm aiming at, and perhaps his electoral tactics makes better sense than mine. I'm really only aiming for that segment of the voters that is interested in improving the game as a whole, using methods based on evidence and logic, rather than baseless conspiracy theories.
I think that you, on the other hand, would be best represented by Ronin, and I wholeheartedly recommend him to you. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7273
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:54:00 -
[100] - Quote
Sounds like something THEY would say
<.< >.> -.- Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7292
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 08:56:00 -
[101] - Quote
Support me and let Frying Doom feel tricked. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7294
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:05:00 -
[102] - Quote
AFK cloaky campers aren't "impossible" to counter. They take some effort and some changes in your ship fitting to counter. Organising into a defence gang is also a very good idea. They're "impossible" to counter if you try and run 0.0 anoms like hi-sec missions.
That said...
I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7295
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:29:00 -
[103] - Quote
Well to name only the most obvious example, the "answer" to the very first question in his list is the direct opposite of my view. Rather than hi-sec being nerfed to reflect it being a starter area, I think the way we look at hi-sec needs to be completely revolutionised, because it's clearly and obviously not just a starter area and hasn't been for the majority of EVE's existence. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7297
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:43:00 -
[104] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:Malcanis wrote:AFK cloaky campers aren't "impossible" to counter. They take some effort and some changes in your ship fitting to counter. Organising into a defence gang is also a very good idea. They're "impossible" to counter if you try and run 0.0 anoms like hi-sec missions.
That said...
I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not. The mere presence of a cloaky camper in a system will be enough to shut down any "farms and fields" activity in a system.
I beg your pardon, but you're addressing that assertion to someone who shared a system with Darkside for over a year. I'm not inclined to accept that a single, probably inactive, hostile can shut an alliance down when I have direct experience of living in an alliance that operated just fine with multiple active hostiles in the same system.
If the possibility of a single hostile, active or otherwise, is enough to shut your alliance down, then I suggest that you review your processes. I'e suggested a mechanism that would allow you a chance to detect whether the cloaky is active, as well as the possibility of setting up a trap for him. I think that is sufficient to counter a single fragile ship operating solo in your own space.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7299
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:11:00 -
[105] - Quote
"No risk"? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7302
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:35:00 -
[106] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Malcanis wrote:Callduron wrote:I've just read and very much enjoyed your articles on lex malcanis and goon culture.
Regarding the effort required to become king of nullsec. Frankly I don't care who is king. What concerns me is that king ruling the whole map. If the test/fa thing blows over and PL drives into the drone regions we could see an all blue null within a year, at least as far as sov and infrastructure is concerned. I would much rather see a patchwork quilt of rival warlords.
I have no inside knowledge on whether the HBC and CFC want this to happen but if they did who could stop them? If the players who live in sov space want to make sov space an "all blue" then who are you or I to tell them they shouldn't? Isn't the point of a sandbox to build what we want how we want? Others are free to try and stop us, of course - then it comes down to who's better at building sandcastles, and whose sandcastle was better designed and built. So much for player freedom. The other side of the equation is of course the mechanics that CCP overlay that space with, which inventivise and reward specific sandcastle styles. At the moment the horrible "You've got a week before you need to get serious about dealing with this" Dominion sov system means that it's possible for one large group to dominate the whole of 0.0 -there's no reasonable power projection nerf that will mean than the CFC can't move its fleet within a week. And there's no real downside to concentrating all of a wide-spread bloc's forces into a single point, because the moons keep on gooing even when your fleet is 6 regions away. OK, there's 2 simple points arising. 1) Are you in favour of design changes that encourage sov war to become more about ship to ship combat rather than the current structure grind? 2) Are you in favour of design changes that encourage null sec dominance to be based more on your number of pilots than on your number of supercaps?
The first is directly related to the second. As long as we have 100m hp structures, then supers are going to be intensely desirable, because if we wanted to spend hours shooting inanimate objects we'd be mining.
As for supercaps: supercarriers I'm honestly not too bothered about at this stage; they're fairly vulnerable to various accessible subcap doctrines, and they die quite often. Titans I'd like to see repurposed away from the current role of "double super dreadnaught". Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7302
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:37:00 -
[107] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Callduron wrote:sov war to become more about ship to ship How would this be done in a way which isn't exploitable?
Looking at context, I think he means reducing the emphasis on supercaps. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7302
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:45:00 -
[108] - Quote
Da Dom wrote:What is my vote worth in the grand scheme of things...
I refer you to your own signature for an answer. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7320
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:30:00 -
[109] - Quote
If I feel the need to use metalware to make a point, it won't be a spoon that gets used
Nevertheless, I reject the assumption that public drama equates to either effort or credibility.
I most definately would like to see the CSM better communicate exactly what it does and how, because the pernicious "free holiday to Iceland" and "CSM = empty publicity stunt" memes are nourished by the obscurity of all the hard work and effort that actually takes place. There's insufficient visibility of the causes the CSM promote, and the effects they achieve.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7328
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:13:00 -
[110] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Malcanis wrote:I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not. As it is still unclear to me whether or not the voting method will change in such a way that I have to choose multiple candidates, I'd like some clarification on this matter: Is this something you would actively push for, or is it something you would only bring out if CCP said "we're hitting cloaking with a nerfbat, we are open to suggestions as to how we do this"?
It's quite far down on my list of priorities, because it's kind of a "micro" issue compared to the "macro" ones like rebalancing 0.0 industry and getting a sov system that isn't on Amnesty International's proscribed list of interrogation methods.
EDIT Although perhaps "sub issue" is a better description. If we have a good conversation with CCP about nullsec industry, I'll certainly mention it as a change which would help facilitate it. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7334
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:19:00 -
[111] - Quote
A lot of people have had that idea
And yes, some kind of usage-based sov system is what I will advocate to CCP. Along with vigilant monitoring and draconian penalties for using macros to game it... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7374
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:02:00 -
[112] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:What are your plans about lowsec?
My plans can be summarised as:
(1) Endorse Marc Scaurus as "lo-sec" rep; since he's good enough for Hans to endorse, he's good enough for me to do the same, and I encourage any lo-sec people who don't wish to vote for me to vote for him instead.
(2) Sense check any proposals he has to make sure that they don't unintentionally crap on 0.0, or violate my "red line" issues (small chance of this, I think!)
(3) Keep my fool mouth shut on proposing big ideas for an area of space I only have a few months experience with and almost no current investment in until I've run them past Marc (or whoever does get elected as the "lo-sec" rep if it's not Marc)
(4) Put forward such minor lo-sec ideas I have as occurr to me, like a sliding scale ME advantage for NPC stations based on system sec, which would give a production advantage over hi-sec, and making lo-sec the focus of booster production & trade (eg: allowing 'illegal' items like drugs and maybe those pirate tags which can be redeemed for sec status, if we ever get them, to be listed on the market only in lo-sec, not hi-sec)
(5) I'd like to see a change in the way we gain sec status from shooting rats such that it's much more effective to do this in lo-sec than anywhere else. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7405
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 08:39:00 -
[113] - Quote
Tres Farmer wrote:Once voting comes around I reactivate my other half and you get both of my votes.. unless Akita T runs too [edit]Just got a little question for you too (wont affect above statement): ..could you imagine (once the sustainable population density in nullsec/lowsec is similar to a normal highsec mission running hub - if CCP ever manages this) that it would be a good idea (*) to reinvent intersolar traveling by giving everybody a jumpdrive (even capsules) and scale the speed similar to the warp speed (small = fast, big = slow)? *) this naturally needs a different way of finding other ships than today, where the points of interaction are determined by celestials/gates/stations/ihubs/pos/moons/etc.pp.
Yes, but as you say, this would need a different way of finding ships, and space is big. EVE has realistically sized solar systems, and even a moderately sized 10AU system is a globe which will contain approximately 14,000 trillion possible 1000km grids.
I do actually like that gates can be "fight generators" by allowing hostiles to even find other hostiles, and although your idea is potentially interesting, I'd always want to keep jump gates as a desireable option. So (and remember that we're just doing a bit of a blue-sky speculation here) we could perhaps envisage simply allowing ships to warp directly to other systems.
63072 au is equal to 1 light year, so a cruiser would take ~17000 seconds to go that far (about 4 hours). It wouldn't really be practical to move fleets this way, but fast scouts and blockade runners might find it potentially useful: A dual warp-speed rigged Interceptor could travel 1LY in about 40 minutes. (And we'd finally have a real use for warp speed rigs)
Sadly this would all require a fairly fundamental rewriting of the way movement in EVE works, so I doubt it's something we're likely to see anytime soon. Fun to think about, though. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7407
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 09:46:00 -
[114] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:What are your thoughts on power projection?
It's a complex topic, and very difficult to seperate from alliance logistics. What I'd ideally like to see would be that 0.0 alliances had stronger motivations to stay in or near their space before we start nerfhammering their capability to stray outside it.
Basically there are two aspects to the power projection issue: first the ability to to do it, and second the cost of doing it. At the moment, the first is very high and the second is extremely low. So what I'd like to see would be a more realistic opportunity cost for accumulating the entire PvP capability of a large bloc into a single point on the map (ie: all the stuff that's not being actively defended).
If a group of players want to launch an all-out attack on another group then we should not be standing in their way - after all, mighty empires and epic huge space battles are what sov 0.0 is for. But all-out attacks with nothing held back should mean leaving that groups assets and income streams significantly exposed. It should, potentially at least, cost.
After that's implemented, we can look at discussing whether the ability to launch those all-out attacks needs nerfing; lots of mechanics have been suggsted; cyno mass limits, increasing jump portal fuel costs, etc etc. It may be that it does, but then we need to define what sov space is for. Easy, cheap power projection is what drives ever-increasing group size, with the inevitable conclusion of 0.0 being divided into 2 major powerblocs, and maybe 1 lesser upcoming/declining one (and we're almost there). Lots of people complain about that, but I'm interested in hearing specific reasons why it's so bad that it shouldn't be allowed. If there is to be a space where players can build their own version of empire - and why shouldn't there be? - then surely sov space is it?
On a side note, I have been a long-time advocate of new types of space (as W-space was a new type of space), because in EVE as much as in real life, geography does dictate politics. It's easy to imagine for instance an area of space where the jump gates are old prototypes that can only allow battlecruiser and smaller ship sizes though, or where the systems are very widely seperated, so jump ships can only move but only very slowly, and so on. Different "terrain" types like those will lead to different styles of player groupings, just as W-space plays very differently to 0.0
And I definitely want to see more NPC 0.0. The north in particular badly needs a Curse-style region, close to empire with lots of stations. The NPC 0.0 regions are the spawning ground for small nullsec groups, a viable alternative to the big-bloc lifestyle, and a vital source of relatively small-scale PvP opportunities. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7408
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 10:28:00 -
[115] - Quote
Andski wrote:Malcanis wrote:And I definitely want to see more NPC 0.0. The north in particular badly needs a Curse-style region, close to empire with lots of stations. The NPC 0.0 regions are the spawning ground for small nullsec groups, a viable alternative to the big-bloc lifestyle, and a vital source of relatively small-scale PvP opportunities. I feel that the issue is that wormholes have supplanted NPC 0.0 for that purpose. They soak up a lot of the talent that is essential to budding nullsec organizations simply because they are so attractive for the groups that would previously set up in NPC 0.0, since small-gang PvP is the norm and you're not going to get stomped by a bunch of bored supercapital pilots. I have no idea what CCP can do to make NPC 0.0 more attractive for such groups without screwing wormholes beyond belief.
NPC 0.0 is a different deal, and requires less commitment. Basically it's the lo-sec to sov 0.0's empire. Regions like Curse are well populated and active because they're convenient. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7421
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 12:47:00 -
[116] - Quote
Osmoticlese Orinocratese wrote: Please don't prove me wrong between now and vote time :)
Surely you should be more concerned about what I do after voting time?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:29:00 -
[117] - Quote
Kalle Demos wrote:Theres far too many words (including the articles), with so many issues in EVE wouldnt it just be easy to bullet point what you think is bad and THEN write a short solution under it. I am all for reading but 15 pages and 6 links of text is a bit overkill.
It will allow people to focus on your ideas rather than ask the same question over and over in different ways too
Yep, when it's time to formally apply and after CCP have accepted my application (assuming they do), I will create a "Campaign" thread with a much more structured OP. This is just my "announcement of intent" thread, and it's a place to refine my position on issues brought to me by other players, as well as a mechanism to gauge support.
That said, is there any particular issue you'd like to know where I stand on?
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:44:00 -
[118] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:There's one thing I've thought of for a while. Now that CCP is redoing a few parts of the UI for the first time in a thousand years, could they try to work in a few convenience features which at least would make my life a bit easier, by allowing me to create overview windows with their own separate settings? I'm thinking of one window for f.ex travelling, one to show f.ex BCs, one for bombers, etc, which would let me get a better at-a-glance picture of what I should be looking out for with regards to targets etc?
I mean, I can just stick everything together, or keep switching between overview settings, like I do now, but you just know that there's going to be one in there with brackets turned ON, and you'll hit open that up in the middle of a huge fleet fight, your computer'll melt and your apartment'll burn down and everyone'll be sad.
If you're going to consider differential settings for situational purposes, why stop at the overview? Why not ask for the ability to have complete predefined screen setups, including channels, damage notifications, transparency settings, HUD positioning, etc. EVE already keeps a config file for this, so conceptually, it's not too difficult to imagine switching between several configs. The way I like my screen set up for ratting or missioning is very different to the way I want it for a fleet fight which is different again to how I like to for fast skirmishing. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7435
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:35:00 -
[119] - Quote
I would also dearly like to be able to trade full screen configs as an in-game item. Apart from the fact I think people might pay for such a thing, it would be a super useful tool to assist new corp/alliance members.
Just got your dreadnauught and you want to be in all the correct channels?
* Malcanis trades INIT.CAPS.config to you!
Just joined the alliance and all you can really do is fly tackle Rifters?
*Zim trades TACKLEBEE.config to you!
I imagine it would be a very present comfort to FCs also. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7435
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:47:00 -
[120] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Malcanis, what's your stance on known themeparkers campaign to "trammaelize" EvE Online. (Ripard Teg, Trebor Daehdoow,...)
I'm not familiar with either of their "trammelisation" suggestions. Could you link them here for me? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7437
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:09:00 -
[121] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=417682&page=9#247 Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7437
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:20:00 -
[122] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Malcanis wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=417682&page=9#247 I hope you get elected to CSM then, we need someone to contradict the themeparkers deliriums.
I suspect you're being trolled somewhat by Trebor, since he does derive much innocent amusement from such activities, but you can rest assured that removing wardecs or placing arbitrary limits on player interaction are "red line" issues for me.
I reject Ripard's implicit assumption that all new players are fragile, risk averse little carebear cubs who need coddling and cotton-woolling at every stage. New players join because they heard about epic space battles or insidious scams or that you could be a pirate or a bounty hunter. They don't need cotton wool. They do need better opportunities to associate with established EVE players and engage in the dangerous, risky, lossy activities that you or I might more briefly call fun.
EDIT: In fact I'm prepared to bet that this applies to a lot of players in hi-sec who aren't "new" as well. I have more belief in EVE players than many do, it seems. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7462
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 12:55:00 -
[123] - Quote
Overview configs can be shared already, but it's finicky and means messing about in the game file folders. I really like the in-game item concept, even if it means restarting the client to make it take effect. I'll be pushing the idea, and more importantly the theme behind it which is to allow players to help other players play the game. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7529
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:46:00 -
[124] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Malcanis wrote:Overview configs can be shared already, but it's finicky and means messing about in the game file folders. I really like the in-game item concept, even if it means restarting the client to make it take effect. I'll be pushing the idea, and more importantly the theme behind it which is to allow players to help other players play the game. To be fair, an out of game XML file that you drop into a folder and import is a hell of a lot less finicky than what it takes to transfer things like market quickbar settings between characters.
But my ~immersion backbone! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7529
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:48:00 -
[125] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote:I've still yet to get a good answer to why CCP won't give the players more control over the UI. The only answers seem to be that they will never give the players more control. It's a bit ridiculous that you have more UI options in EQ than a game that came out years later. Look at the communities that build up around building 3rd party UI mods, and those are all done for free.
The subject was discussed a couple of years ago. I think it basically boiled down to the fact that CCP thought it would be possible to mod the UI to give gamebreaking advantages, if I'm remembering correctly. Whether that's still true I don't know. Since then CCP have done more to let us change the way the UI is laid out, but the basic components are the same - and rather dull. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7550
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 07:51:00 -
[126] - Quote
Uncle Gagarin wrote:Hi,
You will NOT HAVE my vote.
I don't like your ideas about hisec. In details - changing hisec such way that all existing players became potential victims of pseudo-pvp guys. Honestly I only partially like idea of providing better security in systems designed fro absolute newbies. If you check killboards of the systems where career mission hubs are you will find absurdal number of kills done by pseudopvp players ... How to call a player who has 50mln SP and lures into duel absolute noobs with less than 100k SP ? Even in economical point of view its fkn unethical - one highly risks all he has other barely risks tiny fraction he has ... It's big fail in noob starting systems.
I like pvp but I don't like noob-gate-multiaccount camp style pseudopvp. It's not fun for anyone, maybe for primitive creature with intelectual abilities ending on hanging with two tech3 ships and waiting for prey spotted by their two pseudo scouts.
You don't address fact that solo pvp doesn't exist (almost entirely).
You don't address problem of imbalance comming from off-grid boosting. Without changing that I don't like any ideas pushing for more pvp.
Well, it could be long post but I'm not even sure if anyone will read it.
Cheers,
I read it. I fear you haven't read my manifesto. From start to finish, it is about offering hi-sec players the CHOICE about what level of risk they want to engage in. At the moment, there's no distinguishing between "convenience" play and "new player area" play.
Why someone who likes PvP would be against that escapes me.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 13:24:00 -
[127] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:What do you think about highsec/lowsec industry? Especially industrial corporations and the lack of content that encourages teamwork over an army of alts (not counting mining).
That's two big questions. The first part I have posted a lot about in this thread; as with the '92 US election, the core issue is "It's the economy, stupid". Have you read what I've written here on the subject?
The actual mechanics of industry... that's a pretty big question. Heck that deserves its own thread and honestly, it's outside my scope. I have built stuff, and I'm less than delighted with the industry UI, but I'm not really an "industry" focused candidate. My suggestion is that you ask Mynnna. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 13:25:00 -
[128] - Quote
Bo Kantrel wrote:
The Interbus Similar to the interweb, but instead of serving up a constant stream of smut and drivel, allows you to have your shopping delivered to your door GÇô provided that your door is within the same constellation, that youGÇÖve paid the fee, tipped the delivery boy etc. Actually, nothing like the interweb at all, apart from the name.
Strongly opposed. Many players provide this service already, and we should never replace a player profession with an NPC service if we can possibly avoid it. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 13:27:00 -
[129] - Quote
Bo Kantrel wrote:Your thoughts on these ideas: From this link from Sept 2008The Shantytown InitiativeAllowing individual players to buy, anchor and maintain their own housing module would enrich the EVE universe and serve as an easy bottom rung on the Starbase-ownership ladder. This could of course open up a whole can of worms, so weGÇÖre proceeding with caution here.
This goal would be better served by CCP ceasing to make excuses and starting to deliver us proper modular POS that can be anchored on any empty grid.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 14:33:00 -
[130] - Quote
Bo Kantrel wrote:
The Five Year Mission Science vessels - giving people who just want to wear labcoats all day a reason to get out and about some more
T2 destroyers with hacking/arch bonuses are a long time pet idea of mine. Maybe an SoE faction one too?
Bo Kantrel wrote:COSMOS 2.0 COSMOS is a CCP project which aims to paint additional variety onto the immense canvas of the 5000 solar-system universe. COSMOS Projects today pursue differing visions depending on their locations GÇô an Empire COSMOS area might be focused on Agent Missions, Complexes and Mini-Professions, while a 0.0 COSMOS area is perhaps focused on unique resources in new environments, Exploration, Complexes and some unique end result (such as Combat Boosters) from the specific local resources. COSMOS 2.0 turns this on its head, allowing the player community to build up infrastructure all over the universe. Utilizing new environments, empty Deadspace pockets and other cosmic resources, players will be able to build Complexes to exploit key resources. Our role in this is to expose the canvas to the playerbase and create a big palette of cosmic paints. It will no doubt be a long, hard road, but the destination will be worth the effort.
COSMOS are an outdated relic that don't really belong in EVE. Player interaction, not quests! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 15:23:00 -
[131] - Quote
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:Malcanis wrote:Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:What do you think about highsec/lowsec industry? Especially industrial corporations and the lack of content that encourages teamwork over an army of alts (not counting mining). That's two big questions. The first part I have posted a lot about in this thread; as with the '92 US election, the core issue is "It's the economy, stupid". Have you read what I've written here on the subject? The actual mechanics of industry... that's a pretty big question. Heck that deserves its own thread and honestly, it's outside my scope. I have built stuff, and I'm less than delighted with the industry UI, but I'm not really an "industry" focused candidate. My suggestion is that you ask Mynnna. Yes, I did read what you wrote, though I feel it was mostly about balancing industry between high/low/null. I am more interested in ways to make real industrial corporations that aren't just about mining and a place to chat.
That kind of vertical integration is a player interaction issue (and thus of interest to me). Speaking from my rather superficial knowledge of industry, I'd hazzard that there are two factors acting against it, and I'm not sure that either of them are sucseptible to CCP rememdies. First, a lot of industry happens far away from where the mining that supports it does (I am thinking especially of capital and supercapital production here). Secondly, a single industrialist can easily consume far more minerals that a single miner can output.
So a vertically integrated corp that produces from its own output is going to be a small kernel of manufacturers surrounded by a large pith of miners and haulers.
One example of vertical integration that did work (from a productive point of view) was IRC before the drone alloy removal. I think that this was a special case and unlikely to be repeated with the current economic model.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7559
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 21:41:00 -
[132] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Could you spare a short paragraph regarding the new Crimewatch feature and the implications thereof, or even just your feelings about it if you have no direct experience?
Also, solo (as in ACTUALLY) PVP: Dead or undead?
I haven't had any direct experience of it yet. So far as the part of it that provides clearer guidance as to the consequences of what you're about to do goes, I have no problem with whatsoever. I place no value in obscure mechanics and hidden timers that serve no real purpose other than to punish you for not knowing about them.
I'm all in favour of the new bounty system, although it's not precisely what I had in mind. At any rate, it's a jillion times better than the laughable non-system we had before. Plus it has generated some absolutely first class drama. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7562
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:17:00 -
[133] - Quote
And of course Solo PvP has been dead since 2004. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7583
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 09:28:00 -
[134] - Quote
Thanks, Asuri
I'm on hols for a couple of weeks so I won't be posting much, but I'll try and keep an eye on this thread and answer a few of the easier questions. I'll update properly when I get back. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7585
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:35:00 -
[135] - Quote
It's important to intuitively understand that not everyone is looking for the same experience when they log into EVE. There are some things that EVE will never be able to provide. If you just want to do co-op quest grinding then you're shopping in the wrong store. But I (and I think CCP) want to see the widest possible range of player expectations catered to within EVE that it is possible to have without diluting the essential "Everyone vs Everyone" nature of the game that was the founding vision.
With specific reference to hi-sec, I outright reject the idea that it should be for "carebears" or in any way presented as or allowed to assumed to be a "PvP free zone". Empire is intended for casuals, not carebears in my view of things. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7591
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 12:29:00 -
[136] - Quote
Bo Kantrel wrote:
Mini-EVE An EVE-themed mini-game that can be played inside EVE to pass the time, and will be tied into other areas of gameplay where appropriate.
I'd rather that CCP allowed us to develop minigames for each other via the newer shinier API interface. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7593
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 19:35:00 -
[137] - Quote
If it helps I can suggest an axe-based franchise to CCP Xaghen? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7607
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 18:49:00 -
[138] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:What would be your go-to recipe for a stew to impress friends and family?
2lbs cubed venison 1/4lb salted pork belly 1/2lb shallots 1/2lb (after soaking) of mushrooms like shitake or some other kind suitable for long cooking 1 pint of good beef stock 1/2 bottle of 1er cru claret 4 bay leaves 1 tsp peppercorns 8-10 juniper berries.
Saute the shallots till golden; reserve. Saute the mushrooms with the salt belly; reserve. Brown the venison for 3-4 mins, deglace with the claret and seethe furiously for 1 min, then add the rest of the ingredients and cook covered until the venison is tender. Remove the lid earlier if a thicker gravy is desired.
Serve with shredded savoy cabbage or kale, roast parsnips and of course more claret. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7613
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 12:38:00 -
[139] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Why not cut the meat cubes as dodecahedrons instead? :(
Difficult to type on a phone....
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7615
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 16:51:00 -
[140] - Quote
I dont have a problem with limited edition ships so long as the distribution process is above board. The tournament prizes exist in too small numbers to have any perceptible effect on people who don't possess one. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7619
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:47:00 -
[141] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry, you won't be getting my vote. Our conversations have lead me to believe that you are the trying to play the "moderate" in the war of null sec against high sec.
Rest of the world, excuse the u.s.- centric analogy, but If the goons and their ilk are the Tea Party, you are Romney. The fact that you posted on the goons' version of Pravda DOES mean you are affiliated with them, or have like-minded views.
And their views on the game are well-documented, which is the destruction of all space that they cannot control in game. Putting you on the CSM would be no better, nor no worse, than most of the existing null sec mouthpieces.
I simply don't believe we need more null sec mouthpieces who espouse "balancing the game" at the expense of high sec. If we went with representation by demographics, fully half of the CSM would be high sec.
Instead, we are faced with likely 9-12 of the 14 being null sec zealots or so-called null sec "moderates", which although you have never called yourself one, you have certainly done the dance of one, until you are of course elected.
Apologies for not replying sooner; my HTC was censoring my replies to some people whilst allowing others through.
Dinsdale, I spoke honestly and frankly with you. I'm sorry that wasn't sufficient to allay your suspicions, but as long as you insist on viewing every action taken by every player as either supporting or opposing this "war on hi-sec" that obesses you, there's little I can do to reach you and those like you.
I will state for the record that I don't want hi-sec nerfed, but instead improved and enabled for high-level play, and that I unequivocally reject the idea that players who are happy in hisec should in any way be "forced" or "driven" into 0.0. My only concern in that regard is to facilitate those players who feel penned in to hisec to be more able to venture forth and try something else. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7619
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:59:00 -
[142] - Quote
Agnar Volta wrote:I have a question, but it needs a bit of a intro.
In LS today is hard to "lurk" around without being chased and killed in short order. So new player have problem with the initial steps in PVE, industry or socializing in this environment. I can honestly say that all players that I know started making contacts in HS with established corps before making the move to LS.
And now for the question: Do you see this scenario as a problem or LS is fine the way it is? Would you support some mechanic that makes it more safe for people to fleet with strangers without being blown up? Would you have any other alternative ideas to help newbs give their first steps in LS?
You were another victim of the insidious HTC censorship campaign
In short: I am OK with what you describe.
Players joining up with existing corps to get an 'in' to lo-sec sounds perfectly fine to me if they don't have the chops to make it on their own without assistance. I am very much against the idea of reducing difficulty to that of the lowest denominator of solo "didnt read" type play, and the changes needed to accomodate such playstyles would inevitably be highly exploitatable by more skilled, experienced players. By law. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7621
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 08:02:00 -
[143] - Quote
Dersen Lowery wrote:[quote=Malcanis]
Also, do you believe that the NPE should teach what are now considered basic survival skills (D-scan, safes, tacticals, undocks, etc.), so that new players have more confidence in dangerous situations?
My view is that the NPE can teach what I would term as technical skills; how to use the scanner, how to use probes and so forth. But that nothing short of actual experience in FFA space can truly teach the why and when and who and if not to.
Really quite early in my career I found myself trying to run a corp in Curse (NPC space being to sov 0.0 what lo-sec is to hi-sec), and I found the experience utterly invaluable: the opportunity to gain situational awareness, spatial awareness, the immense power of a co-ordinated group vs a disorganised mob. (Also I made a lot more ISK!)
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7621
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 08:14:00 -
[144] - Quote
Fredfredbug4 wrote:I like you, we seem to share similar ideas on what Hi-sec should be as well as low-sec and nullsec. We see so many extremes regarding this topic. It feels like half the people are trying to outright destroy hi-sec, where as the other half want to make hi-sec like a completely separate game from the rest of EVE.
It's clear that hi-sec has a place in EVE, however it should be more towards helping people get on their feet and eventually move to null or low. I like your idea for L5s, I feel that this will allow players to gradually take a dip into low and null. Going from hi-sec to null or low is like jumping directly into a very cold pool, it can be a less desirable thing to do for people who aren't as confident in their ability to survive out of hi-sec. The transition should be more like getting your feet wet or rather there should be an option to slowly move down the proverbial stairs in the pool that is low/null rather than just a diving board.
Giving players a little bit of low/null as well as PVP combat at a time will help them make the transition and truly understand which sec they like more rather than just living in hi-sec.
Low and Null should be merciless and brutal, hi-sec should be a place that will slowly but surely, make people acceptable of this brutality.
I'm afraid we may not be quite as in synch as you think. Providing a nursery pool for new players who are prospective 0.0 players is certainly one of hi-sec's functions, but I don't think that it's hi-sec primary function. I'm 100% alongside helping new players who want to transition into 0.0, and many of the ideas I suggested would indeed help them gain confidence in their abilities by allowing them to 'dabble' in the lifestyle. But. By definition, pre-nullseccers using hi-sec as a lillypad to make the jump are always going to be a small part of the hi-sec demographic.
Indeed the manifesto that I wrote had as its core thesis that we should stop crippling hi-sec by thinking of it as a noob/starter area, and start unleashing its potential by thinking of it as an area for convenience play. I have more faith in EVE players than many seem to, and I think that we can add experiences to hi-sec that were limited to the "hard-core" areas that the "convenience" players have been excluded from until now, and that many of the "convenience" players actually do quite like the idea of being able to occasionally take big risks for big rewards, participate in large scale combat, and so on, providing that they can do so in the limited game time they have available. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7640
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 17:09:00 -
[145] - Quote
Dyvim Slorm wrote:Firstly my apologies if you have already covered this, I haven't read every page of this thread.
I was wondering as to your view regarding the balance between high, low and null.
It my my *perception* (and I use that word advisedly) that null and low have almost swapped places. Back in the "good old days" we used to have a clear path for training new pilots, start them in highsec, then move them to low to harden them up and then to null once they had proved their worth.
It does seem now that the path is more high -> null -> low as it certainly appears that null is a better environment to train rookies in the next stages rather than low.
Do you have a view on how the balance would be corrected, or the perception changed if this is incorrect, or if it even needs changing?
I think that neither high nor low nor null should be "the" place to be. Each should offer a distinctive style of game experience, and each should be able to offer both low and high-level gameplay. There's no moral merit in being in 0.0; many people simply lack the ability or the desire to comiit the time and resources that fully engaging in the sov 0.0 lifestyle demands; others prefer to operate in smaller sized groups where individual skill and talent count for more. That doesn't make them bad people or even bad players let alone "irrelevant".
And as I've mentioned above, we should enable the widest possible range of professions and provide the potential for the widest possible range of experiences in each zone. I don't accept that hi-sec should be the only place it's worthwhile to be a producer. Equally, I don't accept that living in hi-sec means that you shouldn't get the chance to experience big fights or extended campaigns. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7655
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 21:43:00 -
[146] - Quote
Mallak Azaria wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:I simply don't believe we need more null sec mouthpieces who espouse "balancing the game" at the expense of high sec. If we went with representation by demographics, fully half of the CSM would be high sec.
Instead, we are faced with likely 9-12 of the 14 being null sec zealots or so-called null sec "moderates", which although you have never called yourself one, you have certainly done the dance of one, until you are of course elected. Voter apathy. Don't complain about nullsec residents voting for who they want on the CSM, blame everyone else that doesn't bother voting at all.
I largely agree with this. I can understand the individual "hi-seccer" approaching the existing circumstance with a sceptical eye, but let us see a similar effort from "hi-sec" focused candidates first before we accept complaints that there's any kind of discrimination. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7667
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:59:00 -
[147] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Just my opinion: 1. Leave the carebears alone! They are cute and cuddly... most are also ransomable. (Not that I would ransom them... honest. ) Correct me if I'm wrong: You seem to believe that a lucrative high-sec hurts other areas of the game.
You are 100% wrong here. I have stated many times and will do so again here: hi-sec should definitely offer high level gameplay. However it is incontestable that certain aspects of hisec need rebalancing. Hi-sec stations are far too good compared to player built stations, and as a point of principle as well as game balance, I believe that NPC elements shouldn't overshadow player actions. CCP have correctly removed NPC supplied trade goods, POS, POS mods, etc, in favour of allowing the player economy to supply these items, and I think it's time to similarly start gradually deprecating NPC facilities in favour of player created ones.
Amyclas Amatin wrote: And that players aren't making full use of the risk vs reward of low/null sec.
Not quite sure what you mean by this. Please amplify.
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Fact is, many pvpers, especially full-time ones are funded by high-sec alts who mine, mission, run incursions, station trade, jita scam and do other high sec gimmicks. Most PVP is pointless destruction done for kill-mails, and for enlarging e-p******. Very few things in low-sec is worth the risk of certain death. Unless we join you "safe" null-sec coalitions, there's really not much industry to be done outside of high-sec.
I don't see what's wrong with pvpers having alts for non combat activities. I do see a very great problem with nullsec players being forced to keep those alts in hi-sec because it's not viable to conduct those activities in their own space. The risk you speak of exists, even in so called "safe" nullsec. That risk (including the long term actuarial risk of losing the space and the stations altogether) is one that needs to be accounted for when we're discussing a hi-sec/0.0/lo-sec industry rebalance.
Amyclas Amatin wrote:2. I believe that in outpost destruction, EVERYTHING should burn. If I kill your infrastructure, I want to hurt you bad... You null-sec dwellers afraid to lose your shiny ships? That's as hilarious as E-Uni vets refusing to take risks on roams because they're wearing billion isk-implants...
When you undock, you agree to lose your ship. When you enter 0.0, you agree to risk everything you have there.
I wholly agree; what player hands can build, player hands should be able to destroy. In fact I made the original outpost destruction proposal, which was accepted by CSM5 and presented to CCP. However, making outposts destructible would make the need to improve their utility even stronger. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 09:33:00 -
[148] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Mallak Azaria wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming. Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option. So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?
In order to make productive professions viable in 0.0, CCP would literally have to pay people, and pay them quite a bit, to do them there to make them competitive with the incredible subsidies that hi-sec gets. Since I'm not in favour of nerfing anything out of spite or the sheer lack of willingness to think of reasonable alternatives, I'd be delighted to incorporate your suggestions instead.
When you make them, please bear in mind that hi-sec production is done in stations that are provided for free, instead of costing 10s of billions of ISK, use of the production lines is so cheap is might as well be free, the stations can never be changed hands so there's no risk of being locked out and losing your investment or even having to spend the time to set up your supply chain again, there are multiple stations in a single system, reducing travel overhead and risk, CONCORD deter attack 24/7, for free, 100% refineries are readily available with minimum investment and skills.... and so on. All of that has a quantifiable value as a subsidy. A large value. There are only so many efficiency advantages CCP can give to 0.0 industry. Somewhere along the line I simply can't see an alternative to reducing the subsidies that hi-sec industry gets. If you can provide one, then I will tip my hat to you, sir. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:22:00 -
[149] - Quote
Sable Moran wrote:Malcanis wrote:hi-sec production [... snip ...] use of the production lines is so cheap it might as well be free What do you think of extending the office rent mechanism to manufacturing/research slot cost? I.e. if all slots are in use the cost per hour increases. Would that fix (even partially) this issue? Or would that perhaps hit new players too hard? I have no idea what new players would consider too high a price for a M/R slot.
That's certainly a possibility, and it would make a lot of sense. Youd end up with the high value, short duration jobs concentrating near the hubs (eg: building faction mods and ships), and the high bulk, low margin jobs like battleship production being distributed further out. I'd also be in favour of adding a variation that takes sec status into account. In addition to other considerations, this would be a useful ISK sink to help replace some of the big ones we've lost over the years as CCP have shifted us away from the NPC economy.
Long term, the real solution is to move productive activities to POS, such that using player owned facilities is preferable to NPC owned ones. But that needs CCP to rework POS to make the tolerable to use first. Meanwhile, let's at least balance between the facilities we have.
You can put in protections for new player systems by (for instance) harshly restricting the maximum job time to a few hours so that it's not possible to build 100 tier 3 BS at a time in a 1.0 station. Put in plenty of lines for noobs making their own Cormarant or whatever, but make them uneconomic with that type of restriction to use for high-level production. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:48:00 -
[150] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
I still disagree with nerfing high-sec production to create demand for null-sec production. As it is, the main reason for null production is a logistics base closer to home for the null alliances. There's no need to force the carebears into null using market pressure. High-sec industry players will hate it, a lot...
This isn't about forcing anyone to go anywhere. Please read more carefully what I've been saying. This is about making it viable for 0.0 players to bring their alts back home, because at the moment they're forced to operate them in hi-sec.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 17:51:00 -
[151] - Quote
In any case I am perfectly fine with hi-sec having plenty of production slots so long as CCP make production in 0.0 more efficient to compensate for the subsidies that hi-sec gets. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 18:00:00 -
[152] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:
[quote=Amyclas Amatin]I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.
So given the fact that I can find a system in hisec within 2 jumps of Jita with more industrial capacity than most regions in nullsec, with perfect refinery, mostly safe transport etc, all for free (I call paying 2k to manufacture a maelstrom in 3 hours and in perfect safety "free"), what sort of buffs and features should nullsec get to incentivize people like me back into nullsec with my industrial alts? Keep in mind that we'd prefer to avoid powercreep if we can.
Even more than powercreep, we need to avoid being able to build a ship for less minerals than you can get from reprocessing it.
Really, if we want to make 0.0 production competitive with hi-sec, the only alternative to charging hi-sec producers vaguely realistic prices for using NPC facilities is for CCP to literally pay people to to produce in 0.0. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7681
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 21:24:00 -
[153] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:One often hears that there is no reason to leave the hi-sec 'bubble' as it has missions, wardecs, decent asteroids to mine, good manufacturing facilities etc.
Might it not be the case that if null-sec were to get decent manufacturing slots etc, that it might also become a self-contained 'bubble' in the Eve universe, with no need for the different 'bubbles' to interact?
I ask this, not because I do not think null-sec needs to be seriously buffed/overhauled, but because whatever is done, it needs to ensure that the different security levels need to interact as much as possible.
If I may ask Malcanis, how would you ensure that the interaction between the different security levels develop?
In the hypothetical case that productive professions were to become viable in 0.0 (and by that I mean it would be worthwhile to do them either in 0.0 or in hi-sec), the different nations, for want of a better word, will still value hi-sec as a place to trade their surplus production with each other and with hi-sec residents. This would be even more the case if the proposal to rebalance T2 production around regionally distributed R64s was put in place.
Additionally, there are always going to be comparitive advantages between hi-sec and 0.0. High end minerals and moon minerals will always be imported into hi-sec, and surplus low-end minerals will always be exported. And of course there are LP store goods.
The tl;dr is that there might be less total volume of trade - in fact there almost certainly will - but that's an acceptable price to pay for no longer forcing 0.0 to import virtually everything. We could equally well maintain that volume by forcing virtually all production out of hi-sec. Let your reaction to that alternative guide you as to how highly I value total trade volume. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7751
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 17:41:00 -
[154] - Quote
CCP have announced their new voting system. Suffice it to say that I don't think it will deliver the results that they claim they want, which is not a big surprise given the problem was misidentified in the first place. The correct solution was and and still is to increase voter participation.
Since I am explicitly not running as a "bloc" candidate, it's likely that even if I do manage to get elected, I will be facing a heavily bloc-directed CSM membership. Whilst I am in favour of a rational rebalance of the sec zones, I don't subscribe to any kind of "**** hi-sec" ideology. I hope you will bear my balanced, constructive view of how EVE should be when casting your preference votes. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7777
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 11:07:00 -
[155] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players.
It's a little early to be breaking my campaign promises. Suffice it to say that you have your notions and I have mine, and mine do not include Twitter. Nor am I going to have my own website. I will communicate with the players about EVE & the CSM right here on the EVE-O website, not require them to go hunting about over the internet.
I'm also against trying to force complex questions and concepts into a 140 character limit. If you want soundbite politics, you can look elsewhere. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7777
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 11:09:00 -
[156] - Quote
Unforgiven Storm wrote:Hi Malcanis, just read all 21 pages of your thread so far, your articles and specially the high sec manifest. You write very well, clear thinking. I like it. I do not agree with every small detail but in general is very good and I can identify with it.
Since I'm running I should not be saying this, but you will make an excellent CSM member, I feel I'm not running against you but with you.
Hope I can get in and work with you in the CSM, with your vision for Eve, starting with high sec, and my determination to fix industry, Eve is going to become an awesome game to play in the next 10 years.
You will be in my top 5 pics for sure.
The new voting system makes inter-candidate recommendations not only harmless, it actively encourages them. Thank you very much for yours.
Unforgiven Storm wrote:PS: I read your comment in my thread and posted something, is not about difficulty, is about specialization.
Thanks, I'll chase that up later.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7784
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:25:00 -
[157] - Quote
Noisrevbus wrote:longpost
Hey! I'm supposed to be the wordy bastard in this thread!
What TZ are you on? I like to discuss this with you before posting a reply.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7785
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:40:00 -
[158] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:After doing more research on the matter, I can see the problems with an over-attractive high-sec: particularly the "lack of a proper pvp foodchain" I concede that high-sec needs to be nerfed. What do you think of this draft proposal: Proposal to declare war on individuals.
It's potentially interesting, depending on the exact mechanic. For some reason I cant quite put my finger on, it makes me uneasy. I feel that it's abusable somehow but I can't exactly articulate how (I'm sure it's nothing to do with this delicious Sancerre). Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7787
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:56:00 -
[159] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players. He's got twenty pages here - more than any other candidate so far, although he was one of the first to post - of him replying to questions. You could try not being disingenuous or making sweeping and absurd assertions every once in awhile, you know.
Perhaps I could make future replies in acrostics, thus allowing me to simultaneously make complete and short replies? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7792
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:32:00 -
[160] - Quote
My communication record speaks for itself. I have openly committed to seeing the communication between the CSM and the players improved, but my conception of that is improving the frequency and quality of that communication rather than to any specific media. This isn't an issue I'm prepared to change my mind on.
To my way of thinking, requiring players to subscribe to Malcanis' Twitter or Malcanis' blog or whatever, is to make myself more important than the message being communicated. I prefer to make the communication as one of the demos, in the relevant discussion about the issue.
I'll say this: if there was a more effective way to get the work done I hope to do on the CSM, then I wouldn't be running. I'm not interested in publicity or e-fame or popularity. I'm interested in seeing EVE improved to make it a better and more entertaining game for me to play, not in self-popularisation. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7792
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 23:01:00 -
[161] - Quote
The candidate speaks Winter twitter is quiet Postcount increases Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7847
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:43:00 -
[162] - Quote
First I would have to experience those urges. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7881
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 08:23:00 -
[163] - Quote
Captain Tardbar wrote:So Malcanis, you might be one of my transferable votes in the new STV system...
What do you think of James?
I share James' stated concerns about hi-sec, but I think that I have a rather more constructive and inclusive philosophy behind my proposal to change the situation. If you've read my manifesto (both older and much shorter than his) you'll see that similarity in concern and difference in approach.
He's absolutely correct when he states that attentive, skilled play should always outreward AFK styles, whatever the profession. The tl;dr is that I prefer to use the carrot more than the stick to persuade. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7881
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 08:23:00 -
[164] - Quote
Ginger Barbarella wrote:No.
I value this endorsement. Thank you for supporting my campaign so unequivocally. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:24:00 -
[165] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:Hello there!
I would like to name several situations that I feel are detrimental to the game. Give a solution and ask you for your stance on both. I do need answers to all the situations for my vote(s)
POS those three letters bring nightmares to just about anyone having the misfortune of having to operate one. The solution in the long term is obviously modular POS. Yet CCP seems to be backpedaling on implementing this despite the MANY benefits. What is your stance on the possibility of a near term bandage of a form of player POS that is only designed to be the equilivant of a Secure Container for ships until modular POS is ready?
As a very basic starting point, personal ship and item hangar divisions in the ship & item arrays would be great (and make the arrays capable of storing more stuff). Even with people you're able to trust, having to lump everything in together in common arrays is just horrible and time-consuming. The amount of bad feeling and disenchantment caused is unbelievable.
Long term, I'd like to see "POS" be modular and expandable to the point where an "outpost" is just a fully expanded POS.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:26:00 -
[166] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)
Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:44:00 -
[167] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Lack of Ring Mining. Again with the CCP backpedaling despite the many benefits for nullsec and other areas for the game. What is your stand on the crap that is moon mining?
I haven't seen anything from CCP about what Ring Mining is supposed to be exactly, other than the name of it. I guess it sounds cool, but I'm not clear on what the benefits are supposed to be.
Moon mining is discussed in this thread starting around page 2. The tl;dr is "Alchemy band-aided it a bit but the situation is still DumbGäó"
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:The silly push by some in the community to end or delay "Local" or any effective means for those in a nullsec system to determine if a hostile or unknown is in system in them. This obviously needs no solution but I want your thoughts..
This is a more complex issue than you make it "obviously" sound. Obviously, just making K-space 0.0 local delayed mode, and not changing anything else is a terrible idea. It's appropriate for W-space, but not for 0.0, because K-space and W-space are very different environments in other ways also.
However, I don't like local as an intel tool. It shows the wrong kind of intel (it shows who is in system but not what is in system), it shows it in a bad interface, it doesn't promote good gameplay or skill, it's not interactive, it makes EVE seem much smaller than it is.
If I could persuade CCP to devote the resources to it, I'd love to see the Directional Scanner hugely improved, realtime (automatically updated once per second, as local is now - DEATH TO CLICKING), configurable (eg: you can reduce the field of scan in order to increase the range and strength of the scan), allow modules to improve range and strength of scan, and the output should something that requires some attention and skill to get the best out of. Basically, the "free intel" should show you what is around you but not who is around you.
But the chances of that are not great, and until we can replace it with something better, local will have to stay as it is. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:56:00 -
[168] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Logi suckage. Logis do not have the tools to do their job. They need to be able to tell who is locked and taking damage and in large fleets the watchlist can't handle that leading to dependence on broadcasts that most of EVE seems to not know or refuse to use right. Look at any average HQ incursion fleet where people don't broadcast right stressing out logi or in fleet fights where following FCs orders makes it harder to broadcast properly. A solution is a logi only screen that is completely configurable to show who is taking the most DPS and who has the most locks in fleet.
Logi Suckage #2 Reps don't get you on mails? Wut? Solution obviously is to have repping those in fleet land you on killmails generated from fleet.
I spent most of 2010 and 2011 as a "logi bro"; my rule was to fly a logi every other fleet. I have plenty of experience in both shield and armour logi ships. I'm afraid I can't agree with your take on the issue. No doubt it would be easier if the logi pilot had a big "REP THIS GUY" pointer, just as it would make the FC's job easier if he could not only warp his fleet, but set their speed, alignment, and fire their weapons too.
Fleet members can learn to broadcast properly. Logistics pilots can learn to co-ordinate and anticipate better. Co-ordinating broadcasts and reps is one of the limiting factors that stops fleets with logis scaling indefinately, and it also allows differentiation by skill. I'd rather see people develop and employ gameplay skills than see the need for skill obviated.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:05:00 -
[169] - Quote
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
The horrible state of missions in hisec. The solution in my opinion is a complete rewrite to allow for a more incursion like approach that rewards those who want to train up logistic frigs and cruisers or be a specific role in a fleet. Also providing a way for newer players to experience group play in EVE...
Missions are bad, and their inclusion into EVE was really a failure of imagination; incorporating the lowest level of themepark gameplay into what should be the flagship sandbox MMO is just disappointing.
If we're asking for a "complete rewrite", I'm not sure whether it would be better to make missions more like incursions, or just make missions a part of an expanded incursion/plex system.
However I rate our chances of persuading CCP to do either of those things pretty low. PrismX has said (see earlier in this thread) that CCP aren't happy with the state EVE's dull, predictable, unchallenging PvE, and nor should they be. I just don't anticipate them devoting the required resources to make it genuinely good anytime soon. There are too many player-focused projects clamouring for attention first - POS, Sov, mining, ship balancing, lo-sec... that's a 3 year worklist right there.
Reworking PvE into something genuinely fun, dynamic and challenging would be a massive project, and providing gameplay (as opposed to tools for player interaction) has historically been something that CCP are dreadful at doing.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7884
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 11:30:00 -
[170] - Quote
Wey'oun wrote:Hi there
So, What is your view on how Nullsec alliances interact with lowsec via force projection. Take asakai for example. Started as a brawl between My alliance and some Cal mil duders, escalated into a race from all over eve (literally) to get there. Furthest fleet came from southern impass (60 jumps ish?). and arrived after 30 mins (real time),( in eve time 30 mins was the lengh of the fight).
Does it differ from the way that lo-sec entites interact with each other via force projection? I'm given to understand that lo-sec groups are no strangers to titan bridging and hotdrops. I certainly don't think there's a problem with lo-sec hosting massive fights, particularly when they only happen once a year or so. The chance that a fight may escalate unexpectedly is one of the defining characteristics of EVE PvP.
Wey'oun wrote:Also with moon mining, what is your opinion on why it cant be done in a 0.4 system. should it be allowed? same for assigning fighters ect.
0.4 systems are a pointless anomaly. If the fighter and moon mining restrictions were part of a revised sec system, one that had a smoother slope between 0.1 and 1.0, then I might be willing to accept them. In the current LO/HI binary system then they're just pointless, and I suspect that they're little more than an artefact of the rounding off the trusec value for the individual system to make sure that no hi-sec system accidentally has any lo-sec features.
Wey'oun wrote:Finally, As an alliance who likes to fight vs the blob and do stupid **** regularly (usually drunken), we use blapping moros regularly. now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. So my final question is this, what is your opinion on how the Signature / tracking foruma interact. does it need changing? Why does everyone who fights as part of the blob complain about things that can beeat the blob!!!
I have no issue with "blap dreads". Dreads are explicity intended to blap things, and they accept some huge vulnerabilities to be able to do so.
As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it.
People complain about blobs because they've been conditioned by the gameing industry to expect to win most of the time. When people talk about "balance" or "fairness" what they mean is that they should win 75-80% of the time. I personally think that only scrubs complain about blobs, and I have done ever since 2007, when 1 of my corpies was attacked by two guys in a lo-sec system, and 3 of us warped in to help him and were called "blobbers" by the two guys who were attacking 1.
A "blob" in my experience is any fleet with 90% or more of the firepower of the one the complainer is in.
Wey'oun wrote:EDIT: i was going to fix the terribad grammar in this post but then realised that despite being English all my life i cant spell or speak it and thus to lazy to fix it. so your final test for the vote is understanding the above riddle :P
In that respect, you're probably in the middle rank of posters in this forum. There are much worse than you, my friend. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7885
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:51:00 -
[171] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Wey'oun wrote:now ive noticed a few of the CSM (mainly the wormhole guys) complaining about tracking dreads being OP ect as a dread that can blap a Tech 3 (when under vindi webs) is apparenly broken mechanics. Malcanis wrote:As for the sig/tracking formula, frankly I lack the technical chops to comment properly on it. The key issue here is Vindi webs more than the tracking formula. If a dreadnought was unable to track a strategic cruiser that had 2 vindi webs on it, it would also have difficulty tracking drifting capital ships. The bonus to web speed reduction is not mathematically sound. At skill 5, it increases the web amount by 50%. A tech 1 web (base 50%) slows targets 75% and a tech 2 web (base 60%) slows them 90%. Just as a percent or two can make a huge difference in EHP to a high resistance type, so too can an extra percent or two off the target's velocity go a long way to allow capital weapons to hit them, because they have only a few percents remaining. Thus, with a level 5 web bonus, the tech 2 web makes a world of difference over the tech 1. Two t2 webs then slow the target FOUR TIMES AS MUCH as two t1 webs with the same bonus. A more reasonable and mathematically sound calculation would be to have the 50% "increase" in webbing be a reduction in the webbing that the module doesn't have, ie: the tech 1 50% webber lacks 50%, and the tech 2 60% webber lacks 40%. Thus a 50% increase would lead to webs having a slowing value of 75% (tech 1) and 80% (tech 2). Thus, two fully bonused tech 2 webs now would web a target 42.9% better than two fully bonused tech 1 webs. The two fully bonused tech 1 webs are unchanged but they weren't what pirate faction ships were using to make dreads able to blap small ships.
What you say sounds reasonable on the face of it, although no doubt people who've bought Serpentis ships would disagree. I'm trying to remember how that bonus worked when T2 webs were 90%. Did Serp ships just get 95% webbing? (I'm almost certain the didn't get 140% webs :p ) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7885
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:53:00 -
[172] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The tracking formula itself is fine I think. A dreadnought has around 1/50th of the tracking of a battleship but still has no problem hitting capital ships. Capital ships aren't terribly slower than battleships, but they can shoot farther and more than anything have a far greater signature radius. This is key to how capital weapons work. The listed tracking amount on capital weapons is in the vicinity of 10% of battleship weapons, but due to having 5 times the signature resolution, they actually track the same targets much slower. What's actually happening here is that a dreadnought gets about a tenth of the tracking against a dreadnought/carrier/rorqual as a battleship/attack BC gets against a battleship, but if the dreadnought tries to shoot a battleship, it has much more difficulty tracking it due to the battleship's smaller signature radius.
I understand that much. By "technical chops" I mean my calculus skills are far too weak to be able to properly evaluate the current tracking formula vs alternative. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7887
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:19:00 -
[173] - Quote
New thread rule: all further discussion of the tracking formula must be conducted in haiku format.
Thank you. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7887
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:23:00 -
[174] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Reaver Glitterstim wrote:The tracking formula itself is fine I think. Except for the fact that when the transversal is low enough, the formula always yields a hit. It doesn't take distance (and by inference the relative sigradius, hitting a penny at 1 yard is "moderately" harder than hitting the same penny at 1000 yards, even if it doesn't move) into account when calculating whether or not you hit, only when calculating how much damage you should deal. You're absolutely correct, and this is something I've been aware of for quite some time. I guess I should have been more specific in that I think the tracking formula is fine when factoring in the ability for dreads to hit subcaps. I have long been bothered that a battleship can blap a frigate that turns the wrong way (and loses too much radial velocity for a split second) even though it is very far away, while a battlecruiser orbiting the battleship at 500m with no prop on can't be touched even though you'd think it would be easy to hit with capital weapons simply by aiming them in front of its path and firing 3-4 volleys as it drifted slowly past. Yes I feel that is an annoyance and possibly a problem. Solving it is easy, but I'm not convinced it needs solving. CCP and many PVPers seem to feel that the "getting under the guns" tactic is something that is good about EVE. P.S. the correct term is radial velocity, not transversal velocity. However, in a fixed system that more closely followed gunnery logic, transversal would be almost exactly the factor in tracking ability, rather than at current, in which radial is exactly the factor.
Tracking formula Opaque as an autumn mist Precision shines through! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7895
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:45:00 -
[175] - Quote
DJ P0N-3 wrote:Malcanis wrote:Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Overpowered passive cloaking. It is now to the point where people are now beyond AFK cloaking but running Twitch.tv streams of enemy stations and systems! Would you support balancing cloaking to punish those who go AFK (Eventually able to be scanned down for decloak) while maintaining the benefits to people actively cloaking (Remaining at their keyboard)
Cloaking is discussed at some length earlier in this thread. The tl;dr is that I'd support removing the ability to scan or probe whilst cloaked, and I don't think that ships using non-covops cloaks should recharge shield or cap, but I don't see any need for further nerfs after that. You've heard my opinion on cloaking nerfs, but cloaking nerfs + automatic d-scan updating would be beyond obnoxious. We're not frantically mashing dscan blindly in an attempt to mimic local. Sometimes you don't want it to update so you can get a good long look at that one guy whom you caught uncloaked for a second. You're proposing breaking our cloaks and our ways of hunting cloakies. Unless you want a dscan history to go with the automatic updating, you're needlessly making life difficult in w-space so people in k-space can feel safer. I'd rather see k-space given more tools for group play or incentives to defend their PvE grounds to counter the scary cloakers. Right now it isn't cost-effective to defend yourself the way w-space does in k-space, and that's just ridiculous. Putting in the effort to make your system(s) inhospitable to any intruders in ways that aren't "not blue pos up" should be rewarded.
Have you seen this? Sounds like you might find it useful. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7900
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 20:27:00 -
[176] - Quote
BTW it should be pretty trivial to ad a "manual update" mode even to a real time DSCAN. Thanks for pointing out that this would be a desired feature in this scenario. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7905
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:24:00 -
[177] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote:....When you have ~60-70% of the game population crammed into a zone that's only ~15% of the game area, then there's a prima facia case for rebalancing right there. More specifically, when 95% of productive activity takes place in hi-sec, then it's even more obvious that there's a straight up imbalance. The situation we have now is that making hi-sec too good has ended up badly for 0.0, and that imbalance needs to be addressed.... While I believe you have some good ideas on many areas of EVE, I wonGÇÖt be voting for you. I believe a fundamental part of your position amounts to little more than GÇÿNerfGÇÖ Highsec. People are not crammed into 15% of the game area, they choose to stay out the other 85%. Individual choices that 85% of the game area does not offer them what they want or need.
If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer.
The part of your post I highlighted is exactly my position. I've said it before, many times, and I'll say it again: I'm not about nerfing hi-sec for the sake of "punishing people for playing EVE the wrong way". The ONLY reason that I would support a nerf to high sec production is for the sake of balancing with sov 0.0 where no further 0.0 buff is possible. In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can, and only then would I want them to start looking at the necessity of nerfing high sec with respect to, for instance, slot fees which are currently so low that there simply isn't the margin to compensate for the inherent costs of 0.0 production. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7913
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 18:20:00 -
[178] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:If GÇ£GǪ95% of productive activity takes place in hi-secGǪGÇ¥, then that means 0.0 and Lowsec are broken. Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. It just leaves all areas broken. Some would argue for this... so that everything is levelGǪ it all sucks. Other might think that changing 0.0 and Lowsec would be the answer. Tell us more about what CCP could possibly do to nullsec industry to make it compete with f.ex a maelstrom costing 2k isk in fees in total safety, and within 2 jumps of jita. By making the stations pay us for using them? Make refinery yield more minerals than hisec? Make minerals pop up out of thin air?
In essence, this. The situation for R&D, Invention, etc is similar. EVE won't die if NPC stations charge a couple of mill to build a battleship, but it might make industry in player sov competitive.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:08:00 -
[179] - Quote
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:I have said before that I would be concerned that improving null-sec production to compete favourably with hi-sec might lead to the development of self-contained Eve 'bubbles' with little need for interaction between them.
Would it not be better to come up with a radical solution to the problems of null-sec rather than, in some respects, copying hi-sec?
Do you have any thoughts what could be done to improve null-sec apart form improving production?
I ask this not to be awkward in any way Malcanis, I am simply wondering if you have any ideas for radical solutions to the issues of null-sec.
Honestly I think the contingency is remote. And even if it isn't, I'd far rather see 'bubble's of players being where they want to be than every producer being forced to operate in hi-sec and JFing the produce to their local part of 0.0. It's not like there's a thriving direct trade between nullsec area A and nullsec area B right now that's being threatened. This talk of 'bubbles' can easily be translated as "Oh no, fewer people will need to be in hi-sec ".
Without any explaination of why that's bad, exactly.
Why is it bad, exactly? Can you lay out a plausible scenario of how it would be worse for someone? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:19:00 -
[180] - Quote
Honestly, these arguments remind me of the "southern way of life" ones made against the VRA in the 50s.
"If we make 0.0 just as good as hi-sec, then these dirty nullers will be just as good as god-fearin' hi-sec folks! What if they start drinking at hi-sec water fountains? Going to hi-sec schools? What if they start bothering hisec women???" Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7923
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 07:58:00 -
[181] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:Malcanis, what's your take on a mining ship that mines more than a hulk but can't be operated in empire space? Or maybe just not in highsec. Say, a mining-oriented capital ship, or whatever it might need to be.
What problem is it intended to solve? I'm not aware of anyone saying that we don't have enough miners. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:11:00 -
[182] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Due to changes in my gameplay and from being exposed to different communities, I've finally seen the light.
My 3 votes go to Malcanis, as the most reasonable of the pro null/low-sec candidates.
Malcanis, how do you see the future of low-sec?
I have no specific proposals for lo-sec - as I said earlier in this thread, the best thing I can do for lo is keep my fool mouth shut. If Marc Scaraus or some other lo-sec focused candidate gets elected,t hen I'll evaluate their proposals for impact on 0.0, and otherwise support them. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:14:00 -
[183] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances?
Null alliances currently conduct their (non supercap) industry in hi-sec. I'd like to see them conduct those productive activities in their own space where it can be messed with. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:22:00 -
[184] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not.
The end result will be that those alliances that actively and effectively protect their local production will see a "buff", with that being balanced by the overhead of providing that protection, which in turn will mean more small gang/solo targets for outsiders, and more small gang activity for the alliance in question. I am absolutely OK with making this trade-off. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:40:00 -
[185] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: In other words, I want CCP to make 0.0 industry as good as they possibly can... Wouldn't this in turn buff Null Alliances? Null alliances currently conduct their (non supercap) industry in hi-sec. I'd like to see them conduct those productive activities in their own space where it can be messed with. Does this constitute a buff? It's also worth noting that if it is a buff, it's a buff for the ordinary alliance member, not a direct passive income buff for the alliance wallet... My Alliance is building T1 ships and giving them to my Corp so we can die on our adventures in to 0.0. Do Null Alliances lack ship replacement options? There must be some form of ship production for/by the Alliances/Corp members in Null. More efficient ship production in Null means a Buff. How much that Buff isGǪ I couldnGÇÖt say.
It'll be a buff for alliances that don't have the capability to simply JF everything up from Empire, which currently is the most efficient model. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:44:00 -
[186] - Quote
To use a ship balancing analogy: when you're trying to balance Ship A with Ship B, it doesn't matter how much you buff Ship A's DPS if you leave Ship B with 100% resists. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:49:00 -
[187] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Lord Zim wrote: How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not.
Are you saying this would be bad for Null? If, so ... then would they just ignore this change and continue with Highsec production? Why make the change at all, unless it improves EVE?
Alliances which are good at protecting their productive activities will benefit. Those that aren't will lose out. Where's the problem? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7926
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:05:00 -
[188] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:Every problem has a violent solution.
We can interdict all incoming shipping from high-sec. That would encourage people to produce things at home in null.
(1) I doubt you can interdict more than a small fraction.
(2) Even if you could interdict everything, there still isn't the capacity in null to produce the required demand. It's on oft-repeated statistic, but many people aren't aware of it, but many systems in hi-sec have more production capacity than the best developed 0.0 regions. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:20:00 -
[189] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:(2) Even if you could interdict everything, there still isn't the capacity in null to produce the required demand. It's on oft-repeated statistic, but many people aren't aware of it, but many systems in hi-sec have more production capacity than the best developed 0.0 regions. I believe some of the systems within 2-5 jumps of Jita have double the capacity deklein has.
It would be interesting to compare the number of manufacturing, research and office slots in the constellation that Jita is in compared to the whole of sov 0.0
Are there any database freaks in GSF that could pull these figures? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:23:00 -
[190] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:I will admit I look forward to the day that Null makes some kind of sense.
Wthl the peasants out working their fields, you know with them actually supporting Nulls need for ships that kind of guarantees someone will be afk mining.
But at least even as the peasants are weeded out they will still see the rewards of their activities in NUll, especially as income really needs to be bottom up.
Oh and on top of this of course is the fact that Null will need massive numbers of miners (especially if sov is tied to usage), so miners will become a great part of Null (and they will probably dob in any bots they see), they will build lots of ships and with ships easier to get more will go
BOOM
Null is always going to import from hi-sec, if only because of comparitive advantage.
Null needs massive numbers of miners now; it's just that most of those miners are in hi-sec. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:32:00 -
[191] - Quote
As I've previously said, CCP will have to first reform 0.0 production to make it viable for space holders to support themselves before I will support any nerfs to logistics. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:47:00 -
[192] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:enlighten me: how does the null economy work?
preliminary information tends to suggest ratting and moon mining... but ratting gives only a trickle of income to an individual and moon mining is restricted to the "chosen ones".
and there's always complex running, but how often does a site spawn?
so... many null dwellers have alts in high sec to do their isk making to support their pvp habits.
Ratting isn't great, but grinding anomalies gives good ISK/hr. The problem is that it only produces ISK, and you can't fly ISK. It's also suceptible to interdiction (go read the many whines about AFK cloaking). Anoms can also - at best - only support 3 or 4 players at a time in an upgraded system, unlike a mission agent who can serve as many players as the local node can manage (well over a hundred in the best systems). Thus 0.0 has a very low economic density compared to hi-sec.
Nullsec industry is mostly: supercap production, because this is restricted to CSAAs, which can only be deployed in sov space, low-value, high bulk items like cap boosters, ratting ammo, cyno frigates, and occasionally you get some guy who builds in null for what are essentially roleplaying reasons, rather than economic ones. There is very little R&D and essentially zero invention. Virtually everything that the average 0.0 player flies and uses has to be imported from hi-sec.
Another very tight constraint is that 0.0 outposts can only have 4 office slots, and usually one of those is required for the alliance holding corp. Gallente outposts can have 12, but they're worthless for anything else than having office slots. They're purely military assets. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7928
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:54:00 -
[193] - Quote
Well I think he gets it now Zim.
part of the problem with discussing this issue is that the imbalance between 0.0 and hi-sec industry is so huge that people who hadn't previously considered the issue simply can't believe that the gap is so big, and they balk at the obvious implications. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7929
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:05:00 -
[194] - Quote
I'd rather just see Spod (and Gneiss?) loaded up with low-end minerals to achieve the same effect without asking CCP to release a new shiptype that would cause even more ill-feeling amongst the hi-sec community. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7933
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:10:00 -
[195] - Quote
Zim and I are pretty much aligned in our views on this subject. Even as a CFC partisan, he doesn't need to distort the facts because they support the case so overwhelmingly that the truth is the most effective propaganda that could be made. If anything, goons might want to understate the case because of the effect that I mentioned above - the imbalance is so shockingly great that people just don't want to believe it. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7934
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:23:00 -
[196] - Quote
Yes I would absolutely like to see a smoother gradient between the restrictions in a 1.0 and those in a 0.1 system. The precise mechanics would be up to CCP to set; the list you quoted is an example of the kind of incremental change, although not necessarily the specifc set that I'd choose.
Operating in a 0.5 vs a 0.9 should matter way more than it does now. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7934
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:47:00 -
[197] - Quote
Exactly. The change between 0.5 and 0.4 is a hundred times greater than the change between 0.1 and 0.0. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7936
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:21:00 -
[198] - Quote
You're more than welcome to ask me questions on any issues - that's what this thread is for. I'm happy for you to ask even if you don't like the answers and they cause you to vote for someone else, because you're giving me a chance to state my positions, and other readers of the thread may like the answers better.
It is worth checking to see if the question you want to ask has already been answered, as this thread has already covered a lot of ground. That will give you the opportunity to make a follow-up question instead.
EDIT: And you're absolutely right that I want a change to the status quo - EVE must continue to evolve if it's to last another 10 years and gain another 500,000 subs. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7951
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 07:52:00 -
[199] - Quote
Naughty Ferret wrote:I like what I've read so far.
One thing I have picked up on is a potential change to local, making it more aligned to wormhole space. I'm not opposed to the wy it works in WH's - risk vs reward, but how do you see that working in null / empire without alienating large parts of the player base?
As mentioned above in this thread, I don't like local as an intel tool because it gives the wrong kind of intel (who) instead of the right kind (what), it doesn't give the intel in a useful manner, takes up too much screen area, isn't interactive, doesn't promote gameplay and it makes EVE feel small.
But.
It would be a dreadful idea to get rid of it until we have a scanner that's changed an improved out of all recognition. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7971
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:53:00 -
[200] - Quote
Jeremy Soikutsu wrote:I'm just gonna cross post this from Jester's thread, and then post it into a couple of those candidates threads at that, because I'm lazy. I wanted to ask about something that doesn't get the time it deserves. The Drone Regions, or I suppose more precisely the half-finished state of Rogue Drones. My question is basically how do you think they should be fixed, and do you think CCP is paying them enough attention? I also expounded on what some of the specific problems that they have in a later post in Jester's thread if you care to read it. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2670163#post2670163 You even get a free side of pointless arguing with the New Order in that post.
Dronespace is a bit of a quandry. The original idea for dronespace was that it should be harder to make a living there, and also give different rewards to the rest of 0.0, which was in and of itself a good notion. We know how it turned out, of course.
I do feel it would be a shame to just turn drones into Generic Rat Type #14, but I don't have many better ideas. One thing I would like is for a range of drone implants "faction" and meta drone modules and ships to be exclusively available from there. If we're going to turn them into generic rats, they can at least have their own loot table. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7971
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:12:00 -
[201] - Quote
Vince Snetterton wrote:Malcanis wrote:Amyclas Amatin wrote:Every problem has a violent solution.
We can interdict all incoming shipping from high-sec. That would encourage people to produce things at home in null.
(1) I doubt you can interdict more than a small fraction. (2) Even if you could interdict everything, there still isn't the capacity in null to produce the required demand. It's on oft-repeated statistic, but many people aren't aware of it, but many systems in hi-sec have more production capacity than the best developed 0.0 regions. Yes, because manufacturing arrays at POS's don't work in null sec. Oh wait, they do.
I'd be more than happy to see the focus of all productive industry move to POS (not least for the sake of the W-space guys) but until CCP reform POS so that forcing people to use them isn't listed as a war crime, I think we need to balance outpost production.
Longer term, I agree with you that the focus should shift away from outposts - let those be the slow, inefficient lines suitable for new players to make small amounts of T1 while learning their trade in a relatively safe, low complexity, easy to use facility, and incentivise the advanced players to master the relatively risky, configurable, customisable modular POS - both in hi-sec and in 0.0.
I'm glad to see that we're able to bridge our differences and get on the same page regarding this issue. It's encouraging to know that I'll be able to deliver at least something for almost everyone.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8024
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:34:00 -
[202] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:What is your stance on AFK skill training?
Do you mean time-based skilling? I love it! Not having to xp-grind was one of the biggest factors in getting me to subscribe to an online game (I hate subscribing to things and I don't like online games). Being freed to do what I wanted in it, rather than be chained to a second, very tedious, job is one of the greatest things about EVE. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8026
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:50:00 -
[203] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Malcanis wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote:What is your stance on AFK skill training? Do you mean time-based skilling? I love it! Not having to xp-grind was one of the biggest factors in getting me to subscribe to an online game (I hate subscribing to things and I don't like online games). Being freed to do what I wanted in it, rather than be chained to a second, very tedious, job is one of the greatest things about EVE. I find it reprehensible that someone can walk away from their computer during a 50 day skill train.
Why? They're not increasing their assets, their personal skill, their contacts, their game knowledge, their experience, their reputation, damaging their enemies, assisting their allies or advancing their in game goals in any way. All they're doing is gaining a few skillpoints.
This seems like a trivial 'price' to pay for the incredible boon granted to all of us of being forever unchained from the xp grindmill.
In short, it doesn't bother me the tiniest bit.
Especially since it would take about 48-72 hours for the first skill macros to start appearing if CCP changed EVE skillpoint system.
You do know what happened in Darkfall, right? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8035
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 06:57:00 -
[204] - Quote
Thank you. It is precisely people like you that I would dearly love to see enabled to come to 0.0. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8036
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 07:58:00 -
[205] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Not just enabled, encouraged.
He doesn't need encouraging; he already wants to. The problem is that he has analysed the situation and decided, correctly, that he'd be heavily penalised in his chosen profession for doing so. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8036
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 09:17:00 -
[206] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:
What would you consider to be a fair balanced number of slots for outposts? with the assumption that bot they and NPC stations had an isk sink usage cost, presuming you are not against that idea.
If CCP give me Outpost-focused wishes, what I would like to see is outposts that are defined by being a bonus platform that can be customised with modules - very analogous to fitting a ship.
To use an example, an Amarr outpost should have a unique and unduplicatable manufacturing bonus, something that no NPC station has and no other outpost can get, just as a ship (For example, a Force Recon) has a specific set of bonuses.
The players should then be able to customise the outpost as they like. The model I'd like to see is that outposts have 4 prime characteristics; manufacturing, refining, research and offices. Each outpost should therefore have 10 upgrade slots; 4 primary, 3 secondary, 2 tertiary, 1 quaternary. The Primary slots will always be dedicated to that outpost's bonused function: Amarr outposts can fit 4 manufacturing upgrades, 3 upgrades of whatever the owners decide is that station's secondary function, 2 for what the tertiary function is and 1 for what the quaternary function. Likewise, a Caldari station can fit 4 research upgrades, etc etc. An upgrade would cost 1B for the first in a function, 2B for the second, 3B for the 3rd, 4B for the 4th. So to completely upgrade an outpost with 10 upgrades would cost 10 + 6 + 3 + 1 = 19 billion ISK
As for the precise numbers, obviously that's up to CCP, but a fully upgraded Amarr station should provide at least as many slots as a top-end hi-sec system (400-450). That obviously implies +100 slots per upgrade level.
I haven't gone over the numbers of research slots needed yet, but again the principle of a fully upgraded Caldari outpost being at least as good as the best hi-sec systems should be maintained.
On a side note, I'd be absolutely fine with outpost upgrades being a shootable service and a suitable medium-gang objective to provoke fights.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8036
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 09:27:00 -
[207] - Quote
tbh there's not much in my ~wish~ that should be all that development-intensive. Outpost upgrades already exist, they're just insultingly terrible and eye-wateringly expensive. Increasing the number of upgrades, changing the abount of slots they give and reducing their cost should all be fairly simple. The code for shootable services already exists. The only really new part would be the fitting limitations. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8048
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:18:00 -
[208] - Quote
(If you don't ask me, then you won't get an answer that she doesn't like!) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8048
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:25:00 -
[209] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Apparenlty he also thinks that double-taxing novice miners in hisec is good for something... but don't ask him what. Care to step up to the plate with an elucidation of what you're on about?
Checkable facts are just null zealot propoganda, Zim. You know that! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8048
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:39:00 -
[210] - Quote
That's not "double taxing novice miners", that's single taxing hi-sec miners.
The purpose is to emulate the NPC corp tax, ie: to allow scope for player owned facilities to tax their members while having to compete against free, invulnerable NPC facilities. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8097
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 18:49:00 -
[211] - Quote
Xearal wrote:Thanks for the reply Malcanis! :)
Aside from outposts, what I personally would like to see is POSses getting a good upgrade. Get rid of the forcefield, put every thign you anchor now inside the POS as modules, and let people dock up into one.
The biggest benefits of this would be, you'd no longer have the hassle of moving stuff from one bay to another, or corp hangar to manufacturing bay and such, it would allow for setting up a more personal space for a corp member in a POS by allocating part of the general corp bay to personal use. Personal POSses woudl also be possible, giving the power of an individual to setup a manufacturing empire anywhere at the price of using a POS. Also, it would make leaving BPO's and such at a POS a less risky proposal, as right now, if your POS goes into reinforce when you have stuff in it, you can't take it out until it's repaired ( modules are offline etc. )
As for the docking bay itself, it would be a limited bay, with X m3 hangar bay for ships and Y M3 for other stuff, possibly with additional room implemented by Silo modules for moongoo and such. As a corp pos, part of this could be allocated to individual players so they have their 'own' little space inside the POS to do their thing.
Anyway.. I'm rambling on.. if you want to hear more about my silly ideas on POS revamps, Mail me ;)
I'd be over the moon ( to see POS getting a proper rework, but it has been made clear to us that this isn't going to happen any time soon, alas.
If I get the opportunity, I will certainly advocate to CCP as strongly and passionately as I can that even if it takes a whole expansion to do POS "right", then that would be an expansion cycle well-spent. So many things that are broken or imbalanced about EVE come back to POS. Added to that, even the "little guys" would just like a little patch of vacuum to call their own - enabling players to build their own place in space would be an amazing feature for player engagement and retention. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8102
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 12:55:00 -
[212] - Quote
Anunzi wrote:
Never voted for CSM before. However, you Sir will be getting both of my votes this year.
You view on so many things (high sec, null and POSGÇÖs being the big 3) are so close to mine as to be slightly unnerving.
Best of luck with your candidacy Malcanis, its about time you did this!
I always knew that cortex tap I had installed in you when you had your tonsils out would pay for itself. Please continue to think up good ideas so I can download them. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8102
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 13:16:00 -
[213] - Quote
Sorry bout those, here, let me turn down the gain a little... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8111
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 21:54:00 -
[214] - Quote
Asuri Kinnes wrote:Haven't chimed in much but I've been keeping an eye on your thread. I'm going to have to make an unreserved declaration of support of you to my corpies in our csm8 thread.
That would be very much appreciated, Ms Kinnes. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8130
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 14:36:00 -
[215] - Quote
Alas, what should be often isn't. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8133
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:25:00 -
[216] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:I have just read your manifesto for high-sec and must say that it isn't worthy of consideration. Just more nul-centric diatribe of which we have far too much of coming from the CSM as it is. Personally I feel it would be better if the CSM was dropped done to two sets of six members with two members from each half GENUINELY representing the issues and residents from the nul, low, & high-sec communities. Then we might get some fairness and move away from the fallacy that nul-sec is the end game of EVE Online and the best place to be which it isn't and nor should it be so. EVE Online is a sandbox within which people are free to do what they like and enjoy without having the shallow views of one community forced upon the entire playbase. I strongly suggest you cut the ****, affix the Goons badge to your lapel and be honest with yourself and to others. You'll feel much better for doing so.
What's "null-centric" about it? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8133
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:41:00 -
[217] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:"punishing people for playing EVE the wrong way." It is not possible to play EVE Online the wrong way Malcanis as it is a sandbox. "There's only one way of life and that's your own, your own, your own." The Levellers.
So a manifesto based on the idea that we shouldn't punish people for playing EVE in hi-sec and that we should abandon the outdated idea that players should "progress" to 0.0 is "null-centric"?
My, the things one learns. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8133
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 18:01:00 -
[218] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote:
...that we should abandon the outdated idea that players should "progress" to 0.0 is "null-centric"?
...
I agree that going to 0.0 isn't "progress"... it is wanting to play a different game style. A game style that need to be changed/buffed. Too few seem to be interested in playing in that corner of the sand.
Yep, but that's not to say that there shouldn't be options for high-level gameplay in hi-sec too. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8134
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 22:03:00 -
[219] - Quote
Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 10:38:00 -
[220] - Quote
One cannot yarr on Bacardi. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 11:43:00 -
[221] - Quote
Brandy is also an acceptable refreshment for the gentleman pirate.
One should be drinking something fancy when a nicely fitted faction ship is on the line, IMO Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:34:00 -
[222] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
I think that CCP knows perfectly well what's wrong with the game
I could ask 10 players what was wrong with the game and get 13 different opinions (3 of them would change their minds after hearing what the others said).
Then would come the discussion about the priority and scheduling of the various issues and we'd have 13! opinions...
If we can't get a lo-sec pirate, a hi-sec inventor, a 0.0 fleet commander and a W-space Dreadnaught pilot to agree with what's wrong with the game (And I'll bet you this year's pay to a badly damaged Impairor hull that we can't), then how can we expect CCP to have to clear idea?
It's actually quite a good reduction of the whole CSM process to say that you should vote for a guy who - more or less - shares your opinion on what needs doing and who you think will be an effective advocate for getting at least some of it looked at.
So far as the game issues discussed in these 30-odd pages are concerned, I'll be delighted if CCP even unofficially say that they need looking at. I'll consider my job as a CSM to have been superlatively successful if I manage to get a solid commitment to review one area of gameplay.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:48:00 -
[223] - Quote
Sui'Djin wrote:Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE. much appreciated. I prefer a 15 year old El Dorado, which one is your favourite? You can send me a pm, I don't want to derail your campaign thread
It was just a cheap supermarket own brand from the shop across the road.
I need to go to Oddbinns and get some of the good stuff... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:57:00 -
[224] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Malcanis wrote:and we'd have 13! opinions... I wonder how many people would actually get how many opinions this would expand into.
About as many as would factor in the other 62 billion... Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8137
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:12:00 -
[225] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Malcanis wrote:Brandy is also an acceptable refreshment for the gentleman pirate.
One should be drinking something fancy when a nicely fitted faction ship is on the line, IMO Cognac old boy, nothing like a little tipple whilst smoking a cigar and blasting something to smithereens!! almost civilised way to play.
I'm more of an Armagnac man myself, but I would never turn down a decent cognac. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8138
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:29:00 -
[226] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE. What is your stance on tequila?
It is disgusting. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8140
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 16:04:00 -
[227] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE. What is your stance on tequila? I find Tequila quite useful for removing wood stains and powering my lawnmower but apart from that it's a foul drink.
It's also useful for loosening up rusted metalwork if you can't find any WD-40. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8154
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 20:42:00 -
[228] - Quote
Anunzi wrote:Malcanis wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE. What is your stance on tequila? It is disgusting. Good man, tis a foul drink. Single malt, Double or Bourbon?
I've only had a few bourbons that aren't Jack Daniels. Sadly whiskey doesn't agree with me these days (I can drink one glass and get away with it, but who the hell can only drink one glass?), but back in my proper whisky drinking days, I liked a good peaty Islay like Lagavullein. And of course The Macallan, which is the whiskey a gentleman should drink. There's a lot to be said for Bushmills also. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8170
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 18:09:00 -
[229] - Quote
Drinking isn't good for you. Neither is knowledge, love, honesty or bacon.
I've picked a side. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8209
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 09:30:00 -
[230] - Quote
I said I picked a side. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8209
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 12:01:00 -
[231] - Quote
Well all the directly EVE related topics seem to have been covered, so now I can address issues relevant to EVE players.
I hereby declare Malc's cocktail bar and obscene limerick emprioum open!
There was a young lady of Venus Who asked to see the barman's dog, Enis He said "Mind you don't trip" And mixed her a Brandy Egg Flip That inquisitive young lady of Venus! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8215
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 11:50:00 -
[232] - Quote
Thanks Temba, I remember our conversation within and around the "Hisec manifesto" thread and I'm glad you kept playing. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8242
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 18:53:00 -
[233] - Quote
Confirming that CCP have accepted my candidacy apllication.
Much thanks to you all for your support so far. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8251
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 09:00:00 -
[234] - Quote
Anunzi wrote:Malcanis wrote:Confirming that CCP have accepted my candidacy apllication.
Much thanks to you all for your support so far. Congratulations Mal, best of luck!
Thanks Anunzi. I'll need it, I think.
I don't know whether I'm more nervous about the possibility of losing or the possibility of winning...
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8278
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 19:04:00 -
[235] - Quote
None ofthe Above wrote:Malcanis wrote:I don't know whether I'm more nervous about the possibility of losing or the possibility of winning... It is a pretty challenging position, good to see that you understand that. Just wanted to drop by and note my support and thank you for all the contributions you've already made. Your ideas have made EVE a better game. Like Hans, you've already had a big impact, perhaps even more so than Hans since he credits you for inspiring and informing a lot of his work. Hope to see more in the future, whatever the outcome of the election.
Hans doesn't owe me anything. Ideas are cheap; hard work is what counts.
If I get elected you'll probably see very little of my ~ideas~ enacted, but I hope that I'll be able to work effectively to deliver what's good for EVE. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8305
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 15:03:00 -
[236] - Quote
See back around page 9 IIRC.
Basically:
1) Return the bottleneck material status to the R64s 2) Make each racial T2 ship/weapon line associated with one of the R64s 3) Rework the distribution of the R64s so each is mostly concentrated in one quadrant of the nullsec map, with a sprinkling in the others and in lo-sec to keep things lively
The number of R64s and the map-wide distribution will make it impractical to completely monopolise bottleneck T2 material as it is now, so base prices will cap the value of the "money moons" at the 'nice to have' level, not the "if you don't have any then you're a poor and can get out" level. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8308
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:02:00 -
[237] - Quote
For those wishing to endorse my election attempt, please do so here
All votes gratefully received! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8311
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:26:00 -
[238] - Quote
Vaju Enki wrote:Malcanis,
With the changes on Mining Barges (ore cargo hold), almost no one jetcan mines anymore and so the Ore Thief career is on the brink of extinction. "Professional ore thieving" was alot of fun, it was something that made EvE unique, and now it's almost gone.
What's your take on this subject?
I think the Mack was overbuffed, tbh, and there should be a wider gap between the amount the Hulk can mine and the other two. You don't really lose anything by choosing the Mack, because it mines only a tiny amount less than the hulk and has enough tank to survive an economic gank, making the Procurer moot.
The mining barge change was good in principle, but I think CCP should have checked the maths of some of the wilder claims being made about ganking. Some very dishonest arguments were employed in that debate. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8312
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:36:00 -
[239] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:If the mining barge change hadn't turned ore theft extinct, then the crimewatch 2.0 suspect-when-stealing-anything change probably would've.
People who run up to miners and mug them should expect to be shot at in EVE, but the possbility of mugging someone should be protected. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8312
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:53:00 -
[240] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:There's a tiny bit of a difference between "that guy stole from me, I (and my corp) can shoot him now" to "that guy did something illegal, we can all shoot him now".
I'm OK with that difference. What is less good is there being one obvious choice for mining with no downsides that obviates the situation from the start. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:33:00 -
[241] - Quote
I still require endorsements!
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:59:00 -
[242] - Quote
Thanks guys. Still no confirmation that I have qualified, so I'm not taking anything for granted.
(Vote Malc!) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:55:00 -
[243] - Quote
Ivy Romanova wrote:tell me . What have you done for the masses over the years? -which masses? Are you including everyone in the world or just eve players or what? What have you once said that helped the community survive , if not thrive . -Things that can be said to help the community survive and thrive are worth saying much more than once. I try to promote a holistic view of the EVE community.Do you believe in one man should have the right to determine the future for all. -No. Luckily I only aspire to being 1 of 14 who will merely advise a company of several hundred. Do you believe you will be able to represent all , stand for all , and fight for all. -No. I'm running for election based on my viewpoint and philosophy of EVE, which I have made very clear. Others have made equally clear their disagreement with my views; they will have to look to other candidates to represent philosophies which in my opinion are damaging to EVE. Where do you stand in this war between carebears and pvpers . - I believe that to a substantial extent, the "war" is a Big LieWhat is your view on the New Order? - It's good to see the EVE RP community thriving in the game's second decade. How do you maintain neutrality ? - I'm not neutral. Neutrality is the excuse of those too afraid to own their opinions. I do try my best to be objective though. How do you stand strong despite of the pressure that will sure to come over your term as CSM8. - I'm readily persuaded by facts and logic. Fallacies and appeals to emotion only elicit a particular pleasure in denying the wishes of those who employ them. Who are you? - What a pointless question; you'll find out my name as soon as my endorsements reach 200. Where are you? - London What are you ? - A male primate; a member of the species Sapiens, of the genus Homo, a mildly notorious subgroup of the Chordata phylum. Exothermic in ambient temperatures of 305K or less. Composed of Carbon, Hydrogen, Oxygen and Nitrogen, plus numerous other trace elements. Magnetically inert. Baryonic.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:01:00 -
[244] - Quote
I'm afraid it's taking longer than I expected to calculate my De Broglie wavelength, but I'll try and have the figure available before the end of the Endorsement voting period. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8323
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:42:00 -
[245] - Quote
Thanks Ferro, now that's what I call an endorsement.
However, I still want more. Please keep voting. Vote till it hurts. Vote Malc!
My appetite for endorsement votes is insatiable! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8336
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:35:00 -
[246] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:OK the whole tone of the CSM8 Election is so much more positive!
One effect of the STV system is that it gives candidates a very powerful incentive to work together with at least some of the other candidates, rather than viewing every single other candidate purely as a competitor.
Don't worry though; if CCP keep it, then EVE-normality will soon be restored, because it will inevitably lead to the formation of political parties. With all the effects that implies.
Anyway, just to let you all know: I'm in. Many thanks for your endorsements and I hope you enjoyed voting for me cos I'm going to ask you to do it again next week!
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8337
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 08:53:00 -
[247] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:
Also a comment on your proposed changes to industry efficiency based on system sec status. I think it is short sighted, and Malcanis law applies (yes, the irony). Most high volume items have tiny margins as it is. By implementing the changes high sec production will become infeasible. At the same time, the local markets in 0.0 and low sec are typically not nearly big enough for an industrial to be able to sell all goods there (sale volume is just as important). So what would happen is that the older, richer and JF enabled industrials would move materials to lowsec or 0.0, build the goods and jump them back to jita. A production time bonus would be good, however.
Suffice it to say, I disagree. You're making the typical mistake of only looking at how the change would affect a single person, and not taking into account that it would also effect everyone else.
If manufacturer A has his production costs raised by 5% he's only at a disadvantage if manufacturers B-Z don't have their costs similarly raised. If everyone operates under the same constraint, then there is no comparitive advantage.
Please can you expand on how you think Malcanis' Law applies here? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:24:00 -
[248] - Quote
Anunzi wrote:Malcanis wrote: Anyway, just to let you all know: I'm in. Many thanks for your endorsements and I hope you enjoyed voting for me cos I'm going to ask you to do it again next week!
I think I can just about manage to PUSH BUTAN 2 more times. I listened to your Xrossing Zebra's interview last night, confirmed for me that you are the best man for the job at hand.
I'll be happy to be considered the 14th best
Anunzi wrote:Just a quick question (not sure if its been asked in here already, but... 33 pages) Whats your stance on local chat in null?
Do you think it should be like wormhole local, delayed, removed or left alone?
This has come up a couple of times already. The tl;dr is that I don't like local as an intel tool; it gives the wrong kind of intel, it's poorly presented and uninteractive, the configuration options are horrible, it doesn't promote gameplay or immersion, and it takes up too much screenspace. Local sucks.
But.
We absolutely need a working scanner that isn't powered by the agonised screams of RSI-crippled players with their tendons white-hot from endless clicking. A working real-time/auto-updated scanner is a non-negotiable pre-condition for even beginning the discussion about removing instant local. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:33:00 -
[249] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Malcanis wrote:Suffice it to say, I disagree. You're making the typical mistake of only looking at how the change would affect a single person, and not taking into account that it would also effect everyone else.
If manufacturer A has his production costs raised by 5% he's only at a disadvantage if manufacturers B-Z don't have their costs similarly raised. If everyone operates under the same constraint, then there is no comparitive advantage.
Please can you expand on how you think Malcanis' Law applies here? I already did. The older, richer and JF capable industrials will simply be able to avoid the increased costs in hi(er)-sec. The less fortunate will be crowding the slots in 0.5 systems much worse then they already do, and building in 0.6+ will simply be unfeasible. Basically it's adding one more handicap to newer players.
I hear that JFs are free and cost nothing to run.
And 0.5 systems aren't "already crowded"; in terms of manufacturing, they're largely deserted. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:45:00 -
[250] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Malcanis wrote:[quote=Aineko Macx]I hear that JFs are free and cost nothing to run.
And 0.5 systems aren't "already crowded"; in terms of manufacturing, they're largely deserted. Exactly, JFs are expensive, thus only a minority can get their benefits. The cost of operating them is negligible compared to the amounts you haul for any serious production, especially if you set up your jump route/production base in a non-dumb way. But what am I opposing, I own a JF... If 0.5 slots aren't crowded, they will be after you make 5 out of 6 hisec slots unatractive to use.
Why would you build (for example) Dramiels in a 0.5? The mineral difference would be trivial compared to the value of the finished product and the costs of moving it to Jita. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:00:00 -
[251] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Malcanis wrote:Why would you build (for example) Dramiels in a 0.5? The mineral difference would be trivial compared to the value of the finished product and the costs of moving it to Jita. C'mon Malc, you can do better than that. Way to take a special case (building faction ship) as argument. We all know that production on most T1 items has single digit profit margins, where a small increase in production cost means a large loss of profit.
Quite so, but there are also costs of transport, and the suggestion was made in the context of other changes in the sec system, increasing the risk in 0.0 systems, so there would be actuarial costs also (ie: the risk of being ganked)
The idea was to make the choice of place to build mean something more than "how close to Jita/Amarr can I get a manufacturing slot". In that context, I see your analysis that there would be an advantage to building in 0.5 sec systems as an advantage, not a problem. Indeed, you may note that for processes like T2 module building, it would conceivably be worthwhile to build in lo-sec (the right kind of lo-sec, anyway)
In short you're complaining that my proposal to change things would result in change. I agree: it will. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8340
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:34:00 -
[252] - Quote
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Aineko Macx wrote:Malcanis wrote:Why would you build (for example) Dramiels in a 0.5? The mineral difference would be trivial compared to the value of the finished product and the costs of moving it to Jita. CGÇÖmon Malc, you can do better than that. Way to take a special case (building faction ship) as argument. We all know that production on most T1 items has single digit profit margins, where a small increase in production cost means a large loss of profit. ThatGÇÖs only true as long as everyone can produce it at low margin and no transport costs (read: next-door to a major trade hub). As soon as you have opportunity costs included, the margins can vary greatly, depending on the distance the goods were transferred, whether you got minerals locally and the price of minerals there as opposed to transfering them from a market hub, potential dangers on the route, etc. In other words, rather than representing the vast majority of the price, production costs become just one aspect of it, allowing players with worse skills to compete better, if they research the market.
Production material costs are different for different classes of items and well. At one extreme, you have the production of faction items, where the material cost is essentially a rounding error and the actuarial cost of being ganked whilst tranporting them is far more relevent. At the other you have things like Freighters and Battleships.
New players typically aren't involved in producing either of these types of goods. Small T1 ships, faction ammo and certain T1 modules like nanos seem to be the most common. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8343
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:54:00 -
[253] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Literally, the best bit about this line of thinking is that it does for manufacturers what it has done for so many other things in EVE, it shifts focus away from the raw in-game skills and more towards the softer in-player skill of reading/responding to a market.
That's exactly what I had in mind to achieve.
(And that's why we'll see such a shitstorm if CCP ever implement it) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8348
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:03:00 -
[254] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Please note that apart from the current discussion, I agree with your hisec manifesto. It's slightly dated so maybe you'll want to update it.
Also please take the time to respond to my two questions about super capitals and sov mechanics. You state that 0.0 is the area that most needs attention, so surely you'll have some ideas about these two major 0.0 issues.
Sov mechanics: I'm not going to get into proposing specific mechanics, but I can definitely describe what I'd like to see: Sov should be easily claimable by anyone who wants to plant their flag. The strength of that sovereignty claim should require continuous activity, not anchoring a TCU and waiting 3 weeks. AFK landlording - where we have systems that are unused except for a JF popping by to empty the silos twice a month - should leave your systems vulnerable to being taken by a medium sized battlecruiser gang with half an hour to spare.
And death to multi-million hit point structures.
Supercaps:
Supercarriers I'm honestly not too bothered about; they're vulnerable to being defanged, and tbh they're not that hard to deal with if you have an organised fleet. If I had wishes to spare, I'd turn them back into motherships and give them a role that actually made them into a goddamb mothership. You know, like being the go-to ship for moving a fleet about. But they're not a priority. Oh and while we have these jillion-hit-point sov structures, they're the only thing that makes sov grinding remotely endurable.
Titans: I just don't like. There's no way to balance the role of "super double super doom *****" in an open PvP game like EVE. Titans need to be turned into something completely different than their current incarnation. Every titan pilot is going to hate it if and when they are. That's OK though, they all hate me already. Whether they become mobile star bases, or the only ship which can go through the EVE gate or whatever role I don't even mind. They were a mistake from the start and CCP have been trying to polish the turd ever since the players showed them that "we totally can organise massive industrial supply chains in your open sandbox economy simulator, CCP" and built thousands of a ship that was conceived on the assumption there would only ever be 2-3 in game. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8353
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:01:00 -
[255] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:What's your stance over small-scale structure operations ? I'm talking about highsec POSes, lowsec POCOs and POSes inside C3s and lower.
You mean in the sense of trying to shoot at them? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8353
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:14:00 -
[256] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Malcanis wrote:You mean in the sense of trying to shoot at them? And defending them, don't be so single-sided. The shooting part and the linked isk-versus-reward part (like in "a giant dickstar costs 500m" and "if I kill it, I'll loot 20m"). If you want I can ask you particular questions but it would mean that you don't care about it or feel it's well balanced atm.
Well it was a bit of a general question. What specifically are you concerned about? hi-sec POS being a PITA to shoot? Yeah they kind of are, but there are ~implications with making it easier to kill POS with subcaps, like seeing W-space scoured out by the dominant corps there. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8354
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:33:00 -
[257] - Quote
I don't know how to break this to you, but today isn't the first day. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8363
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:02:00 -
[258] - Quote
Reppyk wrote:Malcanis wrote:Well it was a bit of a general question. What specifically are you concerned about? hi-sec POS being a PITA to shoot? Yeah they kind of are, but there are ~implications with making it easier to kill POS with subcaps, like seeing W-space scoured out by the dominant corps there. "yes but" aren't exactly a stand that I can satisfy with. For example, you're advocating about changing the way highsec manufacturing slots work (which is directly a huge incentive to use POSes) and at the same time "nerfing the EHP of structures", making them more vulnerable. Meaning that ~POS business~ would become a serious business in EVE. So hundreds of pilots would anchor hundreds of towers all around EVE, as good as they are at the moment, which "just" a lower EHP. You didn't say more about it, so I don't even know if you're talking about a shenanigan "-5% structure HP" or a massive batnerf move "-90% HP **** you, structures !". Or maybe you were only talking about TCUs/SBUs ? I mean, you'll probably get elected (and you have my support /o/ ) and your role will definitively not be as a game designer, but you must represent people. One day CCP will come at you and ask you "sup Malca, here's what we planned on the highsec industry, it's linked with POS, what do you think of it ?" (or even better : you will come at CCP saying "hey bros, some pilots are telling me that small-scale structure fights are so broken nobody wants to do it"). Not only you'll have to express your own opinion, but the opinions of your fellow pilots as well. Keeping on the same example : you're saying that highsec POSes are a PITA to destroy. I disagree with this opinion ; of course it's indeed "a pain in the ass" but that's not even remotely the main problem I would adovcate : highsec POSes have an immunity in EVE. You could reply "maybe but that's your (maybe experienced) personal point of view". Yes but thanks to some tools (zboard in this case), I can for example check own many large (non-faction, I'm too lazy) control towers died this month and feel the scale of the problem. You may think at first that my original post was "plz future CSM member nerf POSes plz" but it's not. I'm just trying to find correct CSM members that I could EVEmail about inquiries, and at the same time CSM members that are not posing as "expert on a few, narrow domains" but listeners (collecting problems) and investigators (what's the deal ? Maybe I should ask a few people that know that ****). You're doing a good job at it actually, but you can do it even better. :)
T be clear: the "structures" I was referring to were the sovereignty structures - TCUs, hubs, stations. HP-wise, most POS are fine. Large POS in hi-sec are an issue, but one I'd prefer to see addressed by improving the options for shooting at them with - but in a way that doesn't crap on W-space. It's a conundrum. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8363
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 18:06:00 -
[259] - Quote
I don't have a problem with POSes being used in hi-sec tbh. In fact In my dream of EVE, players would deploy POS as the greatly preferred alternative to using NPC stations. (in this dream, POS aren't horrible) Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8371
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 10:02:00 -
[260] - Quote
Lelob wrote:I would rather vote for some publord from SMA then a publord from INIT.
Luckily, you don't have to choose! You can put the SMA publord as your first pick and me as your second.
If you need any more help with how to vote for publords, please don't hesitate to ask. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8384
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 08:43:00 -
[261] - Quote
At no time will I be be advocating to CCP that they rebalance the game around people who can't deal with solved problems like losec gate camps. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8384
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 12:33:00 -
[262] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Afk Moon Goo wrote:You are missing the point, you can avoid gatecamps easily if you want but it'll restrict the numbers of ship you can fly in LS solo pvp, also if you don't you will lose your ship in a pvp environment disregard of your pvp skill, it's a bad design. Please, elucidate on exactly how you would "not restrict the number of ships you can fly in LS solo PVP". I'm especially interested in hearing how you'd solve the problem of, say, a BS flying through a gate camped by frigates, followed by a frigate flying through a gate camped by frigates. Or hell, even noobships, since they can fit warp disruptors on noobships.
Since I have clarified my position, perhaps you two could continue this in another thread. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8396
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 11:21:00 -
[263] - Quote
And yet you said it anyway.
See, this is the kind of meticulous attention to communication that I hope to promote in the CSM, and it's clearly already working! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8400
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 15:45:00 -
[264] - Quote
The other candidates were doing it and I didn't want to look uncool Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8400
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 06:30:00 -
[265] - Quote
Indus Fervens wrote:So I just read your manifesto and I have a question/s about it.
You mention the population of Hi-sec is divided into several categories, CCP have at various times put the HS population as 65-80% of the player base.
1- What proportion of HS characters are null sec alts in your estimation? 2 -Is this a problem? 3- What would you propose to do about it if someone handed you a junior game developer hat?
1 - There's no realistic way to get hard figures, but from the 0.0 people I talk to I think it's a reasonable assumption to say that there are at an absolute minimum 2 hi-sec alts for every 3 0.0 characters. That's a very conservative guess. As a proportion? I'm going to go with the 25-33% range.
2 - Yes it most definitely is.
3 - I discuss the issue at some length in this thread. The tl;dr is that virtually every productive industry is effectively "forced" to be in hi-sec. Unless you're RPing or just plain bad at maths, there's no reason to produce anything except ratting ammo, cap boosters and supercaps in sov 0.0. I propose a massive boost in the industrial capacity of 0.0 (which currently has just 3% of the production capacity of hi-sec) combined with an efficiency/cost rebalance to compensate 0.0 producers for the additional overhead they pay for facilities that hi-sec producers get for free.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8400
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 09:14:00 -
[266] - Quote
I'll be publishing my recommended voting list tonight.
I promise to make you mad about at least 1 entry on it, but don't forget that you're free to partially or completely ignore it (as long as you put me as #1 choice)
And mathematically speaking, it's scrupulously fair. You actually have to work pretty hard to not get at least someone you choose into the CSM.
The big problem comes from people who don't have access to recommended voting lists from trusted sources - the amount of work required to fill all 14 slots is obviously 14x higher than that required to make a single choice. So the large, well-organised null-sec vote is going to be very heavily represented this year I think.
The big advantage of the system is that multiple "good" candidates can run for a given demographic without crippling each other; on the old system, you might see 5 excellent "small gang PvP" candidates and 1 "OK" missionbear candidate. But because the missionbear vote wasn't split, the missionbear guy would get in and the 5 excellent small gang PvP candidates would take votes from each other and not get a seat, even though their total votes might be 3-4x as many.
With STV, so long as all the "small gang" voters put all 5 of their guys on their preference list, they'll get at least one of them elected. (In fact this is exactly what's happening with the wormhole candidates).
In short: the new system rewards demographics that
(1) Vote (2) Are well organised (3) Put forward lots of good candidates
NB: I am going to put Mike Azariah in my recommendation list because I think we need at least 1 hi-sec guy on the CSM, if only to make sure we don't accidentally propose or agree to something that screws over hi-sec in the wrong way. And Mike seems like a level headed sensible guy who understands that the game as a whole is interconnected.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8400
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 09:23:00 -
[267] - Quote
Incidentally, before anyone suggests it, my answer is no; "reserved" seats are a dreadful idea. The correct response for hi-sec is to start becoming more politcally aware. In the past, hi-sec inhabitants have never had much compelling incentive to communicate with each other and act in any organised fashion. There has never really been a need.
Now there is. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8408
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:08:00 -
[268] - Quote
Maybe I'll endorse him too! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8421
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:18:00 -
[269] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:More highsec manifesto questions -- you talk at the end about wanting some way for isk-pvp players to hit skill-pvp players. How do you think the situation of a skill-pvp group deccing a low-isk, low-skills group (e.g., a bunch of spacepoor and possibly new carebears) should be handled?
There comes a point where a corp is put to the test and they have to stand or fall on their own merits. CCP have already given the group you describe the best help possible with the tiercide project that made dirt-cheap T1 frigates & cruisers into fully viable PvP ships.
A corp wholly composed of new carebears is, to be frank, a bad corp. New players should be joining exisiting groups and learning how the hell things work first. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8423
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:02:00 -
[270] - Quote
Malc's recommended voting list
- Malcanis. Vote me!
I will publish the rest of my recommendations in 3 groups of 4: People I think that it's essential get elected, People I really would like to see elected, people I'd like to see elected. I'm not going to order within groups: make that decision yourselves. Many of you will be surprised that there are so many empire candidates on my recommended list, but I sincerely believe that nullsec will have all the representative power it needs if everyone on my slate were to be elected. I encourage you all to consider whether or not the CSM will do the best job of representing you by providing diversity of experitise and viewpoints or by uniformity.
Group 1:
Trebor. Trebor is our only "live link" to the previous CSMs, he has irreplaceable process and personal knowledge, he has experience in actually dealing with CCP and getting results that will otherwise take us precious time and political capital to work out for ourselves. On a personal note, he's been immensely helpful to my campaign, and without him I probably wouldn't be running. If you want to see Malc on the CSM, you should give Trebor a place on your preference list because you owe him if I do get elected.
Nathan Jameson. I think he's the pick of the W-space candidates, and his knowledge will be essential in what's going to be a very null-centric CSM
Ripard Teg. He's articulate, literate and persuasive. He has excellent experience in communicating to the EVE community, and he's in a group that practices some of the elitest PvP in the game. And he has admitted to being wrong at least once.
Mangala Solaris. A gentleman and memeber of RvB, he's the public face of an organisation which kept hi-sec PvP alive during the lean years and demonstrates that EVE can serve the casual player in ways that don't just mean PvEing. In many ways, Mangala & RvB are the embodiment of the principle I tried to promote with the hi-sec manifesto.
Group 2:
Mike Azariah. Mike represents a demographic that has little other chance of gaining a voice in this CSM: the little guy in hi-sec, the casual player who's not made it into a group yet, the fellow who hasn't made the connections that will give him comrades to stand beside him. Mike and I will almost certainly disagree about many things during CSM8, but that doesn't matter. He has a sensible, balanced view of EVE, he understands that the game is interconnected, and we need his voice on the CSM to make sure that Ordinary Joe doesn't get stepped on while the big buys are marching. Give Mike a place in your preference list because he's looking out for the guys that might be applying to your corp in a few months, that mine the trit for your battleships, that grind the LP for your faction ammo.
Roc Weiler. I have only just started to get to know Roc, and the delay has been my mistake and my loss. We want him on our team guys. His CSM thread doesn't do hIm justice, but that's OK; we have other good writers on the team. Roc is a guy who will make things happen.
Korvin. The Non-bloc RUS candidate we need to outreach to what is probably EVE's biggest non-English speaking community.
Psychotic Monk. Monk represents the other side of hi-sec from Mike, but this isn't Monk vs Mike, this is about making sure we have voices to represent playstyles and ensure that concerns from both side of the divide ar heard to give us a properly balanced CSM
Group 3:
Corebloodbrothers. Core has a great bottom-up perspective on 0.0 from outside the big blocs that will serve the CSM well. He's a solid PvPer, and he has the right ideas.
Mynnna. Mynnna will almost certainly not need any help from the likes of me recommending him, but why take that chance? On his own merits, he deserves a place in Group 1; I've only put him in group 3 because he has the CFC to back him. But if there's one thing I've learned in EVE it's not to take anything for granted. Mynnna brings the in-depth knowledge and intuitive understanding of large scale EVE economics that CSM8 will be crippled without. Make sure he's somewhere on your preferences.
Ali Aras. The voice of the new player, and a fine lady, we need Ali to have a balanced CSM and to provide an essential perspective from a demographic that many people make assumptions (and even Laws ) about, but which is rarely heard from directly.
Unforgiven Storm. He can provide the in depth industrial expertise that I personally want at hand to drive the argument to CCP that 0.0 needs the right industrial rebalance.
Shoutout slot:
Banlish. EVE's outpost and POS expert. The POS changes announced today are a good start, but CCP has a very long road to walk before POS and 0.0 outposts are where they should be. If you live in 0.0, you want Banlish on the CSM to guide CCP on the way. Like Mynnna, Banlish probably doesn't need my support and as with Mynnna, I am not taking anything for granted.
DISCLAIMER: SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE. NO REFUNDS. NO LIABILITY IS ACCEPTED IF ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS TURNS OUT TO BE A TERRIBLE FAILURE. THE VALUE OF YOUR VOTE MAY GO DOWN AS WELL AS UP. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8423
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:12:00 -
[271] - Quote
Apologies for the typos. This is what comes of trying to write whilst sober. It's a mistake I am glad to have made before I get elected rather than after. I will leave them in place as a monument to my shame. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8425
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:31:00 -
[272] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:I'm personally of the opinion that one of your "Group 1" candidate should be drop-kicked (and they most certainly will not appear on my list), but thanks for giving me some food for thought on a few candidates I hadn't even considered.
They're only my recommendations. I can't enforce them on anyone, and what's more, if you vote for me and then don't vote for a single candidate I listed, I will still not be ungrateful because at the end of the day, I'm campaigning for Malcanis, not those other 13 guys. I haven't even put them in strict order, I've only made my case for why I think they should be on your list
Nevertheless, I have listed the CSM I would ideally like to work within, and that list is there for you to follow or ignore or pick and choose from. You're entitled to judge me on it just as much as you are on any of my policy statements.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8425
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:41:00 -
[273] - Quote
Every vote for me counts! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8450
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:08:00 -
[274] - Quote
Missioning is a productive profession; it produces a relatively small net amount of pure ISK compared to the value of the wealth from the LP stores. Sorry if I didn't make that explicit. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8463
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:14:00 -
[275] - Quote
Lmagno wrote:Malcanis, you are my #1 candidate on my 3 accounts.
I will do the possible to convince my m8s to vote you
Much appreciated. Don't neglect your #2-14 candidate preferences though. You're selling yourself short if you don't fill up your preference list. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8466
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 06:26:00 -
[276] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Good thing CCP didn't make the voting UI terrible to use. :v:
It's fine as long as you have 30" HD monitors.
Everyone has 30" HD monitors, right? Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8571
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:57:00 -
[277] - Quote
The Lost In EVE debate #4 was constructive and I enjoyed being a part of it. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8586
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 09:50:00 -
[278] - Quote
Thanks guys, all votes gratefully received Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8595
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:20:00 -
[279] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:Does your position on microtransactions mean that you are not in favour of plex being sold for ISK? If you are in favour of plex being sold for ISK, then what is the difference between MT and plex4ISK?
I think PLEX is a fantastic system. It's probably one of the main reasons EVE is still exists
As for the difference between PLEX and "normal" MT, see here: http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=1542767%20br Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8597
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:49:00 -
[280] - Quote
Powers Sa wrote:How do you feel about highsec freighter kamikazee/suicide ganks? This is a very important issue.
I feel that they provide a small but necesary amount of risk for large scale empire logistics. Unless hi-sec is significantly restructured to provide a minimum baseline of risk in other ways then suicide ganking is here to stay. It's not the best possible mechanism - I'd prefer it a lot if CONCORD weren't totally inescapable, merely very difficult to escape. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8605
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 05:27:00 -
[281] - Quote
Che Biko wrote:Hmm, thanks for the answers. I already the difference. I think I was planning to ask someone what the difference was between PLEX and pay2win, but I don't think you were the one, now I think about it. I think I got confused somewhere. My bad. But hey, free bump, right?
Anyway, good luck, you're number 2 on my ballot at this time.
Your question was exactly that, though:
Che Biko wrote:Does your position on microtransactions mean that you are not in favour of plex being sold for ISK? If you are in favour of plex being sold for ISK, then what is the difference between MT and plex4ISK?
If you think I haven't answered that question, then you'll have to expand on it a little. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8677
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 10:56:00 -
[282] - Quote
Topically enough I had a bacon sandwich for breakfast. 2 slices wholegrain toast, 4 slices of smoked back bacon, and as an experiment, a smear of dijonaisse on the underside of the top slice of toast.
It was good. I might try honey mustard tomorrow. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8697
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:07:00 -
[283] - Quote
gascanu wrote:what's your position regarding the recent CCP "direction" nerffing resistance bonus?
On the whole I'm generally for it; resist bonuses are considerably better than any other tanking bonus. I'm not so sure that it should be applied as a "broad brush" nerf to every single ship with a resist bonus. HICs spring to mind straight away here.
Whilst consistency is a useful principle, it shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8697
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:54:00 -
[284] - Quote
gascanu wrote:Malcanis wrote:gascanu wrote:what's your position regarding the recent CCP "direction" nerffing resistance bonus? On the whole I'm generally for it; resist bonuses are considerably better than any other tanking bonus. I'm not so sure that it should be applied as a "broad brush" nerf to every single ship with a resist bonus. HICs spring to mind straight away here. Whilst consistency is a useful principle, it shouldn't be the tail that wags the dog. i'm sorry you think that way; rof bonuses are better than any other dmg bonunses, should they be nerfed too? then what's next? no votes from me
RoF bonuses aren't directly comparable to resist bonuses; most importantly, they don't scale in the same way. A local rep bonus can't benefit more than the reps the ship has fitted; resist bonuses benefit total EHP and remote rep bonuses, and a 25% resist bonus is barely less effective than a 37.5% local rep bonus is for local repping. Prima facia, this is clearly overpowered; no one would ever chose the local rep bonus over the resist bonus for their ship. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8697
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 08:29:00 -
[285] - Quote
gascanu wrote: let me ask you something: is by your logic eagle an overpowerd ship? or sacrilege?
No, they're both virtually worthless at the moment.
But you must concede that neither of them are terrible because they don't have enough resists. To turn your question around, would you fly either of them if the resist bonus was increased to 6%/level?
I'd trade off the Eagle's resist bonus for a RoF bonus in a heartbeat.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8709
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 06:42:00 -
[286] - Quote
Alx Warlord wrote: if CCP don't save Null-sec.. things will get worst and worst....
Agreed. Fortunately for us both, I believe that the argument has been made there. The job in front of us is to make sure that null gets "saved" in the right way, with an eye on creating a proper niche for the small independent groups as well as making sure that the average joe in the big groups can have more fun than just sitting on a titan or playing Tanks until the next ping to sit on a titan goes out.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:05:00 -
[287] - Quote
I think the CSM:CCP:Player dynamic has evolved considerably from what you think of the "glory days" of CSM 5 & 6. All the evidence is that CCP has dramatically changed their attitude to both the CSM and the players, and that this has been reflected in a change in the way the CSM operates. The CSM and CCP have become much more aligned on the ABC issues that need working on, and the CSM now spends most of its efforts in providing input into whether CCP should do A->B->C, or whether C needs to be rebalanced before A can be worked on or else we'll ruin B as a profession, and so on. The CSM are representing players very construnctively and usefully in this way. And we can measure their success by the result: we've seen a stream of excellent updates and communication from CCP over the last year, and EVE is in the best state it has been for a very long time.
In contrast, you seem to be stuck in the table-pounding 'us-vs-them' adversarial mindset, where the CSM's worth is measured in the drama produced and the media exposure generated, where the idea of the CSM working with CCP is what you call "brown nosing", and "representation" is defined as the CSM ~fearlessly~ opposing CCP. This was absolutely true of CSM5. It will almost certainly be completely wrong for CSM8. We're not interested in table pounding. We're not interested in generating drama. We're interesting in getting the best results.
I will represent the interests of the players to CCP. Your assurance of this is that I am one of the players. I said early on that my motivation for running for election is because I want EVE to be a better game to play, so that when my year is up, I can get back into playing a game that's better than it is now.
If for some bizzarre reason CCP lose their minds and start up again with the insanity of the :18 month: era, then I'll fight them tooth and nail, and with any dirty trick and every rhetorical device that I think might be effective, and I'm pretty sure that all of the other candidates will be doing the same.
But the contingency is remote. I'm very much afraid that you're going to have to cope with another year of CCP making mostly good decisions, mostly doing things that we like and mostly changing things for the better. However, I'll do my best to make sure that you don't have to cope with another year of the CSM working hard on working with CCP, but neglecting their responsibility to communicate that process back to the community. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:09:00 -
[288] - Quote
My reply above was in response to Flying Doom's question "Do you think it is the CSM's job to represent the players".
I assume he actually meant to ask this of another candidate rather than throw me such an easy softball Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:06:00 -
[289] - Quote
Well it was a quality soapbox opportunity, for which I thank you. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:10:00 -
[290] - Quote
Perhaps you might like to infer something from the fact that I was the only candidate paying close enough attention to the community to slip an answer in before you edited it Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8711
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:40:00 -
[291] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It's very, very easy to consider CSM7 as an ineffective CSM, simply because the only major thing I've seen the CSM7 being particularly involved in (not that I've been paying that much attention, but still) was the STV-gate.
Yep. It's not enough to do the work: you've got to be seen to do the work.
Raising the CSM's profile is one of my 3 main goals for this year. The CSM will be more valuable and it will do a better job if the players are given more opportunity to apprehend and appreciate how much work they do.
Every CSM since CSM4 has made a major improvement in the standing and influence of the following CSM, I don't want to be on the first CSM to break that tradition. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8711
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:43:00 -
[292] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:CSM5 only did that by making nullsec go "hey, morons, step away from the keyboard and let us show you how it's done", though. :v:
Cometh the hour, cometh the CSM. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8712
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:14:00 -
[293] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:On the bright side in 11 hours they can un-sticky all these threads and Jita park can go back to being a ghost town for a while.
Maybe until the results are announced. After that there'll be a huge boom in the A BLOO BLOO THE CSM IS A NULL FIX AND DOESN'T REPRESENT ME threads by a bunch of crying non-voters, to whom I will be savagely unsympathetic. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8712
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:44:00 -
[294] - Quote
Non voters should put in the effort to educate themselves as to why they should vote for me after all. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8712
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:32:00 -
[295] - Quote
Voting badges are a brilliant idea. CCP should enact them immediately.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8722
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:30:00 -
[296] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Before the polls close
1- How do you feel about the new STV voting system?
2- Do you understand it?
3- How do you feel about fact we can only identify 2 members of CSM7 who supported it?
4- Do you want it removed for a better or simpler system, while voting numbers are so low?
1- I am rather skeptical of it. Mathematically, it's rigorously fair. I feel that it suffers from failing to take the human factor into account; the voters aren't perfectly rational, they're not perfectly willing to do the level of research required, and it opens up some very worrying social engineering possibilities. In short, I feel that it hasn't been subjected to that fundamental test of any proposed change to EVE: "How could I exploit the everliving **** out of this to my own advantage."
2- I think I do.
3- I didn't know that, nor do I care much. On an issue like this, I feel that those 14 guys' opinions are only barely more relevant than any 14 random EVE players.
4- It's what we've got for this election. I accept the rules of engagement and I'll win or lose by them. Let the results do the talking. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8787
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 07:31:00 -
[297] - Quote
Thank you mate. Nothing to do now but wait. Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8815
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 20:35:00 -
[298] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:Malc, voting has closed and all... however CCP latest exercise in being bad at PR calls for one more question to you: CCP declared the only means of getting market data out of eve programmatically (cache scraping) as being against the EULA, thus giving the shaft to every single site or app that relies on market data. Wouldn't you agree that this situation is extremely unsatisfactory, and that a legitimate substitute that won't put 3rd party developers into the same dirty corner as botters is needed?
It does seem like a strange position to take. In a trivial sense, it doesn't matter at all: CCP can ban any of us, for any reason they like or no reason at all; there's no need to use "cache scraping" as an excuse if they want to kick one of us out. Obviously, that's not why people are worried.
I would be very, very surprised if CCP deliberately infracted an account just for using an app like EVEmon. Doing so would be so obviously suicidal that I think we can discount the possibility. I've been away over the weekend so I'm not fully up to speed wit the whole affair. I'll read more about it.
Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8815
|
Posted - 2013.04.23 21:49:00 -
[299] - Quote
I am gratified to note that my post announcing I will run for CSM this year finally has more likes than my post announcing I won't run for CSM last year. Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8886
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:41:00 -
[300] - Quote
Thank you all very much.
You sons of bitches, Odessey looks really good and now I'm not going to get to play it Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8888
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:04:00 -
[301] - Quote
No Malcanis' Law:-á "Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of 'new players', that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players."
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8889
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:34:00 -
[302] - Quote
Sig updated to reflect my theme for CSM 8.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8903
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:32:00 -
[303] - Quote
I'm on it.
Me and those scorpions.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8942
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 08:09:00 -
[304] - Quote
Nothing garners a man so much hatred as helping his fellows. Thus I expect and aspire to garnering plenty of lamentation!
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9003
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 20:19:00 -
[305] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things.
I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9033
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 08:34:00 -
[306] - Quote
Well I'm not going to repost private correspondance.
However, as your representative, I will take the time to enjoy on your behalf now and then.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9034
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 09:38:00 -
[307] - Quote
Temba Ronin wrote:I do not quite get the hostility being directed towards the newly "elected" CSM8 members.
It's all the more delicious because CSM 7 are still in effect until at least the end of the week.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9064
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 06:58:00 -
[308] - Quote
GallowsCalibrator wrote:Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things. I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ They hate because they love PS: You need to get blown up more your bounty is still huge
Word has gotten out that I'm such a bad it's not even worth targetting me
(The system works!)
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9100
|
Posted - 2013.05.05 08:46:00 -
[309] - Quote
For those of you who expressed concerns about my being a "bloc candidate", your worries are over.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9171
|
Posted - 2013.05.07 18:04:00 -
[310] - Quote
I haz a tag \o/
1 Kings 12:11
|
|
|
|
|