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) |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
339
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 08:23:00 -
[241] - Quote
Yup, barring unforseen circumstances. Just haven't made a thread yet, probably will just wait until official candidacy opens up. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Callduron
167
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:03:00 -
[242] - 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.
Arguable. They can be trivialised by bling but bling brings its own risks as you Goons know rather well. When I was doing them last year (and I don't believe the difficulty has changed much) we lost people often enough to make it interesting. It was also possible to escalate both risk and reward by popping the triggers and tanking multiple waves.
So while not high risk, certainly not risk free.
I also think that this is the kind of issue that sees us in danger of circular logic. Most people in high sec simply can't do excursions at all. They lack the leadership, the ability to do third party research and the contacts in the incursion community to get fleets. So they don't do them. If they did they'd get killed.
So it is high risk to those people but they don't run them at all rather than accept the dangers.
It's something that would be quite interesting to see the metrics on. What is the current score between Sanshas and us? Is it more dangerous to run a high sec incursion or a null sec anomaly? And if none of it is truly dangerous (since players can choose not to enter such sites if they'll probably die) why does one area of space have better reward than any other since all risk is equal except the risk from players. |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:06:00 -
[243] - Quote
Callduron wrote:Arguable. They can be trivialised by bling No, you don't need bling to run incursions, except in a "I must wring the most isk/hour out of this as possible" or "you must be this tall to ride this ride" manner. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Callduron
167
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:11:00 -
[244] - Quote
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7271
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 10:40:00 -
[245] - 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 |
Callduron
167
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 11:09:00 -
[246] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7271
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 12:14:00 -
[247] - 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 |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1114
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 13:44:00 -
[248] - Quote
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7271
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:01:00 -
[249] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:07:00 -
[250] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Vote Herr Ronin for someone who REALLY knows high-sec. Let's see his manifesto:
Incursions War Mechanics Mission Running
Extensive list, indeed, and is certain to bring new prosperity to hisec, and balance hisec with the other security statuses in meaningful ways. I can definitely see why he would be someone's first choice. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1650
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:49:00 -
[251] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. *cough cough*
Can we leave the senseless attacks against conspiracy theories 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.
7273
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 14:54:00 -
[252] - Quote
Sounds like something THEY would say
<.< >.> -.- Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Xenuria
The Scope Gallente Federation
694
|
Posted - 2013.01.22 15:46:00 -
[253] - Quote
I am actually impressed, you would have my vote if I wasn't already going to vote for myself. In the best of worlds I look forward to working with you. CSM 8 Candidate Philanthropist Polymath Savant Hero |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Black Legion.
1005
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 08:42:00 -
[254] - Quote
I want to like Malcanis' candidacy. But then I see Frying Doom supports him. I feel like I'm being tricked. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7292
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 08:56:00 -
[255] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1651
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 09:54:00 -
[256] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I want to like Malcanis' candidacy. But then I see Frying Doom supports him. I feel like I'm being tricked. Ok one of the hardest posts I have ever had to frame in my mind. Why would I support a candidate from Null sec.
Well let us start with some of the standard things most Null candidates say. (Well how it comes across to me anyway)
Q: What do you think should happen to Hi-sec Industry A: Hi-sec is only a starting area, so Hi-sec should be nerfed and they should have to move to lo-sec or Null sec.
Q: What about small corps that don't want to join a large Null alliance. A: Oh they need to go to Null so we can have target practice.
Q: Do you think the CSM should be a body for the whole of EvE. A: No it makes a better lobby group for Null sec.
Q: Where do you think CCP should spend its resources? A: Null
Q: Ok after Null where should it spend the rest of its resources? A: Null
And so on.
There are those who still want the CSM to be a Null sec lobby group and a title for their alliance but little more than that. But CCP will never take a Null sec lobby group seriously. Now the balance of CSM 7 has helped but other factors have hindered it.
Malcanis, well he does not fit the profile of someone who is all for Null, his approach seems to cover the who game. This approach has now become more valuable with CCPs theme approach as I like the idea of having a CSM member who actually seems to understand the game and how it interlocks.
In a recent thread I learned Malcanis's views on a lot of EvE and his views for the future are similar to mine. Not the same but similar.
My future view of EvE is actually very simple it is Risk vs Reward and works kind of like this Lowest risk to highest risk.
- NPC corp member
- Hi-sec player corp member
- Lo-sec player corp member
- NPC Null sec player corp member
- SOV Null sec corp member
- Wormhole player corp member
Now I can hear people say but an Null NPC corp member is risking more than a hi-sec NPC corp member. Well they are not really, they are risking what they are flying and nothing else.
NPC facilities should be the lower bracket in any space, Players in corporations risk POSs, Outposts and infrastructure such as logistics that NPC corps just don't have.
With this Dangerous space needs to grow, for example I am in favour of a usage based Sov system so it removes the structure grind but actually means to keep the area you just forced someone out of you must use it yourself to get Sov or just keep it empty to make it go back to unclaimed space. But the whole thing comes back to risk vs reward, Null players should be rewarded more han hi-sec ones but at the same time players spending hundreds of millions of isk on a POS in hi-sec should be rewarded more than someone just using NPC facilities.
So as I said risk vs reward and Malcanis seems to know risk vs reward better over the whole game than any candidate I have ever seen before so I am voting for him. It really is that simple.
Yes rambling a bit in this one sorry.
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 09:58:00 -
[257] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
What you have stated above is spot on, and has almost certainly earned you my vote. However I would like to hear you opinions on cloaky AFK camping. Do you think this is balanced? The vision you describe above is NEVER going to happen while AFK cloaky campers are impossible to counter.
Don't Panic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7294
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:05:00 -
[258] - 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 |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Black Legion.
1006
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:22:00 -
[259] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote:Alekseyev Karrde wrote:I want to like Malcanis' candidacy. But then I see Frying Doom supports him. I feel like I'm being tricked. Ok one of the hardest posts I have ever had to frame in my mind. Why would I support a candidate from Null sec. Well let us start with some of the standard things most Null candidates say. (Well how it comes across to me anyway) Q: What do you think should happen to Hi-sec Industry A: Hi-sec is only a starting area, so Hi-sec should be nerfed and they should have to move to lo-sec or Null sec. Q: What about small corps that don't want to join a large Null alliance. A: Oh they need to go to Null so we can have target practice. Q: Do you think the CSM should be a body for the whole of EvE. A: No it makes a better lobby group for Null sec. Q: Where do you think CCP should spend its resources? A: Null Q: Ok after Null where should it spend the rest of its resources? A: Null And so on. There are those who still want the CSM to be a Null sec lobby group and a title for their alliance but little more than that. But CCP will never take a Null sec lobby group seriously. Now the balance of CSM 7 has helped but other factors have hindered it. Malcanis, well he does not fit the profile of someone who is all for Null, his approach seems to cover the who game. This approach has now become more valuable with CCPs theme approach as I like the idea of having a CSM member who actually seems to understand the game and how it interlocks. In a recent thread I learned Malcanis's views on a lot of EvE and his views for the future are similar to mine. Not the same but similar. My future view of EvE is actually very simple it is Risk vs Reward and works kind of like this Lowest risk to highest risk.
- NPC corp member
- Hi-sec player corp member
- Lo-sec player corp member
- NPC Null sec player corp member
- SOV Null sec corp member
- Wormhole player corp member
Now I can hear people say but an Null NPC corp member is risking more than a hi-sec NPC corp member. Well they are not really, they are risking what they are flying and nothing else. NPC facilities should be the lower bracket in any space, Players in corporations risk POSs, Outposts and infrastructure such as logistics that NPC corps just don't have. With this Dangerous space needs to grow, for example I am in favour of a usage based Sov system so it removes the structure grind but actually means to keep the area you just forced someone out of you must use it yourself to get Sov or just keep it empty to make it go back to unclaimed space. But the whole thing comes back to risk vs reward, Null players should be rewarded more han hi-sec ones but at the same time players spending hundreds of millions of isk on a POS in hi-sec should be rewarded more than someone just using NPC facilities. So as I said risk vs reward and Malcanis seems to know risk vs reward better over the whole game than any candidate I have ever seen before so I am voting for him. It really is that simple. Yes rambling a bit in this one sorry. I guess my question is what in particular about Malcanis places him outside of your empty-chair-0.0-CSM-Rep (regardless of how it comes across to you, no one actually says any of those things except maybe number 1 and even then none of the "they should have to move" stuff) .
Your future EVE is one I share too (maybe move WH above sov), and I think most of the rest of the CSM, certainly the null sec guys like Elise and Seleene, would agree with like 90% of that stuff.
But those facts don't ever seem to connect with you. So why Mal? "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7295
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:29:00 -
[260] - 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 |
|
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:36:00 -
[261] - Quote
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. What's needed is a way to scan down and kill these guys. If they are not AFK then they are always going to avoid being caught, and if they are AFK then they deserve to be blown up.
However, you make a lot of sense on many subjects, and I'm sure you will make a very good CSM member. best of luck! Don't Panic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7297
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 10:43:00 -
[262] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1651
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:02:00 -
[263] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote: I guess my question is what in particular about Malcanis places him outside of your empty-chair-0.0-CSM-Rep (regardless of how it comes across to you, no one actually says any of those things except maybe number 1 and even then none of the "they should have to move" stuff) .
Your future EVE is one I share too (maybe move WH above sov), and I think most of the rest of the CSM, certainly the null sec guys like Elise and Seleene, would agree with like 90% of that stuff.
But those facts don't ever seem to connect with you. So why Mal?
Ok part of it was due to the fact my own perspective has changed.
For years we have seen resources wasted on NUll that have ended up causing the abortion it is now. I was against wasting more resources on it but now we have just seen a huge amount of resources spent on Hi-sec and now it is time for a change mostly to systems so unloved their mothers would not want them.
Ok what has been my largest problem with CSM7 is one of the biggest reasons I will vote for Malcanis.
These forums. He is a regular logical poster, who I can understand and who does not run from what he types.
Was CSM7 more transparent than 6, yes but it still had the same problem of the fact that some of the candidates, I still don't know what they think, while others I have had to go from site to site to find out what they actually stand for.
Take Seleene's posting stats for instance, they are actually really impressive 7 563 804 characters types over 9 years but of that only 6.18% of his posts have been in Jita park. I have actually started to find more of what Seleene has written since I started to look at reddit.
Now the biggest problem I saw with CSM7 myself (Besides the constant praise of CCP) you had the ability to chose albeit quickly, a new chairman and the deck went straight to Null, again you might have decided Seleene was the best leader but without seeing your discussions it just looked like lets vote for Null and an ex-CCP employee as well. (I added that last bit as I see the CSM much like a Union and frankly in a Union you would never vote ex-management in to run it)
So while you say you agree with 90% of what I have said (which is great btw) and that most of the CSM probably would as well is also great. So it comes down to this. Why didn't I know? I read these pages everyday, One of the CSMs I think it was Trebor hinted he has similar ideas in a Null sec thread, then later joked with me (which I took the wrong way and attacked, then apologized) but at the end of the day, I did not know the views of the current CSMs given EvE as a whole approach.
At the start of CSM 7 their was a thread in which it was suggested CSM take a greater role in these forums, some did like Seleene's AMA but again that was an ask not the CSM member is involved, yes some things are NDA but your personal views cannot be nor should any member be silent for the sake of unity. You are all different people elected for different reasons, yes you should be seen to ***** argue and fight for the sake of those who elected you. This harmonious front has just caused a lack of information about what you actually stand for.
That is probably why I am happy to vote for Malcanis, he engages in frequent and logical discussions on these forums, I know his views and I know he has the ability to see EvE as a whole not just a part. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1651
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:03:00 -
[264] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Bingo Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:07:00 -
[265] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
We are not discussing whether cloaky campers can shut down my alliances or not. In my experience, it's usually easy enough to tell which ones are AFK and can be ignored, and which ones constitute a genuine threat. My main objection is that their activities involve no risk.
Don't Panic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7299
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:11:00 -
[266] - Quote
"No risk"? Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Intex Encapor
15
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 11:33:00 -
[267] - Quote
the afk cloaker itself is not real threat to anyone, just the combination of him and cynos is the point where stuff gets annoying.
as you can never know how much people the guy is bringing with him, the shutting down operations, by presence, is working very well.(been there done that) |
Callduron
170
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:29:00 -
[268] - Quote
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? |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:32:00 -
[269] - Quote
Callduron wrote:sov war to become more about ship to ship How would this be done in a way which isn't exploitative? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1463
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:34:00 -
[270] - 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? 1v1 honour duels at the sun, first alliance to 100 kills wins sov. Titans were never meant to be "cost effective", its a huge ****.-á- CCP Oveur, 2006
~If you want a picture of the future of WiS, imagine a spaceship, stamping on an avatar's face. Forever. |
|
|
|
|
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 |