Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Xander Phoena
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
25
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:49:00 -
[211] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:55:00 -
[212] - 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 |
Golar Crexis
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 13:28:00 -
[213] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
First of all thanks for taking the time to reply and clarify your position.
I just want to clarify the key points of mine that you talked about.
Firstly I based my arguement on null-sec rats because that's what i'm used to. I would also like to point out pizza are certainly not the only group, even in null-sec, affected by the change. I have heard missioner ganking and flipping where also affected by the new rat AI and not just crimewatch although I certainly can't speak form them but I hope someone else here will.
As you have said it is already hard enough to get on grid with a ratter. In a perfect Scenario were I was the best tackler in the entire game with an actual bookmark of the ratters site (for fastest possible non awox tackle) and the ratter was semi-competent and not afk. I would still lose, everytime.
Before The new ai came in the old system heavily favoured ratters. Someone running a plex with no tackling rats (forsaken hubs are considered one of the better isk/hr anoms) and were actually at their keyboard could spot a neut in local with 5-15 seconds and warp out with 20-30. In other words we could only catch idiots. Now with the New rat ai the ratters have another way to escape (apart from actaully playing eve) and that is for the rats to kill the tackle.
So to sum up ccp (by accident hopefully) took what was already a hard profession and made it almost impossible.
What I would ideally like to happen is for ccp to change the rat AI across all of eve to allow the chance of killing ratters solo. Failing that I would like you as a CSM member (you are definitely gonna get it) to get ccp to clarify once and for all if they are aware of what they have changed and if they support removing risk from null-sec (and to some extent hi-sec).
So TL;DR I would argue CCP removed a great deal of risk from PVE in null-sec |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 13:50:00 -
[214] - 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 |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
806
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:13:00 -
[215] - Quote
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 We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 14:42:00 -
[216] - 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 |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1030
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:32:00 -
[217] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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?
I believe it gives risk averse "pirates" another income stream.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 15:36:00 -
[218] - 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 |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
806
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:01:00 -
[219] - Quote
1. Small Gang Objectives 2. reasons to actually defend owned space from roamers
this highly depends on the scale to which this is possible and also on the income that could come from it, it's a very delicate balancing issue
but one of the things that are really missing in eve are objectives for small gangs that could actually generate fights, for the attacker because of the profits and the fact that he can damage his target economically, and for the defender because he might actually loose something when he is not actively defending his space
Still, a large industry fix has to come first to give targets for this, from highsec to nullsec, more button up alliance income, structures that are worth using, all that stuff ... We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 16:25:00 -
[220] - 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 |
|
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
806
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:01:00 -
[221] - Quote
like i said, industry has to be fixed first ;) (and a lot of fixes for industry in general come with fixing POSes)
how would you promote small gang stuff ? we both agree that more people, especially more industrials need to live in nullsed (migrate their alts there), however, hunting ratters and miners in nullsec is not very exciting and does very little to promote actual fights, and those fights are the things people will remember We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7232
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:03:00 -
[222] - 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 |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
806
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:08:00 -
[223] - Quote
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) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7233
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:26:00 -
[224] - 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 |
vikari
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
60
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:31:00 -
[225] - Quote
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? |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
806
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 21:34:00 -
[226] - Quote
the only damage the bad guys could cause in this case is the damage they deal to those who don't pay attention and to those who "can not" create an income because there is someone in system or very close
i would much rather see reasons for those hiding under the pos shield or in station to leave their safe haven because something really bad happens (can happen) if they don't. like loosing stuff from a running reaction, a BPC from a lab, minerals from a refinery (they should not be instant), ...
this should not be limited to moon harvesting, but to all kinds of industrial activity We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1037
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 22:13:00 -
[227] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:the only damage the bad guys could cause in this case is the damage they deal to those who don't pay attention and to those who "can not" create an income because there is someone in system or very close
i would much rather see reasons for those hiding under the pos shield or in station to leave their safe haven because something really bad happens (can happen) if they don't. like loosing stuff from a running reaction, a BPC from a lab, minerals from a refinery (they should not be instant), ...
this should not be limited to moon harvesting, but to all kinds of industrial activity
The idea with the modular POS system was that there wouldn't be POS bubbles anymore. The modules would have a certain amount of structure, perhaps boosted by various other modules or the size of the power core tower. Perhaps you'd be able to grind just one module that you wanted to try and pop, which would force people to come defend it. If they allow docking, and you're taking out their reaction silo, they're going to want to undock to stop you before you destroy it. Perhaps they still keep reinforced mode, but it only stops you from destroying the module, not unlocking the contents.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7242
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 12:33:00 -
[228] - 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 |
vikari
Infinite Covenant Tribal Band
62
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:20:00 -
[229] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:the effects from the input that CSM x has are usually seen during the term of CMS x+1
Very good point, and I appreciate your answers. I think most of us can agree with your statements, they most definitely outline areas which need review. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7245
|
Posted - 2013.01.20 17:36:00 -
[230] - 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 |
|
M'aak'han
C-7
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 00:17:00 -
[231] - Quote
Glad to see you running for CSM You'll have my vote. |
Thorn Galen
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
1082
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:27:00 -
[232] - Quote
I have always followed your conversations, your posts and replies. I cannot recall where you have being insulting or otherwise unresponsive. I asked you last year if you would be running as my choice was you or Hans. You had stated at the time that you would not be running for CSM7, so I voted for Hans (Good job, Hans!)
Malcanis, you Sir, have my vote for CSM8.
Considering that I am a member of an Alliance who in turn is a member of a collection of NRDS Alliances, would you consider requesting CCP increase the number of Standings slots, especially at Alliance level ? I find it very limited in it's current capacity. Yes I know, why so many 'REDS' ? NRDS is probably one of the most difficult RoE's to maintain, hundreds of Standings slots are required to maintain proper standings.
I know NBSI is a lot easier, but that is not the only RoE in this game.
Just a thought, a request.
Good luck on the upcoming CSM election o7
(if you were for any reason to stand-down, I would re-vote Hans if he runs again). Personnel Division Director --áBene Gesserit Chapterhouse
"The universe is an ancient desert, a vast wasteland with only occasional habitable planets as oases. We Fremen, comfortable with deserts, shall now venture into another." - STILGAR, From the Sietch to the Stars. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7266
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 10:41:00 -
[233] - 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 |
Callduron
164
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 13:54:00 -
[234] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Finally, I am - no false modesty here - a ~good poster~.
I think this is generally true and I've read many of your posts on Kugu. However it's not true of the original post here.
You start reasonably enough establishing your credentials and The Initiative is a solid alliance. But when you come on to talk about your manifesto your post falls apart.
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.
Instead you do some very lazy linkage. Your link to your high sec policies for instance goes to a 2 year old post where what you want urgently is for different high sec security statuses to matter (done - by Miniluv); reform of the bounty hunter system (done - by CCP) and high risk high reward high sec gameplay (done - by Incursions). Rolling out this antique is simply insulting.
I didn't even bother checking the Mittani links. If you can't be bothered to give us a clear picture of what you stand for that is relevant to 2013 I'm sure there will be plenty of other candidates who will. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7266
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 14:21:00 -
[235] - 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 |
samualvimes
Brothers At Arms Black Core Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 18:19:00 -
[236] - Quote
Definitely supporting. In the last few years of reading these forums, whenever Malcanis posts I can be assured of a well reasoned thought out post with logical and sound conclusions. A quality that is sadly missing in a lot of peoples brains.
+1 Vote to you good sir! |
Callduron
165
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 21:46:00 -
[237] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
I appreciate the grace with which you take the criticism.
If I could ask about one more thing that intrigues me: Malcanis' Law. Where do you stand on the balance between poor new players and rich old players, having so aptly summarised how it plays out in Eve. This is likely to be particularly relevant during your term as we'll see the T2 re-balance and a lot of pressure to restore the gap. Personally I rather like it that a Omen/Augoror gang can be at least a little dangerous to a Zealot/Guardian gang if the former plays well and the latter plays badly. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7269
|
Posted - 2013.01.21 22:11:00 -
[238] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
335
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 02:32:00 -
[239] - Quote
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 post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7270
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 07:32:00 -
[240] - 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 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |