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) |
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." |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
292
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:57:00 -
[2] - Quote
Who? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6949
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 17:58:00 -
[3] - 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 |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1361
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:03:00 -
[4] - Quote
Hell yes. 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. |
Tek Handle
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1399927 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6949
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:06:00 -
[6] - 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 |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
292
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 18:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
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 |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
297
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
Most excellent. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6950
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 19:18:00 -
[9] - 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 |
Hans Jagerblitzen
Autocannons Anonymous Late Night Alliance
3835
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:06:00 -
[10] - Quote
There are arguably few EVE Online players more suited for CSM duty than Malcanis. I am happy to endorse his candidacy for CSM8. Elect this man folks, you'll be glad you did. Vice Secretary of the 7th Council of Stellar Management.
|
|
Alphea Abbra
Grim Determination Nulli Secunda
110
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 20:07:00 -
[11] - Quote
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:There are arguably few EVE Online players more suited for CSM duty than Malcanis. I am happy to endorse his candidacy for CSM8. Elect this man folks, you'll be glad you did. He will get my third vote (The one you got last election) then.
|
Barbaro55a
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 21:03:00 -
[12] - Quote
It's about bloody time, a well thought out platform - you have my vote! |
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2439
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 21:52:00 -
[13] - Quote
My criteria for what makes a good CSM are simple: the ability to think clearly, argue dispassionately, write well, and above all, work hard at all the unglamorous stuff that rarely gets noticed but is the key to success. Malcanis has repeatedly proved that he has all these qualities.
I will be sorely disappointed if Malcanis fails to exceed my high expectations of him, both in the campaign and (hopefully) on CSM8.
Good luck, m8. The Sarcasm is Strong with Me GÇó Member of CSM 5-7 GÇó Blog |
BuRniZZ
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
3
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 22:00:00 -
[14] - Quote
Read his manifesto, if you're not convinced about his potential on CSM, ask here. You will be convinced. You have all my votes! |
Isbariya
The Dancer. Initiative Mercenaries
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 22:27:00 -
[15] - Quote
Malc, I belive in you mate, glad you decided to run for CSM, you got my votes and respect. Though the later you had before but doesn't mater |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1587
|
Posted - 2013.01.11 22:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Yep you got my votes Malcanis. Any Spelling, gramatical and literary errors made by me are included free of charge.
|
Krebskasper
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
4
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 01:18:00 -
[17] - Quote
You got my vote. And I can only encourage everyone to take the time to read through Malcanis' brilliant proposals. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
172
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 03:31:00 -
[18] - Quote
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. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2088
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 03:48:00 -
[19] - Quote
Honestly thought was a troll when I clicked the link on your sig. Will get my vote. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6964
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 06:35:00 -
[20] - 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 -
[21] - 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 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6326
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 07:09:00 -
[22] - Quote
Malcanis for Chairman :V ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Seleene
Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion
2359
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 10:37:00 -
[23] - Quote
Hell yes. Very happy to see this. CSM 7 Chairman My Blog - Where I say stuff Follow Seleene on Twitter! |
rswfire
Fire Incorporated DRACONIAN COVENANT
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 12:41:00 -
[24] - Quote
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.
I don't agree with your high-sec proposal other than to say, yes, it has evolved into more than just a new player area. There's nothing wrong with this, and it doesn't need fixing. Why can't you just accept not everyone wants to play the game the way that you do? I do not understand this ongoing debate. How are you inconvenienced by the way high-sec is now when you have so much more of the game at your disposal, where presumably you enjoy spending your time anyway?
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. I'm glad you have people supporting you, and perhaps you'll get the job. If you do, I wish you the best of luck. Please remember, you're there not to serve just your personal interests. You're there to serve the best interests of Eve, and that means taking a step back and seeing what Eve is, where it's going, what will grows its player-base, and not what you believe it was once meant to be, and how to get it back there. As if that were even possible. Fire Incorporated is recruiting. -áIf you're looking for a nice group of players, check us out. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=182994 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:28:00 -
[25] - 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 -
[26] - 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 |
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:41:00 -
[27] - Quote
Looks promising, I do like your Hi Sec proposals and a rework of the wardec system in particular. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:49:00 -
[28] - 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 |
rswfire
Fire Incorporated DRACONIAN COVENANT
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:52:00 -
[29] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
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.
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? How does high-sec affect you? If you like life in low-sec or null-sec, then spend your time there and enjoy it. Allow us to enjoy high-sec the way that it is. I've been recruiting people into my corp for about a month now, and some of them leave to move onto low-sec and null-sec because that is what interests them. I support that. So it can't be that "everyone will stay in high-sec unless you force them out of it." You actually proposed that; never be allowed to enter 1.0 space again after leaving it! That's insane to me. High-sec is "mostly secure" but it still has its risks. And that to me is realistic. In the known universe, where there are other species, they most assuredly have huge swaths of space that are more secure than others. That is realistic to me. Eve does not have to be PvP for everyone, all the time. And if you limit it to that, you will be limiting the enjoyment many of us will have, and we'll leave. If that's what you want, then keep proposing that. I'm just not sure it will work out for the best interests of Eve.
I don't want to rain on your parade or troll your forum. I'm not going to do that. I really didn't even want to write a reply, but I felt it was necessary given your response. Good luck in your candidacy. Fire Incorporated is recruiting. -áIf you're looking for a nice group of players, check us out. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=182994 |
Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
89
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:53:00 -
[30] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Indeed but still relevant
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 13:58:00 -
[31] - 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 |
rswfire
Fire Incorporated DRACONIAN COVENANT
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:03:00 -
[32] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Malcanis, do you really want to keep engaging me? Like I said, this is your candidacy thread and I'm not here to troll it. There shouldn't be a bunch of back-and-forth between you and I here. If you really want my opinions, I'll put them in an evemail and send them to you. As for your first point, I'm happy to concede that. I hope that you make it very clear which issues you would compromise on, and which you would not. Also, your thread is far newer than I realized when I first posted; you're obviously just ramping up. Fire Incorporated is recruiting. -áIf you're looking for a nice group of players, check us out. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=182994 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:08:00 -
[33] - 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 -
[34] - 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 |
rswfire
Fire Incorporated DRACONIAN COVENANT
5
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:16:00 -
[35] - Quote
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
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. Fire Incorporated is recruiting. -áIf you're looking for a nice group of players, check us out. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=182994 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6966
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 14:39:00 -
[36] - 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 -
[37] - 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 |
fukier
RISE of LEGION
677
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 15:23:00 -
[38] - Quote
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... At the end of the game both the pawn and the Queen go in the same box. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6970
|
Posted - 2013.01.12 16:19:00 -
[39] - 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 |
Vortexo VonBrenner
Coldest Sea Sailing
16
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 03:51:00 -
[40] - Quote
Good. I think you have the potential to do well. Having also read a lot of the stuff you've posted, I would say you're not extremely biased for or against any particular area/style of play in this game...and have some pretty good (*gasp!*) opinions. I'm listening to-áBj+¦rk, playing EVE, eating fishsticks, and I'm cold....this is immersion gaming. |
|
Lord MuffloN
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
42
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 04:22:00 -
[41] - Quote
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.
Not because he is blue to me, not because he partially plays in null or anything of the sort, no, it's because he is an intelligent man who can easily stand his ground in any debate, articulate in his reasoning and razor sharp logic on points that go asides matters of taste.
Malcanis for CSM8! |
Kenpachi Viktor
Gradient Electus Matari
233
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 07:11:00 -
[42] - Quote
Now that Hans has stated he is not running for CSM 8, all my votes will be going to Malcanis. What is the point if every race has an Jam/Damp/Disruptor/ ship etc? Not every race has to be a fluffy little mirror of each other, it's seriously not needed. Things like Gallente having the only drone BS and Caldari having the only ECM BS are incredibly cool distinctions that only add to EVE in both game play value and flavour. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6992
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 08:27:00 -
[43] - 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 |
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2089
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 09:03:00 -
[44] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Well, I voted for Hans last year with my accounts. Haven't profiled the rest of the candidates, but sure as hell hoping you make it,mate.
p.s glad to hear dad is well now :) |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1370
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 10:00:00 -
[45] - Quote
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? 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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6994
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:22:00 -
[46] - 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 |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
1004
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 11:50:00 -
[47] - Quote
Interesting |
Kaelyn Sochura
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 12:12:00 -
[48] - Quote
Whenever I read one of your articles, I can't miss that you really seem to think of the game as a whole, not just an assorted bunch of playstyles working against each other. I think that is exactly the quality a good candidate needs. You can count on my votes. |
Inggroth
Fremen Sietch DarkSide.
28
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 22:15:00 -
[49] - Quote
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 block-warfare 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?
How do you feel about ideas that are/were at some point being discussed? (reducing eHP of structures/scrambling rats/constellation-wide structures inhibiting ratting potential/delayed local/ you name it)?
Now i'm aware that CCP pretty much shelved everything directly affecting 0.0 for the near future apart from revamping POSes (which of course is a big deal). I'm also aware 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 be improved/should look like. |
Dibblerette
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
132
|
Posted - 2013.01.13 22:50:00 -
[50] - Quote
@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 |
|
Some Rando
University of Caille Gallente Federation
667
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 01:45:00 -
[51] - Quote
I have two votes for you, ~good poster~, and a not-blank-anymore sig. Malcanis for CSM8 |
Wescro
Dreamscape Technologies
126
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 05:22:00 -
[52] - Quote
What do you mean by "no troll this time"? What happened last time?
Also woe befall any noob who accidentally jumps out of his 1.0 crib system and gets locked out in the woods with all the bad bad high sec pirates. The idea is right (protect noobs) but the policy is bad (super secure crib system). It cuts noobs off any meaningful interaction until they are outside, which is self-defeating. Also, it's far too easy to accidentally venture out and get locked out.
Why am I an expert in noob care? I tried to get 3 of my friends into EVE, on 3 different occasions. None of them made it past the trial period. The problem is noobs get too little interaction, not too much.
I say drop the smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation. You have a keyboard. Use it, or lose your mining ship.http://www.minerbumping.com/ |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
183
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 05:29:00 -
[53] - Quote
Wescro wrote:
I say drop them smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation.
Planetside 2 does this and even to someone familiar with FPSes it's hilariously off-putting. I don't recommend it, at least not for a game as complicated as Eve. 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.
6998
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 07:36:00 -
[54] - 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 -
[55] - 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 |
Milton Middleson
Rifterlings Damu'Khonde
222
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 08:18:00 -
[56] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 09:12:00 -
[57] - 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 -
[58] - 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 |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
619
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 10:37:00 -
[59] - Quote
Perhaps I missed it somewhere but what's your stance on jump bridges, jump capable ships and power projection? Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:00:00 -
[60] - 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 |
|
Kinis Deren
EVE University Ivy League
133
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:11:00 -
[61] - Quote
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?
Are you in favour of "wormhole stabilizers" or other such mechanics to grant WH access to large fleets?
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
6999
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 11:20:00 -
[62] - 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 -
[63] - 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 |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1377
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:51:00 -
[64] - Quote
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.
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7002
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 12:58:00 -
[65] - 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 |
Di Mulle
88
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:39:00 -
[66] - Quote
Bad news for my current CSM representatives...
Malcanis will definitely steal some of my votes.
Fully endorsing and wishing all the best. <<Insert some waste of screen space here>> |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7003
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 14:51:00 -
[67] - 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 |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
310
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 15:57:00 -
[68] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7007
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:02:00 -
[69] - 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 |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4264
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:27:00 -
[70] - Quote
Malcanis is a solidly good poster who clearly has thought about EVE a lot and really understands the game. Pretty much everyone should give him a serious look, as I'm sure the CSM would be a lot better with him on it: he is one of the people who will be able to understand what something CCP is proposing will do and understand the flaws in it well enough to give meaningful feedback that will improve the final product. |
|
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4264
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:31:00 -
[71] - Quote
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. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
184
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:49:00 -
[72] - Quote
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.
Having discussed and commented on the issue extensively all over the place, I can confirm that the bolded statement is true. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Zulimu
Ordo Drakonis Nulli Secunda
6
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 16:58:00 -
[73] - Quote
Good thing you-¦re running this time m8, makes voting so much easier :)
+1 vote |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
299
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:11:00 -
[74] - Quote
Wescro wrote:What do you mean by "no troll this time"? What happened last time?
Also woe befall any noob who accidentally jumps out of his 1.0 crib system and gets locked out in the woods with all the bad bad high sec pirates. The idea is right (protect noobs) but the policy is bad (super secure crib system). It cuts noobs off any meaningful interaction until they are outside, which is self-defeating. Also, it's far too easy to accidentally venture out and get locked out.
Why am I an expert in noob care? I tried to get 3 of my friends into EVE, on 3 different occasions. None of them made it past the trial period. The problem is noobs get too little interaction, not too much.
I say drop them smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation.
^^
This, so many times.
EVE is a complicated game, but the solution is to ease them into it, not to allow them to learn habits that will serve them poorly in the long term. Social engagement is critically important to retention, and right now it's haphazard at best. There are lone wolves who carve their own way just fine, but that should not be the expectation in a "massively multi-user" anything, and all of the most successful player organizations in EVE are a testimony to the importance of new players meeting and joining up with other players. Lone wolves will always be able to take care of themselves, or at least convince themselves that they can.
One possibility would be to split newbies up over the various 1.0 to 0.8 systems, so that none of them got too crowded. This would make it easier for the people who hang out in the NPC corps as helpers: They wouldn't necessarily have to handle questions from hundreds of new players at once. To make this work, have Aura appear as an agent wherever you are (after all, she's with you all the time) until you complete her tutorial missions. Then, allow the career agent missions (at the very least) to be accepted and completed remotely by players in the relevant factions, so that you don't have to spam the career agents all over high sec.
The main reason for the above is that Corp chat, and even Local, are better resources for new players than Rookie Help. Rookie Help isn't useless, but it's unbelievably spammy, and there are trolls. All of the best advice that I got as a true newbie was from an old pirate hanging out in the NPC Corp channel. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7009
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:19:00 -
[75] - 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 -
[76] - 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 |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
299
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 20:31:00 -
[77] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
That's cool. And anyway, it's less important than connecting newbies to more experienced players; even if the systems were 'gated' (they already are, in terms of ganking) there would at least be someone around to tell the new players what they should get used to and what they shouldn't.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1591
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:02:00 -
[78] - Quote
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 Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
186
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:12:00 -
[79] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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"
Weaselior's point was exactly that, though - the conclusion to draw from the insider trading scandal was that CCP didn't do the math and ignored players who did, which is why the dude who did the inside trading thing bought Neo. I know that I looked at the market myself around the time and saw his buy (they didn't say what he bought but moongoo was the obvious assumption), and I don't remember there being anything but Neo. Not even Thulium. 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.
7010
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 22:13:00 -
[80] - 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 -
[81] - 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 -
[82] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1591
|
Posted - 2013.01.14 23:36:00 -
[83] - Quote
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 Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
187
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 00:29:00 -
[84] - Quote
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. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4266
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 00:29:00 -
[85] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Ah, I misread his "nobody realised...". He meant nobody realised until the changes were released. Gotcha. Right, Akita T figured it out eventually (can't remember if it was before it was live or not), but before then CCP and the CSM clearly thought neodymium would be the winner out of the rebalance. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7013
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 07:48:00 -
[86] - 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 -
[87] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1593
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 08:20:00 -
[88] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. I have no plans for White knighting as you call it, that was just a demonstration to show that the voting is to easily rigged, getting the bottom candidate out of 20 and getting them on the CSM, with the use of conspiracy theories.
And no I am happy with the proposal that thread put forward for Null and am hoping that is roughly what will happen, well to it and POSs and NPC facilities. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
Cyprus Black
The Learning Curve.
590
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:16:00 -
[89] - Quote
Barbaro55a wrote: you have my vote! And my bow! Trolling is like art. Anyone can finger paint, but it takes true talent to create a masterpiece. |
shifter ranes
The Learning Curve.
1
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:22:00 -
[90] - Quote
Cyprus Black wrote:Barbaro55a wrote: you have my vote! And my bow!
and my axe!
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7014
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:27:00 -
[91] - 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 |
Dirty Wizard
The Geedunk Expedition
55
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 09:38:00 -
[92] - Quote
shifter ranes wrote:Cyprus Black wrote:Barbaro55a wrote: you have my vote! And my bow! and my axe! You carry the fate of us all, little one. If this is indeed the will of the Council, then Gondor will see it done.
(signature removed due to stupid) |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
1638
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 10:52:00 -
[93] - Quote
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.
Shiva Furnace is recruiting! Small gang PVP in wormholes and lowsec. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7017
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 11:14:00 -
[94] - 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 |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4266
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 15:21:00 -
[95] - Quote
What areas of EVE do you think you understand particularly well vs what areas are you relatively weak in understanding? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7020
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 15:54:00 -
[96] - 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 |
Alana Til
DEFCON. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.15 16:57:00 -
[97] - Quote
You get all my 3 votes malc :) |
Shalia Ripper
306
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 02:02:00 -
[98] - Quote
I am so very happy to see this. I have known Mal (under many names) for about 13 years now and he has always been a well spoken rational individual. It doesn't matter if you are on his side of the argument or not, he has always spoken with unequivocal honesty.
P.S. His ass is legendary. Malcanis for CSM8
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
989
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 03:11:00 -
[99] - Quote
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.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
200
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 03:46:00 -
[100] - 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.
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. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 05:43:00 -
[101] - Quote
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 07:55:00 -
[102] - 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 -
[103] - 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 -
[104] - 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 -
[105] - 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 |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1649
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 08:05:00 -
[106] - Quote
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.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:02:00 -
[107] - 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 |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
218
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:03:00 -
[108] - Quote
About goddamn time. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7062
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 09:28:00 -
[109] - 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 -
[110] - 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 |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1392
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 12:27:00 -
[111] - Quote
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. While that is an interesting and useful post, it's also rather irritating that it was tucked away on page 16 of a megathread in one niche (though moderately popular) subforum.
I hesitate to say that every time a Dev posts it should be accompanied by pop-ups and sirens and firework displays, but if you hadn't linked it I'd never have known the post existed. 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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7065
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 12:37:00 -
[112] - 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 |
psycho freak
Snuff Box
243
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:36:00 -
[113] - Quote
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 my spelling sux brb find phone number for someone who gives a fu*k
nop cant find it |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7070
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 14:39:00 -
[114] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2281
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:07:00 -
[115] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7077
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:11:00 -
[116] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2281
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:17:00 -
[117] - Quote
Heh. PVE being dynamic, unpredictable and exciting.
Good joke, that. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7080
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 15:22:00 -
[118] - 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 |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
991
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:01:00 -
[119] - Quote
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7086
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:13:00 -
[120] - 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 |
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
991
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:15:00 -
[121] - Quote
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?
|
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
128
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:16:00 -
[122] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
If we can target dust bunnies on a planet via disticts then why not PI buildings on planets and moons? Of course for such a thing to happen, PI would need to be iterated on and improved. Im sure you are aware of this topic which reminds me of the old Dead Horse pos thread, in the Assembly Hall with the resulting link to its pdf - Planetary Interaction 2.1.
PI another one of those great CCP features with lots of promise built before it was finished. Moon mining would still exist, just in a different form plus planets could also provide the moon mining mineral [ala ring mining]. Fights would still be around moons [and planets] just instead of blowing up a pos on the spot, it would possibly be blowing up a pos [heres hoping for the new pos's] and bombarding the planet with orbital strikes to remove the facilties/using dust mercs to conquer them [though this one is probably less likely]. Instead of one alliance and one pos, it could be various alliance members each with their own facilties on the same planet earning a piece for themselves or giving it to the alliance. Theres lots of things that could happen. Radical? Why be satisfied with the status quo? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7087
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 17:25:00 -
[123] - 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 |
Zagdul
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
1275
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:00:00 -
[124] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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 philosophyI 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.
Bout time. Dual Pane idea: Click!
CCP Please Implement |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1099
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 18:29:00 -
[125] - Quote
"Vote for me! I can fix high-sec!"
Is from a nul-block.
Yeahno. My vote's going to Herr Ronin.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7095
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:21:00 -
[126] - 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 |
Zimmy Zeta
RvB - RED Federation
5862
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 19:38:00 -
[127] - Quote
Glad that you are running, have my vote etc.
To convince all the high sec enthusiasts you could just claim that you want CCP to buff Drakes and Tengus.
(Don't)
Please vote for Malcanis in the 2013 CSM elections, unless you were going to vote for Mangala Solaris, wich would be awesome, too. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7096
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:03:00 -
[128] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2281
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:15:00 -
[129] - Quote
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? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7096
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 20:51:00 -
[130] - 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 |
|
Arronicus
Vintas Industries Mistakes Were Made.
68
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 22:50:00 -
[131] - Quote
Serious questions: All yes or no. Longer answers are fine, Yes/No is all I'm looking for. Some of these are things I want, some are things I do not want.
POS revamp: Pushing CCP to reconsider this as a priority issue
Tech 3 nerf: As per balancing plans stated in meeting notes (drastic reduction of performance to all strat cruisers)
Jump range nerf on capitals/supercapitals: Range reduction
Player built stations being completely destructable: Including stations built before the change
Anything to do with ponies: (Just say no, and noone has to get hurt.)
Higher yield 0.0 low end asteroids: Veld, trit, mex
Inflation calculator not including Plex: "because not good reason given"
Thanks!
|
Alvin Exe
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.16 22:54:00 -
[132] - Quote
You definetly have my vote and it has nothing to do with corpmate favor !
Always like to read new ideas to make Eve Online better :)
|
madpsychc0killer
Solutis in Sanguis
27
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 00:00:00 -
[133] - Quote
I'll be sending a vote or two your way fella,
You post well (both here - which is a rarity and worth a vote in itself and also on the site that shouldn't be named), your ideas always tend to be well thought out, and your arguements solid. Eve will be better off with you on the csm next time around. |
Xercodo
Xovoni Directorate
2091
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 01:03:00 -
[134] - Quote
Sure, I can get behind this :D The Drake is a Lie |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12647
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 01:58:00 -
[135] - Quote
Just to go off on a complete tangentGǪMalcanis wrote:[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. I was thinking about this the other day, and one thing that struck me is that, for all granularity of the (NPC) standings system, it's used for exactly four things: faction police hunting you, factions allowing you to plunk down a POS, taxes and fees, and station services (basically agents and jump clones). Due to how both missions and industry work, the latter two are pretty much meaningless because you just grind one or two relevant corps to the requisite level and then you're done (and some of them are superseded by faction standing anyway). So why does it matter that my standings list is four pages long filled with corps and factions and provide standings with three-digit precision, effectively giving me 200 steps of standings each? Seems like a bit of a wasteGǪ
GǪso why not fill that with meaning and functionality? What you just said triggered an expansion of those through, namely that joining a particular corp will set absolute limits to your effective standings, and that the standings are given more consequences. Note the word GǣeffectiveGǥ because it will be important. (All the following numbers are based on absolutely no considered thought whatsoever and are just there for illustrative purposes.)
If you join Lai Dai, your Gallente standings are limited to -¦0; your Minmatar standings are limited to +2, as are your Ishukone standings (you may belong to the same faction, but you're working for the much-reviled competition), and so on. At the same time, you get a flat modifier towards the same set of corps and organisations: -5 towards gallente; -2.5 against minmatar and Ishukone etc. Your actual standings figures aren't modified GÇö if you quit the corp (and take a standings hit because you're such a pansy) you get your old numbers back, but while in their employ, they will never count higher than that.
Oh, and then we apply the faction-police trigger rule to everything. You're in Lai Dai; you've never done a day's work for Ishukone; so now your effective standing towards them is -2.5. The next time you come across an Ishukone station or convoy in a 0.9 system, they will open fire, because that's what you get at -2.5. Forgot that the goods you bought were in one of their stations and flew there in your Itty V? OoopsGǪ *pop* Oh, and no, they won't let you dock to avoid the sentry guns, so I hope you brought some istabs.
Make missions be against other corps, not just against generic factions or silly pirates, to scramble these standings even further, and add in a crapton of corp-to-corp derived standings relationships. Want to go to Jita? Then FedNavy missions will probably be a bad idea since, not only will they send you off to shoot CalNavy ships, but any kind of progress you make in the FedNavy ranks will act as a direct negative limit on your CalNavi standings. It won't be as crippling as getting -10 with an entire faction GÇö you can still fly around just fine since the factions themselves won't hate you (muchGǪ although in the FedNavy vs. CalNavy case, you might want to keep an eye on who's watching the jump gates) GÇö so there's not the same need to decline mission after mission, but there will now be some stations that you simply have to avoid because they are dead-end death traps. Anyone who played Freelancer will recognize this and see why its (actually much simpler) system of interlinked standings created a far more dynamic environment than the ostensibly more complex (but in reality much less relevant) standings mechanics in EVE.
GǪand then there's the matter of decoupling standings from missions. An industrialist shouldn't have to grind missions to get perfect refine standings with a corp, nor should a trader have to grind missions to lower taxes GÇö they should have other means (which by no means translates into GÇ£less workGÇ¥) of getting those standings. Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm. WHY so Seri0Us
29
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 03:53:00 -
[136] - Quote
Are you married?
This is unironically relevant to whether I vote for you or not. Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Nullsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7105
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 07:30:00 -
[137] - 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 -
[138] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2281
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 09:19:00 -
[139] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. <3 love is in the air <3 Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7115
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:34:00 -
[140] - 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 |
|
Lord Zim
2281
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:36:00 -
[141] - Quote
Like, oh I dunno, THE REACTION CONNECTOR INTERFAAHAGFADGFAJHFKAJHDKLJFHADF Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7116
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 10:51:00 -
[142] - 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 -
[143] - Quote
LET MY PEOPLE DOCK, CCP! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm. WHY so Seri0Us
31
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 12:09:00 -
[144] - Quote
Despite refusing to answer my question, you have my vote. Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Nullsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12655
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 12:10:00 -
[145] - Quote
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. Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7133
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 12:46:00 -
[146] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12668
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:26:00 -
[147] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Of course. I just picked Lai Dai as an example because they have that nice intra-faction rivalry going on with other Caldari corps, which could have some interesting consequences GÇö both positive and negative.
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.) Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7148
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:28:00 -
[148] - 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 |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
12669
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 14:47:00 -
[149] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. GÇ£T2 manufacturing is too simple and straightforward GÇö it's the estimation of invention profit that is complicatedGÇ¥. There you go.
Just to complicate matters further, I originally thought to make a similar suggestion regarding T1 manufacturing, but I couldn't find a good or accurate database over which corps sold which BPOs.
GǪand either way, it would have to be accompanied by a complete industry revamp (including POS changes) to give people more reason and more tools to get out from under the restrictions NPC stations would impose GÇö cleaning up T2 manufacturing would have to be a part of that. The aforementioned foreman is obstructive for a reason, and it's not just to RP in some individual benefits and penalties for joining a specific corp.
As mentioned, it's a tangent and a very loose Gǣwhat ifGǪGǥ idea. Vote Malcanis for CSM8. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation RAZOR Alliance
3365
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:15:00 -
[150] - Quote
You will have my vote... whenever the election is, that is. Phrases like "you can't nerf / buff X EVE is a Sandbox" have the same amount of meaning as "If this is a sack of potatoes then you can not carrot." - Alara IonStorm Want to enable BBcode on the forums? Here's how. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7154
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 15:26:00 -
[151] - 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 |
Shootmenot dammit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:24:00 -
[152] - Quote
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#850
Quote:"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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7166
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 16:31:00 -
[153] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2281
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:11:00 -
[154] - Quote
Shootmenot dammit wrote: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. Do you know why we're "supporting you openly"? Because he's not a moron. That's it. Of course, me saying this isn't going to be believed by you, but I suggest you take a look at his posting past and present and make up your own mind as to malcanis' worthiness of his place on the CSM, and don't vote/not vote because of some imagined "HBC/CFC agenda".
Having said that, I have tinfoil hats aplenty for sale. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7168
|
Posted - 2013.01.17 17:12:00 -
[155] - 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 |
Arduemont
Rotten Legion Ops THE ROYAL NAVY
1133
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 00:23:00 -
[156] - Quote
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 see 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? "In the age of information, ignorance is a choice." |
Jno Aubrey
Galactic Patrol
38
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 03:02:00 -
[157] - Quote
Malcanis, it's great to see you running for CSM.
Me, my alts, and I will all be voting for you!
Name a shrub after me.-á Something prickly and hard to eradicate. |
Dar Saleem
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 07:05:00 -
[158] - 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.
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 |
Shootmenot dammit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 08:57:00 -
[159] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Shootmenot dammit wrote: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. Do you know why we're "supporting you openly"? Because he's not a moron. That's it. Of course, me saying this isn't going to be believed by you, but I suggest you take a look at his posting past and present and make up your own mind as to malcanis' worthiness of his place on the CSM, and don't vote/not vote because of some imagined "HBC/CFC agenda". Having said that, I have tinfoil hats aplenty for sale.
I know he is not a moron. That is why I am considering giving him my votes.
However, the HBC agenda thing is also important to me, so I thought it would be worth a question or two.
I'm not one for tinfoils, but if someone I respect says "an alliance actively promotes botting" and then they are allies...well, I need to hear what the candidate has to say about it.
A politician joining a formation he vocally opposed before has a thing or two to explain to prospective voters. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:04:00 -
[160] - 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 |
|
Lord Zim
2283
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:06:00 -
[161] - Quote
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"? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Shootmenot dammit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:21:00 -
[162] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
I DO NOT believe you are Montolio's pet. If I did, I would not be reading your proposals and wasting time clarifying issues before voting for you. But I still wanted your input.
I know you are not responsible for whoever INIT. goes to bed with, but you were very definite in your opinions against TEST and botting before, and your current views are essential.
Either the HBC was not what you thought, or you don't mind mingling with crooks.
Malcanis wrote: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. 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!
Please do not misunderstand me. I have no personal issues with the HBC or the CFC myself. Your personal sympathies don't matter to me. I'm asking from a "strictly business" perspective. Your disagreeing with some of them about certain topics is irrelevant. I don't want a fool working for the HBC same as I would never vote for anyone endorsed by an enemy powerblock.
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.
Malcanis wrote: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.
This is one of the things that I wanted to hear. If I end up voting for you, I sincerely hope you can interact with Sreegs and the rest of CCP in order to disrupt this kind of activities as much as possible.
Thanks for taking the time to answer.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:21:00 -
[163] - 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 -
[164] - 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 -
[165] - 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 -
[166] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2283
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:34:00 -
[167] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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? Yes, and that was because for some reason they decided that JBs were the power projection tool, despite us telling them, repeatedly and in no uncertain terms, that we used forward staging systems for our wars. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:43:00 -
[168] - 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 |
Raid'En
Poseidon Foundation
191
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 09:56:00 -
[169] - Quote
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. |
Lord Zim
2285
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:01:00 -
[170] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:12:00 -
[171] - 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 -
[172] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2287
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:31:00 -
[173] - Quote
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: Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:37:00 -
[174] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2287
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:38:00 -
[175] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. That's not to be laid at the feet of JBs, though. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:43:00 -
[176] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2287
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:48:00 -
[177] - Quote
Actually, I keep playing with the idea of just removing jumpdrives altogether, at the very least from offensive ships. vOv Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7188
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 10:53:00 -
[178] - 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 |
Skippermonkey
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
1757
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 11:52:00 -
[179] - Quote
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 COME AT ME BRO
I'LL JUST BE DOCKED IN THIS STATION |
Shootmenot dammit
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 11:56:00 -
[180] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Hardly plausible. When and why? And how? It's speculation, unlike the fact that TEST directors have been banned for botting. That is fact.
Your third possibility sounds like a compromise between "I wasn't wrong back then when I spoke against them" and "I am not wrong now when I support them", suggesting that "they" changed.
Malcanis wrote: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.
Not really. You are perfectly aware that two puppets are better than one. And everybody is aware that TEST detractors would never vote for the "official" candidate. However, let's get to your final statement:
Malcanis wrote: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.
This is what I wanted to hear from you.
I will vote for you because of your contributions over the years, and against your affiliation which, to me, is detrimental. In case the CSM is more than a free holiday in Iceland for you and actually works, I will carefully follow what comes out of it, and your proposals. |
|
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
259
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 11:57:00 -
[181] - Quote
Sounds good to me. Some of my votes are likely to go to you. Remove insurance. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7190
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 12:03:00 -
[182] - 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 |
Ymir Esubria
Concordiat Black Core Alliance
21
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 13:40:00 -
[183] - Quote
I've been lurking the eve forums since 2008/2009, and Malcanis has always been a thoroughly enjoyable read. I still hear Malcanis' Law being used as a fixed term for EVE. Most importantly, Malcanis is passionate about EVE and not just his niche of EVE. I can't think of a candidate I'd rather support. You have my vote. http://evebyymir.blogspot.nl/ |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
349
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 13:48:00 -
[184] - Quote
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 |
Syaran
Bad Company DBD Initiative Mercenaries
2
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 15:44:00 -
[185] - Quote
You have as many votes of mine as I can muster. I've been away from the game for an extended period if time (around 2 years) and I'd like to think this affords me a more objective view on certain mechanics of this game. The solutions you propose are well thought out and even if they should prove not to be actual working solutions, in what I've read of your posts you display exactly the frame of mind that I look for in people: a level-headed attitude and the ability to look beyond your own personal wishes and instead towards the greater goal of 'finding the truth'. That, and the willingness to actually change your stance on an issue if you come upon a piece of information or an argument that shows you that you might be wrong.
This last part is actually what I like about you the most: you encourage people to think for themselves and form their own opinions based on that. Good luck on your campaign! |
Golar Crexis
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
46
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 16:02:00 -
[186] - Quote
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. The set up: I jump into a system and immediately appear in local. I start a system scan and start d-scanning. After 10 seconds I can now d-scan anomalies for ratters after determining whether or not there are any within 14au. At this point if I'm extremely lucky there is a ratter withing 14 au and its the very first/only anomaly I have scanned. I can warp to said ratter and expect to arrive on grid within 40 seconds of arriving. If I don't get lucky increase the time by anywhere from 20-60 seconds.
So now I have landed on grid and heres what happens with the new ai. For a Tengu all frigates and some cruisers will swap to me instantly. For a battlecruiser the frigate and cruiser rats swap within almost instantly with there being a split in the battleship rats with the majority of them being on the ratter. For battleships its roughly the same as battlecruisers For carriers (and this is hilariously broken) Its normally an instant switch of every rat in the room. For all ratters de-agression will remove all rat aggro from them within 20-40 seconds depending on rat type.
Now the reason I liken Gurista space to concord is of course because gurista's ewar effect, jamming, but other rat ewar can be just as bad such as Blood raiders neuting out a point.
My proposed fix is to remove ewar against another player from the rat's ai and for the rats to prioritize a target that has/is shooting them over one that isn't.
And finally just for you we shall apply Malcanis' law. We used to use thrashers solo or fast frigates in small gangs to go and gank expensive ships. Our thrasher of choice is a t1 thrasher with auto's and a small tank. something we use to encourage many of our new players to fly, something that's now no longer possible. The rat ai changes give a massive advantage to ratters, combine that with jump bridges, intel channels and of course the ever present local its almost no longer possible for a new player to solo around 0.0 and not get blobbed/fight nothing. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7200
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 16:13:00 -
[187] - 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 -
[188] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:39:00 -
[189] - Quote
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... 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.
7214
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:46:00 -
[190] - 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 |
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
301
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:54:00 -
[191] - Quote
Well put. :)
You can't fully tiericide missions though. Or rather, some level system as we know it now must remain for newbie progression. But the idea can still apply - newbies can run their level 1s solo, or group up with other newbies to either run higher tier level 1s, or to run lower tier level 2s, for example. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1026
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 20:58:00 -
[192] - 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...
As for the CCP comment, it was in the original testserver/F&I post (don't recall which forum it was). CCP Foxfour said it wasn't a bug, perhaps not intended, but to HTFU. He said those looking to gank ratters would just have to adapt or bring friends. It shouldn't necessarily be a solo endeavor to kill a ratter. As to the RP version, if you were in a fight and couldn't kill the giant carrier taking out your friends, and some other guy in a frigate warped in, wouldn't you want to take something out before dying?
As to the whole make pve use pvp fits, that'd be great if the ships were being balanced that way, and the missions were being redesigned to accomplish that goal. As CCP Foxfour isn't even on either team anymore as far as I can tell, this is just another thing that someone had a vision for, and was then abandoned as they got moved to do something else.
|
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
402
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 21:12:00 -
[193] - Quote
Color me persuaded.
Campaing boost added to sig.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
302
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:17:00 -
[194] - Quote
Rengerel en Distel wrote: As for the CCP comment, it was in the original testserver/F&I post (don't recall which forum it was). CCP Foxfour said it wasn't a bug, perhaps not intended, but to HTFU. He said those looking to gank ratters would just have to adapt or bring friends. It shouldn't necessarily be a solo endeavor to kill a ratter. As to the RP version, if you were in a fight and couldn't kill the giant carrier taking out your friends, and some other guy in a frigate warped in, wouldn't you want to take something out before dying?
As to the whole make pve use pvp fits, that'd be great if the ships were being balanced that way, and the missions were being redesigned to accomplish that goal. As CCP Foxfour isn't even on either team anymore as far as I can tell, this is just another thing that someone had a vision for, and was then abandoned as they got moved to do something else.
Well when I go back out it'll be in a dual prop cynabal instead of a triple LSE fit so I can flip the AB on to speed tank both the rats and the ratter, so HTFU challenge accepted I guess. That doesn't mean I don't think it's dumb.
PvP/PvE unification would be a pretty long term goal anyway though, that's a given. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
326
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:22:00 -
[195] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Well put. :)
You can't fully tiericide missions though. Or rather, some level system as we know it now must remain for newbie progression. But the idea can still apply - newbies can run their level 1s solo, or group up with other newbies to either run higher tier level 1s, or to run lower tier level 2s, for example.
Actually, you could: Just have the rats take note of the number and class of ships that land at any given time. If it's a solo newbie frigate, eh, send some rookies and another frigate as a "commander." If it's a marauder, send the kitchen sink. If it's a Tengu, run and hide. ;-) Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13692
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:28:00 -
[196] - Quote
I don't normally vote mate, but will for you.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7221
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:29:00 -
[197] - 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 |
Mag's
the united Negative Ten.
13692
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:31:00 -
[198] - Quote
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.
CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience. |
Jarkovii
7 Corners Trading
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:42:00 -
[199] - Quote
I humbly support Malcanis' run for CSM 8! He's a true Eve visionary! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7221
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 22:45:00 -
[200] - 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 |
|
silens vesica
Corsair Cartel
408
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 23:04:00 -
[201] - Quote
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. 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. Amen. It was this post, BTW, which persuaded me.
Tell someone you love them today, because life is short. But scream it at them in Esperanto, because life is also terrifying and confusing.
Malcanis for CSM8 |
JamesCLK
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.18 23:10:00 -
[202] - Quote
A vote for Malcanis is a vote well spent. Malcanis for CSM8! Malcanis, Mynnna and Ripard Teg for CSM 8! |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
805
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 04:02:00 -
[203] - Quote
awesome news
what's your stance on making industrial structures (after buffing them ofc) :accessible: to enemy forces ? (read: thievery) We are recruiting german-speaking PVP players, contact me :)
(BANNER WAS USED FOR THIS POST) |
Ghazu
501
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 07:46:00 -
[204] - Quote
Do you pledge to sorry SOL all the goddamn emoting loving barbie freaks? http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984 |
Chokichi Ozuwara
Lucky Dragon Convenience
478
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 07:59:00 -
[205] - Quote
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.
Tears will be shed and pants will need to be changed all round. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
3373
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 08:16:00 -
[206] - Quote
This pleases me to no end.
You have my support. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Xander Phoena
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
22
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 08:45:00 -
[207] - Quote
Malcanis, most of the announced candidates for CSM8 (Marc, Ripard, Mike, Mangala) have already taken me up on a one-on-one interview on Crossing Zebras. I'd love to add your name to the list too. Details can be found here:
http://crossingzebras.com/post/40699271518/electioninterviews |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7231
|
Posted - 2013.01.19 11:13:00 -
[208] - 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 -
[209] - 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 -
[210] - 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 |
|
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 |
|
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. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7302
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:35:00 -
[271] - 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 -
[272] - 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 |
Da Dom
Wii R
34
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:43:00 -
[273] - Quote
What is my vote worth in the grand scheme of things... If your liberty is won by others then you are not free, you are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic and you suck the honourable man dry. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it, your time has come. This time you will stand alone and fight for yourselves. Now you will pay for your freedom in the currency of honest toil and human blood |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7302
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 12:45:00 -
[274] - 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 |
Da Dom
Wii R
36
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 13:46:00 -
[275] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Da Dom wrote:What is my vote worth in the grand scheme of things... I refer you to your own signature for an answer.
...
Fracking good answer bro.
Good luck with your campaign If your liberty is won by others then you are not free, you are merely protected. Your freedom is parasitic and you suck the honourable man dry. You who have enjoyed freedom, who have done nothing to earn it, your time has come. This time you will stand alone and fight for yourselves. Now you will pay for your freedom in the currency of honest toil and human blood |
Anslo
The Scope Gallente Federation
1118
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 14:19:00 -
[276] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Boy such a "quality" candidate you are with your passive aggression. You sure would be a great CSM member.
Because clearly only YOU care about improving the game, no the carebear can't.
Get over yourself. Vote Herr Ronin.
|
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 14:52:00 -
[277] - Quote
Anslo wrote:Because clearly only YOU care about improving the game, no the carebear can't.
Get over yourself. Vote Herr Ronin. So you're saying the only thing which can be improved in hisec is missions, incursion and wardecs? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Black Legion.
1007
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:23:00 -
[278] - Quote
Frying Doom wrote: 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.
Pretty sure I've posted directly in response to you in several threads saying as much if not more. You either ignored the information or didnt believe it credible, hardly my/our fault ;) But that may have been your old perspective at work; the new you is looking up.
So Malcanis, are you the candidate of public bickering? SPOON THROWING? "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.
7320
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 15:30:00 -
[279] - 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 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
154
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:10:00 -
[280] - Quote
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"? |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7328
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 16:13:00 -
[281] - 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 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
154
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 17:23:00 -
[282] - Quote
Fair. Being a w-space resident, I'm afraid I can't agree with the proposal of cloaking nerfs in any form, but it does seem likely that there are a million other issues to be dealt with this year instead, which would render this point of disagreement moot. |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:17:00 -
[283] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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".
I had an aidea with regards to linking sov to system useage.
Basically the amount of hitpoints a sov structure has is entirely dependent on the useage of that system in the course of a week. X amount of hitpoints per rat killed, X amount of hitpoints per 100 m3 of ore mined. X amount of hitpoints per item manufactured, and so on.
Does this seem workable? Don't Panic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7334
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 18:19:00 -
[284] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1657
|
Posted - 2013.01.23 22:42:00 -
[285] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Frying Doom wrote: 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.
Pretty sure I've posted directly in response to you in several threads saying as much if not more. You either ignored the information or didnt believe it credible, hardly my/our fault ;) But that may have been your old perspective at work; the new you is looking up. So Malcanis, are you the candidate of public bickering? SPOON THROWING? I will make this short this time so I am not stealing Malcanis's thread.
I honestly cannot remember you telling me what you think on a subject. I can remember you slagging me off and other where you joked but no actual substantial points of view.
As to public bickering all I have to say is that Two step informed the community on a potential problem to do with POSs and created a threadnaught while the CSM position help by the chairman was "Remain quiet, it will be alright". Personally I would like to see members of the CSM actually express their own beliefs, not as has happened in CSM7, wait for the smoke to settle and then release a limp wristed response. But anyway I hope if you are running for CSM8 you will have a nice thread that explains your beliefs on the future of this game, I look forward to reading it.
But to regular programming. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
Zloco Crendraven
BALKAN EXPRESS
269
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 11:43:00 -
[286] - Quote
What are your plans about lowsec? LF CSM8 candidate. Are you what lowsec needs? --->-átinyurl.com/afaawrb
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7374
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 12:02:00 -
[287] - 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 |
Tom JBrokaw
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 17:32:00 -
[288] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
we are glad to see that not all of the early candidates claim to think that they know everything about all parts of the game. |
Kale Eledar
Wolves and Knights The Irukandji
63
|
Posted - 2013.01.24 19:18:00 -
[289] - Quote
Glad to see you had a change of heart. You're a talented, articulate writer, and seem to have the entire labyrinthine nature of Eve in mind. Whenever I see your player portrait in a forum thread, I know I'm about to see a great post.
Definitely voting for you! First come smiles, then lies. Last is gunfire. |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
94
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 07:39:00 -
[290] - Quote
Once voting comes around I reactivate my other half and you get both of my votes.. unless Akita T runs too |
|
Ryuji Takemiya
Omni Tech Industries Initiative Associates
24
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 08:13:00 -
[291] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: 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.
Music to my ears; and what I'd give to be able to run industry out of a 'real' station in player-controlled Null, not our current outposts. It's very frustrating to want to create a thriving economy for your m8s and not have the tools to do so.
You have my vote.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7405
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 08:39:00 -
[292] - 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 |
Marlona Sky
D00M. Northern Coalition.
3003
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 09:16:00 -
[293] - Quote
What are your thoughts on power projection?
Remove local, structure mails and revamp the directional scanner! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7407
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 09:46:00 -
[294] - 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 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6485
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 10:19:00 -
[295] - Quote
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. ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7408
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 10:28:00 -
[296] - 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 |
Vordak Kallager
Mafia Redux Exodus.
514
|
Posted - 2013.01.26 11:22:00 -
[297] - Quote
Any man good enough for Hans is good enough for me, particularly since I remember reading your Manifesto last year. Malcanis for CSM8. Sa souvraya niende misain ye. |
Osmoticlese Orinocratese
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
0
|
Posted - 2013.01.27 22:25:00 -
[298] - Quote
Hi Malcanis. I don't know you, and you don't know me. In fact noone does. I'm your average eve nobody, quietly doing my thing in internet spaceship game, and you will probably never see my nick again. My views and opinions don't really mean much to anyone other than myself, I'm sure, and that's as it should be.
And in saying all that, I just wanted to take the time to say that I think at this point you're going to be getting my votes this year. I've been reading a few of this years campaign announcements so far and they have been, quite frankly, laughable. Without knowing anything about you I fully expected yours to be the same.
I'm very pleased to have been wrong on that assumption. Not only did I find myself reading this entire thread, I read others linked along the way. I think you have some good ideas - not all of which I agree with - but more importantly they are well articulated and come across as thoughtful and well considered. I also think you - so far - have handled the pressures of this kind of public exposure extremely well, and your interactions with those that disagree with you or with whom you disagree have been calm, collected, and refreshingly mature.
It's not a case of me voting for you because you believe in the same things I do, but a case of me voting for you because I've been impressed by the person that you come across as, and I happen to believe that strength of character is everything.
Please don't prove me wrong between now and vote time :) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7421
|
Posted - 2013.01.28 12:47:00 -
[299] - 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 |
Kalle Demos
Ironic Corp Name
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:17:00 -
[300] - Quote
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 |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:29:00 -
[301] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:38:00 -
[302] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7429
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 15:44:00 -
[303] - 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 |
Kalle Demos
Ironic Corp Name
85
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 17:23:00 -
[304] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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?
Im in a sub, never log in, whine on forums mode for almost 2 years now.
Eve has its issues but 0.0 seriously needs to be looked at ASAP, sov warfare is a joke and no one wants to spend their free time shooting structures, CCP knows this, CSM know this and all the coalitions (careless of how I feel about their leaders) know this, yet nothing actually gets done. |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:11:00 -
[305] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. I approve of this line of thinking. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7435
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:35:00 -
[306] - 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 |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:45:00 -
[307] - Quote
Malcanis, what's your stance on known themeparkers campaign to "trammaelize" EvE Online. (Ripard Teg, Trebor Daehdoow,...) If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:47:00 -
[308] - Quote
grr crimewatch 2.0's suspect status grr killrights usage of suspect status Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7435
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:47:00 -
[309] - 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 |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 18:53:00 -
[310] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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?
Jester's Trek BS themepark blog
And about Trebor Daehdoow, he wants to eliminate wardecs (CSM minutes). If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7437
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:09:00 -
[311] - 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 |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:12:00 -
[312] - Quote
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. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7437
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:20:00 -
[313] - 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 |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
412
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:26:00 -
[314] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
I got my vote.
Good luck with the election. If you want instant gratification, go stimulate your genitals. EvE is Hard, deal with it. |
Lord Zim
2289
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 19:58:00 -
[315] - Quote
Actually I'll just leave this here, even if I've seen you've been active there, because a good thing can't be repeated too often :v: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=196905&find=unread Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
1034
|
Posted - 2013.01.29 23:56:00 -
[316] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
I use to AFK ice mine for a few months to pay for PLEXEs, only afk iced mine, only for buying plexes.
Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 12:49:00 -
[317] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
For the love of god, Yes!
The Ui needs to brought into the last decade, let alone this one.
Lets take the issue of setting up the overview for example. I tried this, I had several different browsers open, and a youtube tutorial all running at the same time while I tried to set up my overview. It took an entire ******* evening, and it's still not set up properly as hostile ships (reds) still refuse to show on overview. For the life of me I can't figure out how to fix it,
Why does it have to be so difficult? It's crap like this that puts new players off. Don't Panic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7462
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 12:55:00 -
[318] - 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 |
Spartan dax
0utbreak Outbreak.
7
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:07:00 -
[319] - Quote
Well I for one am happy to see Mal stepping up to the plate and I know he will make for a great CSM delegate.
He is courteous, articulate, humerous and (cripes) trustworthy with a sprinkling of bitter so yes.... he'll be excellent.
|
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
401
|
Posted - 2013.01.31 22:14:00 -
[320] - Quote
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. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
|
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1128
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 00:21:00 -
[321] - Quote
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.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7529
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 07:46:00 -
[322] - 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 -
[323] - 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 |
Uncle Gagarin
State Protectorate Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 02:52:00 -
[324] - Quote
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, |
Lord Zim
2293
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 03:24:00 -
[325] - Quote
Uncle Gagarin wrote: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. What's the alternative, turn hisec into perfect security? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7550
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 07:51:00 -
[326] - 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 |
Nathanien Indoril
Creation and Extraction
24
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 13:37:00 -
[327] - Quote
I've read many ideas for high-sec and most of them are just short-sighted... and with mostly the same message like "Nerf high - sec to the ground" or "remove as much gameplay as possible to bring people to Low and Nullsec".
Malcanis Hi-Sec Manifesto is the first really thought-through proposition for high-sec i've read for a long time. And your article about "the big lie" was one of the best about Online-Gaming Articles i've ever read. 'cause it was constructive, reasonable and just true from head to toe.
I'll vote for you. And i hope you make it to the CSM. |
Bo Kantrel
GETCO Black Thorne Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2013.02.02 18:49:00 -
[328] - Quote
Your thoughts on these ideas: From this link from Sept 2008
The Shantytown Initiative Allowing 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.
Viceroyalty Viceroyalties are systems in low security Empire space which are administered by a player Viceroy, on behalf of their corporation or alliance. TheyGÇÖll allow you to both turn a better profit and defend your chosen system from pirates, and act as both a way to populate low-sec space and an easier first step on the road to 0.0.
Exhaust Ports The ability to target individual sub-systems of a ship in EVE is an old and oft-repeated player request, giving combat pilots more tactical options, such as disabling certain native ship abilities before closing in for the kill (or the ransom). However, combat is currently far too short for this kind of tactical decision-making GÇô and of course there are still some thorny questions, such as which sub-systems are targetable (warp drive, shield recharge, cap recharge?) and when are they vulnerable? (After shield is down? Then what happens to armor tanks? After armor is down? Are we then talking about structure tanks too?).
Market The thing where you can exchange shares for money but without using the "S" word New tools and features for share-based transactions of various kinds. Dr Eyjo is on hand to make sure that nothing crazy happens.
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
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.
Hacking Reloaded A collection of improvements to hacking, possibly including specialized ships, more tools and more skills. Hacking is a base for previous and current tech levels, providing knowledge and skills to invent technology. WeGÇÖre also looking at new ways to use Hacking, such as unlocking gates or gathering information.
Trowel Mk.2 Improvements to Archaeology, maybe including specialized ships for advanced functionality. Ancient technology is a base for future tech levels, and archaeology will be involved in obtaining the necessary knowledge, skills and ingredients.
Operation Gold Rush Moving all static asteroid belts into the new Exploration-based resource-distribution system, which allows the server to create and distribute belts on the fly rather than relying on preset locations. This will also involve the asteroid belts moving into our GÇ£DeadspaceGÇ¥ authoring system, allowing more variety and more challenge to be added where necessary. No additional equipment will be needed to find low-end ores (such as the ubiquitous Veldspar), but more valuable ores may (where present) require more tools and more ingenuity to locate. This will add some much-needed variety to mining, allow us to do more interesting things for NPC-hunters, and just maybe put a whole bunch of dastardly macro-miners out of a job.
Kuiper Age Add transitory comets to the game, allowing players to harvest them for their resources. DonGÇÖt expect this to be a safe working environment though!
Universal Gravel Initiative New environment of asteroid belts spanning a whole solar-system.
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.
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.
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1702
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 00:17:00 -
[329] - Quote
If you go back far enough I used to think smurfs were cool. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread
|
Uncle Gagarin
State Protectorate Caldari State
13
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 05:01:00 -
[330] - Quote
Well, my original reply was about something other. It was long with al lot of arguments. But now ... it's gone bu idiotic "you have draft" reminder. |
|
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Cult of Escobar
137
|
Posted - 2013.02.03 11:25:00 -
[331] - Quote
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). |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 13:24:00 -
[332] - 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 -
[333] - 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 -
[334] - 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 -
[335] - 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 |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Cult of Escobar
137
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 15:07:00 -
[336] - Quote
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.
I also very much like that you don't try to solve stuff you don't have much knowledge about, so you'll have my votes unless you suddenly want the next expansion to be Eve Online: Trammel. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7554
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 15:23:00 -
[337] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
941
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 15:38:00 -
[338] - Quote
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? If you're not already part of a bloc, this is the best guy for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7559
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 21:41:00 -
[339] - 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 -
[340] - 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 |
|
Lord Zim
2293
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 22:40:00 -
[341] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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, that 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. Whereas the new suspect flag, and the way in which it's used as a hammer to screw in screws (killrights, "limited engagements" through stealing anything from anywhere) is an utter hoot and definitely isn't a direct nerf against oh I dunno freighter/industrial ganks.
Malcanis wrote: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. While the new bounty system is all well and good (and I keep making money every time I undock and shoot someone in the face, even in nullsec), the way the new killrights system is designed for "bounty huntres", i.e. where they still have to activate a suspect status instead of being assigned a killright from someone and have a limited engagement right against that one player, and if they did kill that guy they got a specific bounty which the original killright owner had put on the hit contract ... is dumb, and CCP should feel ashamed for wasting such a good opportunity to make that an actual viable profession anywhere in the game.
Instead of just going "well if you want to be a bountyhunter, do it in lowsec", because of course that's where all the people to hunt for bounties are. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
945
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 23:10:00 -
[342] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Whereas the new suspect flag, and the way in which it's used as a hammer to screw in screws (killrights, "limited engagements" through stealing anything from anywhere) is an utter hoot and definitely isn't a direct nerf against oh I dunno freighter/industrial ganks. I avoided a response because there's some serious ********-ness about the whole thing and I didn't want to derail your candidacy thread, but this^^. To be fair, I've had some great fun trawling high-sec belts with a flag but overall the design is quite bad. If you're not already part of a bloc, this is the best guy for CSM8. |
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
275
|
Posted - 2013.02.05 08:32:00 -
[343] - Quote
Uncle Gagarin wrote: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.
I'm completely with you here. I've seen some of those noob bashers too lately. One was obviously bringing a procurer, a legion and an assault frig, multiboxing three accounts. No idea what makes people do this. But I think we need to have more protection in the rookie systems by specifically tightening up some rules.
Maybe also, that the dueling system will improve the situation here somewhat. This remains to be seen.
Another issue for the rookies are mining barges and exhumers in the rookie systems and the 1.0 or 0.9 systems on their immediate borders. They should be able to concentrate on learning to handle the interface and how things work together in the game. They shouldn't have to spend lots of time just to find some roids to mine in their first two or three days.
A mining barge or an exhumer have nothing to do in a rookie belts. In my opinion they shouldn't be in the border system either, but that's debatable ofc. Remove insurance. |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
708
|
Posted - 2013.02.08 02:49:00 -
[344] - Quote
Good luck Malcanis.
When it comes time to vote, I'm pretty sure I'll be plexing a couple of old accounts just for you.
o7 & Fly dangerous.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7583
|
Posted - 2013.02.09 09:28:00 -
[345] - 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 |
Manu Militari
The Scope Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 06:33:00 -
[346] - Quote
Uncle Gagarin wrote:Hi,
You don't address fact that solo pvp doesn't exist (almost entirely).
,
Solo PVP is alive and kicking. I don't know what game you, or everyone else who claims 'solo is dead' plays. I have only played for 4 months now and have found consistent and viable solo pvp.
As for Malcanis, I really like your ideas, specifically for the changes to highsec. You have a good platform and a very sensible vision for the game. It is essential that high sec change, but in a reasonable manner - which I believe you understand and envision, but as you stated fixing null sec is the much larger problem. Some people want to drastically change high sec and get everyone into low and null but any drastic change to the game is a bad one, first and foremost, as this game is a delicate balance interconnectedness and has a serious micro and macro economic system established that has widespread effects with every change. Secondly, high sec is a viable and essential environment of the game, it is a concentrated center for commerce and industry and is the only place for new players to work to get a footing so they may have any semblance of a change in low or null. What you propose are sensible and realistic changes to the game. I hope they may be heard and implemented. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7585
|
Posted - 2013.02.10 10:35:00 -
[347] - 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 |
Aracimia Wolfe
Fade To Darkness
169
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 00:06:00 -
[348] - Quote
Not only have you got both my votes but I actually may have to give you my axe as well. And I really like that axe...
An exceptionally thought out platform sir. I like my coffee like I like my men. In a plastic cup http://aracimia.blogspot.co.uk/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7591
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 12:29:00 -
[349] - 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 |
Wodensun
ZeroSec
29
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:23:00 -
[350] - Quote
hmmm I like you..
You have my axe!
err wait..
vote..
bloody test bongs...
yes thats it... vote! |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7593
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 19:35:00 -
[351] - 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 |
Agnar Volta
Shrubbery Acquisitions
56
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 11:14:00 -
[352] - Quote
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? |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
225
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 15:19:00 -
[353] - Quote
What would be your go-to recipe for a stew to impress friends and family? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7607
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 18:49:00 -
[354] - 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 |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
226
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 20:10:00 -
[355] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Voting Malcanis' Stew recipe for CSM8 (That's a pretty good one you've got going there, and juniper is underappreciated. And anything that has half a bottle of good wine is going places.) |
Commander ChiChi
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Exhale.
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:27:00 -
[356] - Quote
i do not endorse you |
Lord Zim
2295
|
Posted - 2013.02.12 22:46:00 -
[357] - Quote
Why not cut the meat cubes as dodecahedrons instead? :( Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7613
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 12:38:00 -
[358] - 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 |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
228
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 14:12:00 -
[359] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Lord Zim wrote:Why not cut the meat cubes as dodecahedrons instead? :( Difficult to type on a phone....
Would demonstrate flashy knife skills however. Or require a comedy amount of transglutaminase.
And to avoid another ISD purge, moving on to an actually serious question now.
With the promise of the Gnosis being an actually-available ship but only obtainable through some mysterious means, how do you feel about more semi-rare and unique ships being obtainable like this in a way beyond mere isk? Assuming CCP have methods to A: Control the introduction of these into the economy, without B: Being 1-shot ships like the alliance tournament vessels.
I quite like the idea of this, as it gives some additional long-term ship goals beyond 'Get space coffin, quit playing, win EVE' that are potentially within the reach of the everyman (and as long as these things don't turn up for Aurum I'd be happy).
Any thoughts on all this?
(Although, all things considered, if I wasn't going to be a Goon Vote(TM), you're the strongest candidate here by far) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7615
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 16:51:00 -
[360] - 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 |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1002
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:34:00 -
[361] - Quote
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. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
984
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 17:47:00 -
[362] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry, you won't be getting my vote.
This is almost enough of an endorsement to make me not want to vote mynna! "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
431
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:22:00 -
[363] - Quote
Malcanis needs to broaden his appeal to the blatantly mentally ill. |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
228
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 18:42:00 -
[364] - Quote
Perhaps he should consult with other CSM candidates on how best to appeal to the blatantly mentally ill? |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
1002
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 22:48:00 -
[365] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry, you won't be getting my vote. This is almost enough of an endorsement to make me not want to vote mynna!
Blah blah, blah, another goon propagandist. How many "official" goons will be on this CSM, and how many "unofficial" ones, like Malcanis? |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
1051
|
Posted - 2013.02.13 23:52:00 -
[366] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry, you won't be getting my vote. This is almost enough of an endorsement to make me not want to vote mynna! Blah blah, blah, another goon propagandist. How many "official" goons will be on this CSM, and how many "unofficial" ones, like Malcanis?
All will be goons with Scooter McGabe, Vote now!!!!!!!!1 Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
230
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 10:32:00 -
[367] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Snow Axe wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Sorry, you won't be getting my vote. This is almost enough of an endorsement to make me not want to vote mynna! Blah blah, blah, another goon propagandist. How many "official" goons will be on this CSM, and how many "unofficial" ones, like Malcanis?
Goooooons goony goon goons.
Goons?
GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONS.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7619
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 20:47:00 -
[368] - 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 -
[369] - 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 |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
424
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 21:15:00 -
[370] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Hopping on this point: As part of my dealing with new players in high sec alliances, I've noticed that they arrive with a nearly mythical fear of lowsec. It has been easier for us to get them to venture into wormholes, which, from a strict risk-analysis perspective, makes no sense at all. But that's what I've seen. I found a straight "don't go into low sec, everyone will just shoot you" message in the NPE (Advanced Military, IIRC, which is somewhat ironic), and that can't help, but I'm wondering what else makes low sec seem so threatening, and how can it be countered?
In my own case, ignorance was bliss. Almost exactly a year ago, I was shooting through Amamake in frigates, destroyers and shuttles 2-4 times a week, unaware that it was one of the most infamous systems in EVE. But since I was entering through a low sec gate, and leaving through a low sec gate, it never struck me as any different from the surrounding systems.
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? Malcanis for CSM 8 |
|
Fredfredbug4
The Scope Gallente Federation
411
|
Posted - 2013.02.14 22:15:00 -
[371] - Quote
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 accidentally my assets, is this bad?-á |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7621
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 08:02:00 -
[372] - 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 -
[373] - 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 |
Signal11th
The Retirement Club
893
|
Posted - 2013.02.15 08:41:00 -
[374] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Come on Malcanis is using words like "demographic" and "thesis" what's not to like!!! You may or may not agree with his Eve political affiliations or his moderate view but at least his arguments are "usually" well thought out and relevant.
Obviously he's not as good as me buts that to be expected, so until next year when I join the fray he's the best one (out of a bad bunch..couldn't resist) God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster. |
Dyvim Slorm
Spaceriders Inc.
96
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 16:57:00 -
[375] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7640
|
Posted - 2013.02.16 17:09:00 -
[376] - 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 |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2454
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 21:39:00 -
[377] - Quote
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. Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7655
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 21:43:00 -
[378] - 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 |
Vortexo VonBrenner
Coldest Sea Sailing The Honda Accord
31
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 22:09:00 -
[379] - 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.
Ah, crud...I'm in agreement... Must you make sense, Mallak? I wouldn't want anybody to lose any slightest internetspacecred when a "pubbie" agrees with them.
Dinsdale, Malcanis' past statements or something lead you to believe that?
I'm listening to-áBj+¦rk, playing EVE, eating fishsticks, and I'm cold....this is immersion gaming. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2457
|
Posted - 2013.02.17 23:01:00 -
[380] - Quote
Vortexo VonBrenner wrote:Dinsdale, Malcanis' past statements or something lead you to believe that?
It's something I've paid attention to over the past few years. It happens with real life political elections aswell. People say there is no one worth voting for or that they don't care, but get upset about who makes the next term. In EVE terms, there are more people living in highsec than anywhere else & it would most likely remain that way even if every null/low/WH resident left. Highsec denizens have the power to vote in more highsec orientated reps, but unfortunately many of them deem it a complete waste of time. Others don't even know what the CSM is & that isn't limited to new players either.
Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1301
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 06:40:00 -
[381] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
The fact that you posted on the goons' version of Pravda DOES mean you are affiliated with them, or have like-minded views.
The fact that you would say this shows how completely ignorant of any actual facts you truely are. Good job. The writers of TMC have one single thing in common with goons: They hate Riverini and his Faux News24.
I think he'll be fine though, even without your vote.
Malcanis is a good man, I've known him for years, and he knows his EVE stuff (even the parts nobody else cares about).
|
Amyclas Amatin
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 08:45:00 -
[382] - Quote
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. And that players aren't making full use of the risk vs reward of low/null sec.
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.
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7667
|
Posted - 2013.02.18 11:59:00 -
[383] - 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 |
Amyclas Amatin
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 01:04:00 -
[384] - Quote
Quote: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.
I'm not sure if the answer is in nerfing high-sec. Perhaps a null-sec buff would be better? Otherwise, from the perspective of high-sec dwellers, it would seem that you are trying to drag them down to your level.
Quote:Quote: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.
I'm referring to the carebear problem. Many players avoid PVP like the plague. And I feel that the current incentives to go into low or null-sec to carebear just isn't high enough. I do some of my PVE/carebearing in low-sec because it's FUN. I'm a nut who likes looking over my shoulder to check the d-scan every 10 seconds. But... it's not as profitable as grinding level 4 missions in high-sec.
Quote: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.
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.
Quote: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.
I fully support any proposal that lets us blow things up. But I think the asset loss thing could be more hardcore. Everything should be destructible/steal-able... that way outpost bashing could even become a business. But according to the CSM notes, CCP seems concerned about how asset loss would hurt/anger players. In a null-sec situation, I think fear of loss is hilarious. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2471
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 01:57:00 -
[385] - Quote
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. Apparently booking your flight & accomodation to Iceland BEFORE you buy the tickets for the convention which is pretty much the only reason you wanted to go there in the first place is popular. |
Amyclas Amatin
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 02:23:00 -
[386] - Quote
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? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
620
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 03:41:00 -
[387] - 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? There is only so much one can buff really. So long as perfect efficiencies are attainable in NPC stations you have no room to buff player built installations. In the end the answer to your question is yes, though mainly because industry outside highsec is largely irrelevant right now. |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
439
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 07:29:00 -
[388] - 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?
His point is that in an eve where both highsec and nullsec had 50 build slot stations with perfect refines everywhere and the only difference was that the multi-billion isk outpost could be destroyed with everything in it, people (industrialists especially) are going to pick the highsec stations every time. That's the whole point behind "nerf highsec" here. Some people want to simply stomp it into the ground, others - myself and Malcanis included - see it as more like a heavy missile vs heavy assault missile sort of situation. To give the necessary room to make HAMs viable, HMs had to be nerfed a bit. In the case of stations, you can't make an outpost better than perfect, so unless things like faster build times or more slots are enough of an advantage (unlikely), something in highsec has to give. 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.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 09:33:00 -
[389] - 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 |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
120
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 10:30:00 -
[390] - Quote
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. Malcanis for CSM 8 Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:22:00 -
[391] - 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 |
Amyclas Amatin
EVE University Ivy League
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:38:00 -
[392] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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 it might as well be free, the stations can never change 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 no sovereignty bills or sov structure investments, 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. EDIT: To anticipate the reply which I suspect you will make, the value of Technetium has been reduced by almost 2/3 last I checked. I don't anticipate that hi-sec industry will need a nerf nearly as strong as that.
A possible long-term improvement to player-owned outposts would be modular or upgradable outposts, just like the coming modular POSes. Perhaps billions of ISK could be invested to add yet even more research/manufacturing slots and/or improve refining efficiency.
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.
As it is, the wind seems to be blowing against a high-sec nerf. The latest patch added more manufacturing lines to high-sec space, and Quote:With really good skills, NPC corp standing and a 50% base output NPC station you can now actually get a 100% refinery output. .
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. |
Farasoloni
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
2
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:43:00 -
[393] - Quote
Malcanis is a good man, also he's one of the few duders that know how to make(and appreciate!) a proper Gin Tonic. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 14:48:00 -
[394] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
441
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 16:47:00 -
[395] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:As it is, the wind seems to be blowing against a high-sec nerf. The latest patch added more manufacturing lines to high-sec space, and Quote:With really good skills, NPC corp standing and a 50% base output NPC station you can now actually get a 100% refinery output. . 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.
This was a display fix more than anything else. You could get 100% before but it would appear as 99.95% or something. 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.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 17:51:00 -
[396] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2295
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 17:56:00 -
[397] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:A possible long-term improvement to player-owned outposts would be modular or upgradable outposts, just like the coming modular POSes. Perhaps billions of ISK could be invested to add yet even more research/manufacturing slots and/or improve refining efficiency. Considering there are absolutely no shortage of manufacturing slots within 2 jumps or less of Jita, and the fact that perfect refines are easy as pie to achieve, I'd love to hear what sort of improvements you think would actually be enough to make me bring my industrial capacity away from hisec and into nullsec? Where would I be getting my minerals from?
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. I find it interesting how, whenever this topic is discussed, no matter how reasonably it is put, someone inevitably always comes up with "don't force carebears into null!".
I don't want to force carebears into null, since most people who categorize themselves as carebears tend to be whiny about anything resembling risk. I'd rather CCP actually made it possible for nullsec to compete with hisec, and I don't think a full, well-developed nullsec region (I'm sure someone can bother thinking up how many billions has been spent even just putting up stations over the years) should have issues even matching a single hisec system 2 jumps from Jita.
Amyclas Amatin wrote: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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7680
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 18:00:00 -
[398] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2295
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 18:01:00 -
[399] - Quote
I was contemplating mentioning that. I'd make frigates and reprocess them all day erry day if it meant I made money. It wouldn't be very productive or healthy for the game, but I'd do it. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
530
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 18:39:00 -
[400] - 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.
Wait wait wait, Dinsdale Pirannha is known for being able to use sarcasm as a weapon, so does this mean I can't take anything you say seriously? Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
|
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1002
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 19:27:00 -
[401] - Quote
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? This is not a signature. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7681
|
Posted - 2013.02.19 21:24:00 -
[402] - 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 |
Ms Sade
Hammertime Holding Division Nine Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2013.02.20 22:39:00 -
[403] - Quote
He gets my vote.
I don't have the time to put into 0.0 play but would like something more meaningful than missions and industry to do in high sec. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7751
|
Posted - 2013.02.21 17:41:00 -
[404] - 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 |
Noisrevbus
388
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 00:11:00 -
[405] - Quote
It is no larger secret that i almost always agree with you on the overarching theorem of this game. The abstract.
I would like to learn of your opinion on something very concrete though:
You, like me and many other voices in the spatial chatter right now, are a champion of "bottom up economy" (Farms and fields etc.).
However, what is your perspective on the "warchest economy" or the financial balance of the ship classes in the game?
I've argued, more and more recently, that the most severe issue in EVE is ramping up to be the malbalance of economy, as CCP set out to re-balance more and more ship classes without attention to economy at all.
If i am a moderately high SP player today, in a moderately sized alliance, i can fly a larger Tech I hull even with Tech I fitting and meet the demands of most things in EVE at the moment. I can take my BC or BS and meet most PvE challenges or slip it into a 100-man fleet and be incredibly effective on the PvP-side at large, while effectively erasing the ISK factor. This makes number of pilots and size of ships scale arbitrarily, which is what drives the profileration of upscaling to Coalitions and Capitals, that later deadlock.
Obviously, going completely bottomed-out is not what most players in the game do... but that's where the "powerbase" lie that allow subsiding resources at a whim and still remain cost-effective. The powerbase lie in the bottom, where bottomed-out Subcapitals free up resources for accumulation of Supercapitals, or where bottomed-out PvE-ships free up resources for accumulation of PvP-ships, and so forth.
How do you see these reservations in light of the "bottom up perspective"?
Do a Tech I subcapital ship with Tech I fitting present the meaningful small-gang target we want it to be?
Do you see the implications of this when compared to taking risks at undermanned engagement?
Do you see the further implications of how this feed the up-scaling that ultimately lead us to the Supercapital deadlock?
Ultimately i would argue that this is a scaling-issue and a form "handed-" or "placating" non-interactive perspective that both you and i are champions against. It's rooted in the inability to see that eg., Tech II Cruisers should not just be balanced to Cruisers, but also to larger ship classes. It interacts not only with Cruisers, but also with other classes that have a different financial scale. This is a perspective CCP have still not aknowledged despite allocating a fair amount resources to the current very ambitious re-balance initiative. It is also non-interactive in the sense that it stifles interaction between groups of different scales, when economy no longer provides a balanced resource-factor to volume.
I am all for moving content from infrastructure to ships in space, but the importance of those ships is also an important question that is often overlooked in the "bottom up economy" discourse. Many ships are not important at all, in the same way that alot of infrastructure is not important, at all.
A bottom-up economy with imbalanced creation-to-destruction would presumtively render a similar situation to that of Tech today, where the structures holding the moons are tedious but relatively cost-free and thus risk-free in themselves.
What is your perspective on this?
... and how would you prioritize it next to more resource-heavy and time-consuming issues commonly brought up (such as POS-rework, SOV-infra rework and Ring Mining) or artificial, non-interactive or punitive restrictions to the scaling issue (such as Wormholes, Capital spool-up, mass-limiters, local removal and Super nerfs)? |
Amyclas Amatin
EVE University Ivy League
7
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 05:52:00 -
[406] - Quote
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. |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1725
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 05:57:00 -
[407] - Quote
You're seriously not on Twitter? A candidate who is not on Twitter is a candidate with no intention of communicating with the players. Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
215
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 09:14:00 -
[408] - Quote
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.
PS: I read your comment in my thread and post something, is not about difficulty, is about specialization. The Lazy Pilot - http://thelazypilot.wordpress.com/ |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7777
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 11:07:00 -
[409] - 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 -
[410] - 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 |
|
Joran Dravius
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
131
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:19:00 -
[411] - Quote
You'd know if you didn't have a 2012 birthday. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7784
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:25:00 -
[412] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1225
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:36:00 -
[413] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. As a tech geek from a simpler time, I want to personally thank you for this. I myself would argue that this is a key part of keeping communication with the playerbase simple and effective. If you're not already part of a bloc, this is the best guy for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7785
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:40:00 -
[414] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
464
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:53:00 -
[415] - 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.
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. 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.
7787
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 21:56:00 -
[416] - 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 |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1005
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:19:00 -
[417] - 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.
Twitter and its character limits are a huge barrier to actual non-one-liner communication. I'd take a forum presence over Twitter any day of the week. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1729
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:21:00 -
[418] - Quote
Snow Axe 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. Twitter and its character limits are a huge barrier to actual non-one-liner communication. I'd take a forum presence over Twitter any day of the week. Many have both, plus more. Twitter is an easy way to get a hold of someone. For someone to link important announcement and posts. And to have some short conversations.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1729
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:23:00 -
[419] - 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. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1005
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:26:00 -
[420] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:]Many have both, plus more. Twitter is an easy way to get a hold of someone. For someone to link important announcement and posts. And to have some short conversations.
The forums are an even better place of doing all of that.
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd.
It's completely absurd to pretend that being on Twitter of all things is somehow important. If he (or anyone else) wants to, then fine, great, whatever but it's not even slightly important. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7792
|
Posted - 2013.02.22 22:32:00 -
[421] - 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 -
[422] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 02:10:00 -
[423] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote: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. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd.
I honestly cannot figure out whether you are trolling or not. This post was crafted by a member of the GoonSwarm Federation Economic Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay. |
Lord Zim
2295
|
Posted - 2013.02.23 03:55:00 -
[424] - Quote
Poetic Stanziel wrote:Twitter is an easy way to get a hold of someone. Twitter also sucks and promotes SMSish. **** twitter. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
405
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 05:40:00 -
[425] - Quote
I don't tell a candidate whether or not they have my vote.
What I will say is that I think this post and all the linked posts are extremely well thought out. You have a very clear view of the EVE economy as a whole and are more than capable of seeing the real problems as well as what things EVE really needs. I think you would make an excellent CSM member and I hope you win a seat.
P.S. I don't understand Twitter and I don't need it, therefore I don't use it. People who can't live without it usually don't have much to say to me anyway. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Ruskarn Andedare
Lion Investments
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 15:20:00 -
[426] - Quote
mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: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. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd. I honestly cannot figure out whether you are trolling or not.
I'm hoping for troll and hoping Malcanis doesn't give in to any urges to use twitter |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7847
|
Posted - 2013.02.25 20:43:00 -
[427] - 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 |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
35
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 11:10:00 -
[428] - Quote
Ruskarn Andedare wrote:mynnna wrote:Poetic Stanziel wrote: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. Yes. It's entirely absurd to be on the forums and Twitter. You're so absurd, Mynnna. Every major candidate, but Malcanis, is so damned absurd. I honestly cannot figure out whether you are trolling or not. I'm hoping for troll and hoping Malcanis doesn't give in to any urges to use twitter
I don't think I'm alone in the opinion that avoiding Twitter goes in Malcanis favour. Where better to communicate with Eve players than the Eve forums?
Don't Panic.
|
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
453
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 19:32:00 -
[429] - Quote
Chiming in to support the idea that the EVE forums are more than adequate as a communication platform. I'd rather not have to go looking all over the internet for CSM information when there are two perfectly good forums right here, clearly labeled "Council of Stellar Management." Malcanis, Ripard Teg, and Trebor Daehdoow for CSM 8
(I have three accounts, so why not?) |
Rengerel en Distel
Amarr Science and Industry
1252
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 19:51:00 -
[430] - Quote
I'll also chime in and say I think the forums are the place to have communication with the players. Some people need to write 8000 word blogs about the game they're not playing because they're writing blogs, but most do not. If you can't convey an opinion to elicit a response in under 6000 characters, you don't have an opinion worth responding to in the first place.
I still believe that Assembly Hall should be locked threads moved from the CSM private forum. When an issue is resolved with CCP, the CSM thread should be moved so that the players know how the CSM actually responded to the issue, if they responded at all. CCP can redact any NDA content, then move the threads. We wouldn't have to take their word for their positions with CCP, we'd be able to read it ourselves. That is actual transparency, which the current CSM has said they were in favor of promoting.
With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
|
|
Captain Tardbar
NEWB ALERT
168
|
Posted - 2013.02.26 21:30:00 -
[431] - Quote
So Malcanis, you might be one of my transferable votes in the new STV system...
What do you think of James? "Entitlement" is a euphemism for "I hate the way you play and it makes me cry like a baby". If you fantasize about being immoral it means you enjoy being immoral deep down. |
Ginger Barbarella
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1187
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 00:11:00 -
[432] - Quote
No. "Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." -á --- Sorlac |
Endeavour Starfleet
842
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 07:15:00 -
[433] - Quote
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?
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)
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?
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.
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.
Incursion suckage. With the nerfs to Incursions fleets have slowed to a trickle and it was sad to see CCP willing to spend more development time nerfing entire expansions instead of doing what was right being making other aspects of EVE better. Modular POS and Ring mining need dev time sooner so I will admit this ought to be looked at later however I wanted to get your views on them and have this to be some context to the next aspect of Logi.
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7881
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 08:23:00 -
[434] - 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 -
[435] - 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 |
Wey'oun
Shadows Of The Federation Drunk 'n' Disorderly
72
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:12:00 -
[436] - Quote
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).
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.
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!!!
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 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7883
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 10:24:00 -
[437] - 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 -
[438] - 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 -
[439] - 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 -
[440] - 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 -
[441] - 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 -
[442] - 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 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
416
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:34:00 -
[443] - Quote
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 then 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 the two 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. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
416
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:42:00 -
[444] - Quote
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. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7885
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 12:51:00 -
[445] - 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 -
[446] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2296
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:00:00 -
[447] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
416
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:10:00 -
[448] - Quote
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. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7887
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:19:00 -
[449] - 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 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
417
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:23:00 -
[450] - Quote
tracking ships is fine tracking ships with dreads is fine bugged webs not so much Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7887
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 13:23:00 -
[451] - 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 |
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 14:34:00 -
[452] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7895
|
Posted - 2013.02.27 18:45:00 -
[453] - 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 -
[454] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:14:00 -
[455] - Quote
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.
|
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
163
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 14:18:00 -
[456] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Have you seen this? Sounds like you might find it useful.
Interesting. It is pretty, though I could probably parse the results in the time it would take me to use the tool. I'll give it a whirl sometime. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7905
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 15:24:00 -
[457] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2296
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 17:12:00 -
[458] - Quote
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? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7913
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 18:20:00 -
[459] - 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 |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1033
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:01:00 -
[460] - Quote
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. This is not a signature. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:08:00 -
[461] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2296
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:16:00 -
[462] - 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. Hmm. Let's see, on one hand we have lots of people just hauling minerals (mined by people who are mostly safe to a station), in nigh-on full safety, 2 jumps out of jita, spend 2k isk to build a maelstrom, and fly it back the same 2 jumps, to sell it to someone who then load it into a JF and ships it to nullsec. On the other hand, we have people actually manufacturing in nullsec, still have to import various things like T2 stuff etc, but ends up sourcing minerals locally, thus making it more lucrative to mine in nullsec than it is in hisec, thus creating a nullsec which isn't dead outside of fleet fights, i.e. a place where roaming gangs can actually have a chance of catching more dumbasses who aren't watching local, creating a need for an actual unironic home defense fleet, etc etc etc.
Well, we can't have that happen, now can we? That's definitely more isolationist and bubbly than having literally all ships, modules, ammo etc made in hisec by people you don't know. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7916
|
Posted - 2013.02.28 19:19:00 -
[463] - 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 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 04:05:00 -
[464] - Quote
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. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7923
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 07:58:00 -
[465] - 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 |
Amyclas Amatin
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 08:27:00 -
[466] - Quote
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?
The post that got me banned from Eve-Uni:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=210049&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:11:00 -
[467] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:12:00 -
[468] - Quote
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?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:14:00 -
[469] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2297
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:16:00 -
[470] - 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? 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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:17:00 -
[471] - 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? Are you asking me how to 'fix' nullsec industry?
I was conversing with Malcanis... questioning whether his position wasn't just a Nerf Highsec. Is it you feeling that is the only answer?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:22:00 -
[472] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:36:00 -
[473] - Quote
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.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:40:00 -
[474] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:41:00 -
[475] - Quote
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?
|
Lord Zim
2297
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:41:00 -
[476] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote: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? Are you asking me how to 'fix' nullsec industry? I was conversing with Malcanis... questioning whether his position wasn't just a Nerf Highsec. Is it you feeling that is the only answer? I don't propose to answer for malcanis, but I've made my position on the way industry is done in hisec quite clear over a myriad of posts, but I'll elucidate to make it crystal clear here as well:
No, it's not the only answer, but it is a part of the answer. The fact of the matter is, the only way you can make nullsec industry actually "properly worthwhile" in nullsec is to make adjustments to both nullsec and hisec. By all means make changes to nullsec first, and then adjustments to hisec, but as long as I can go to jita, buy all the minerals I can possibly need in a few minutes, haul that 2 jumps out of jita, find a shittonne of available manufacturing capacity essentially for free (again, 2k per maelstrom, that's for free), and then ship it to nullsec with barely any effort on my part at all, as opposed to all the effort which would have to be put in just to make this even remotely work in nullsec (yes, I have actually tried manufacturing in nullsec, and I had the luxury of constantly having access to free slots; have you?).
In addition, making very specific adjustments to how f.ex manufacturing slot costs, refinery and sales taxes etc work would solve (or provide tools to solve) a lot of additional issues such as how alliances today aren't as encouraged to build up a proper farms and fields initiative, because the only direct income which isn't easily circumventable is ... ratting. Encouraging alliances to switch their funding from a top down funding to a bottom up funding, through actual activity in their space would also let small gangs have something crunchy and lazy to run around and try to catch, as opposed to the 1-3 ratters who'll be more alert and more setup to dock/pos up the instant something non-blue appears in local. This in turn could foster resentments between alliances, and in turn this would lead to more fights over grudges done in retaliation etc, instead of more of the same old same old "hurr let's hit their moons/sov structures it'll be awesome guys guys guys? where are you guys?"
So no, it's not just a matter of "nerf hisec", it's a matter of "make the proper adjustments to even begin to be able to foster industry in nullsec", and trying to boil my position down to just "nerf hisec" is ludicrous. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Snow Axe
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1042
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:42:00 -
[477] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote: There must be some form of ship production for/by the Alliances/Corp members in Null.
Almost entirely imporation, actually. I say almost as I'm sure there's some small amount of stuff built locally (not counting supercaps which have to be), but the vast majority is importation. "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7924
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:44:00 -
[478] - 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 -
[479] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2298
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:55:00 -
[480] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. As am I. In fact, I'd welcome it with open arms. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Lord Zim
2299
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:57:00 -
[481] - Quote
Snow Axe wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote: There must be some form of ship production for/by the Alliances/Corp members in Null. Almost entirely imporation, actually. I say almost as I'm sure there's some small amount of stuff built locally (not counting supercaps which have to be), but the vast majority is importation. I tried manufacturing locally in deklein, and I even had access to enough slots which were continually available to me. It still sucked dicks, I still had to haul all the things to a different station (in a freighter), refine it, haul it back, build it and THEN move it to our market hub. Vastly more effort and risk than in hisec, and now it's all hisec/JF up all day. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 09:58:00 -
[482] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
That doesn't sound bad.
|
Amyclas Amatin
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:01:00 -
[483] - Quote
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.
The post that got me banned from Eve-Uni:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=210049&find=unread |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7926
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:05:00 -
[484] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2299
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:14:00 -
[485] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:We can interdict all incoming shipping from high-sec. That would encourage people to produce things at home in null. Deklein can't produce enough T2 ammo to supply a full maelstrom fleet of ammo, per day. Add to this everything else that goes poof, add to this the fact POS fuel needs to be made, etc etc etc etc etc. What do you get?
Oh, and as for interdicting all shipping from hisec: good luck with that. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Lord Zim
2299
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:15:00 -
[486] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:20:00 -
[487] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1721
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:20:00 -
[488] - Quote
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
EvE players have no voice. Just don't bother voting for the CSM, really its not worth the energy.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:23:00 -
[489] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1721
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:27:00 -
[490] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Yes but at the moment only the insane or a bot would min in Null, you are financially a lot better off in Hi-sec.
As to the importation and for that matter exportation that is why I would like to see jump fuel consumption increase to give the hi-sec market some protection as well as giving the Null sec industrialists the edge within their own space. EvE players have no voice. Just don't bother voting for the CSM, really its not worth the energy.
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:32:00 -
[491] - 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 |
Amyclas Amatin
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:36:00 -
[492] - Quote
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. The post that got me banned from Eve-Uni:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=210049&find=unread |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:40:00 -
[493] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:...and trying to boil my position down to just "nerf hisec" is ludicrous. I don't recall doing that.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7927
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:47:00 -
[494] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2299
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:49:00 -
[495] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Lord Zim wrote:...and trying to boil my position down to just "nerf hisec" is ludicrous. I don't recall doing that. Except you did, implicitly, by the way you phrased the following question:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:I was conversing with Malcanis... questioning whether his position wasn't just a Nerf Highsec. Is it you feeling that is the only answer? As I said, no, it's not the only answer, but trying to pidgeonhole my opinion in that fashion is wrong, and I won't tolerate it. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7928
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 10:54:00 -
[496] - 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 |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
419
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:03:00 -
[497] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. It would allow people in nullsec to get more out of the time spent mining to help make up for all the time wasted in protecting the miners, finding safe quiet spots, etc. Mittani, where have you gone to? I miss you :( |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7929
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:05:00 -
[498] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:06:00 -
[499] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Lord Zim wrote:...and trying to boil my position down to just "nerf hisec" is ludicrous. I don't recall doing that. Except you did, implicitly, by the way you phrased the following question: Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:I was conversing with Malcanis... questioning whether his position wasn't just a Nerf Highsec. Is it you feeling that is the only answer? As I said, no, it's not the only answer, but trying to pidgeonhole my opinion in that fashion is wrong, and I won't tolerate it. I never read your position before you commented on my post. No offense, but since this is Malcanis thread I was interested in his opinion.
My comment: "Nerfing highsec doesnGÇÖt fix those areas. "
Your comment: 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?
PS. Can we not get into this in a thread about Malcanis? I believe he we win a seat... I would be interested in hearing his views. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7933
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:10:00 -
[500] - 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 |
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:20:00 -
[501] - Quote
Would you expand on your view in this area?
For example (very roughly):
GÇóIn a 0.1 system there might not be any station/gate guns, but bubbles would not be anchorable. GÇóIn a 0.2 system there would be station guns but no gate guns. GÇóIn a 0.3 system there would be both station guns and gate guns, but they would not be as powerful as those in a 0.4 GÇóIn a 0.4 system there would be more powerful station guns and gate guns, and there would be a small chance of faction navy or pirate navy NPCs spawning when a criminal act takes place GÇóIn a 0.5 system the faction navy (rather than Concord) would respond in force to criminal acts - sufficiently prepared ships could tank or avoid them for a short period, but would eventually be overwhelmed (the navy might call in Concord reinforcements if they were unable to handle the situation). All hi-sec systems would have powerful gate and station guns. GÇóIn a 0.6 system Concord would respond to criminal acts, but their response time would be slower than in higher security systems. GÇóIn a 0.7 system the Concord response time would be quicker, and there would be a very small chance of faction navy patrols appearing at gates and stations (tankable/avoidable if prepared). GÇóIn a 0.8 system the Concord response time would be quicker and in greater numbers, and there would be a small to medium chance of faction navy patrols at gates and stations (still tankable/avoidable). GÇóIn a 0.9 system the Concord response time would be quicker still, and there would be a medium to high chance of faction navy patrolling gates and stations, and a small chance of them patrolling asteroid belts. GÇóIn a 1.0 system the Concord response would be almost instant, there would be constant faction navy patrols at stations and gates, and there would be a good chance of the navy patrolling the belts too.
Moving from a 1.0 system to a 0.5 system (or a 0.4 system to a 0.1 system) would involve a noticable drop in security, and would be accompanied by a comparable increase in potential reward for those willing to deal with the increased risk.
Malcanis That's exactly the kind of gradiated difference I had in mind.....
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7934
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:23:00 -
[502] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:35:00 -
[503] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
As a new player (+5 months), I see a deep chasm around HighsecGǪ the drop of is both sharp and deep, but change that by modifying the risk and things will changeGǪ for most in both High and Low Sec.
A miner in 0.5 space is fairly safeGǪ easy money and usually death for the pirate. A miner in 0.4 is nuts. An easy kill for the pirate. Modify the risk/reward for both by blurring the line and the game has gotten a whole lot more dynamic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7934
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 11:47:00 -
[504] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:16:00 -
[505] - Quote
Based on your responses/clarifications, plus how you responded (tone)GǪ. I have moved from 'will not vote for' to undecided.
I have no intention of disrupted your thread or troll in anyway, so please tell me if my questions/posts are undesired and I will stop. I am just cautious when it comes to your candidacy. You are GÇÿdangerousGÇÖ. I donGÇÖt mean that negatively.
I have read the forums and there seem to be strong circumstantial evidence that some who where elected in the past didnGÇÖt contribute muchGǪ some didn't even try. I donGÇÖt see that in you. For your posts/stances, I fully believe you will be active and passionate. You are a danger to the GÇÿStatus QuoGÇÖ. You will seek change, thus my questions.
Good luck on your Candidacy |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7936
|
Posted - 2013.03.01 13:21:00 -
[506] - 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 |
Alonzo Harris
Elbflorenz Industries
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.02 00:26:00 -
[507] - Quote
you got all my votes so far Gÿæ Power to the People! http://freehighsec.wordpress.com/ |
Naughty Ferret
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.03 19:58:00 -
[508] - Quote
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 a large part of the player base? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7951
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 07:52:00 -
[509] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2299
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 08:39:00 -
[510] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. As long as the changes to intel gathering wouldn't mean the roaming ship of choice would be a cloaked ship. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
|
Jeremy Soikutsu
AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing
60
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 01:45:00 -
[511] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7971
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 07:53:00 -
[512] - 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 |
Vince Snetterton
255
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:01:00 -
[513] - Quote
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.
And of course, it is only a tiny cottage industry that cranks out supercarriers and titans, dreads and carriers. If CCP would ever release the numbers about how many minerals were sucked into null sec cap and supercap production, null sec propagandists would have an awful time complaining about null sec industry.
But I am certain that since CCP has not released any data since May 2012, it won't be hard for this null sec CSM to keep the lid on how many supercaps have been built in the past 8 months, and how many trillions of ISK in minerals have been locked into those hulls.
Truth is bad for the propaganda business. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
7971
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:12:00 -
[514] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2299
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 09:54:00 -
[515] - Quote
Vince Snetterton wrote:Yes, because manufacturing arrays at POS's don't work in null sec. Oh wait, they do. They do, but they're costlier, riskier and much more effort in every way than what you would have to deal with in hisec. As Malcanis says, POSes need to be overhauled for them to be considered used for manufacturing, least of all is the security aspect of it, and secondly is the absolutely atrocious UI for setting one up.
Vince Snetterton wrote:And of course, it is only a tiny cottage industry that cranks out supercarriers and titans, dreads and carriers. Pretty certain dreads and carriers are predominantly manufactured in lowsec, not nullsec. And we've been saying, numerous times, that supercaps are made en masse in nullsec since, uh, that's the only place they can be made.
Vince Snetterton wrote:If CCP would ever release the numbers about how many minerals were sucked into null sec cap and supercap production, null sec propagandists would have an awful time complaining about null sec industry.
But I am certain that since CCP has not released any data since May 2012, it won't be hard for this null sec CSM to keep the lid on how many supercaps have been built in the past 8 months, and how many trillions of ISK in minerals have been locked into those hulls. I've no idea what you're on about, since last I checked we've said a ton of times that supercaps were the main industry being performed in nullsec. We want more variation in nullsec industry, and the amount of minerals is not in any way, shape or form indicative of how healthy the industrial part of nullsec industry is, the indication to watch is the number of different things being made, the number of people making them and the number of people making the raw materials for this industry. And that indicator is pointing squarely towards "it's ****".
As for how much minerals etc has been thrown into this, you can probably look at the pace they were made pre-nerf, halve the number and be closeish to today's pace, but if you want to be sensationalist you can assume that they're being made at the same pace as pre-nerf. It doesn't matter, since, again, it's in no way an indication of the health of nullsec's industry. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1737
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 10:48:00 -
[516] - Quote
To be honest I would just be happy with a patch to the security and the ability for other people in the alliance to be able to put things in a hanger. The POS is enough to start, painful yes, but we have lived with the pain for years at least this way the pain would have more meaning. EvE players have no voice. Just don't bother voting for the CSM, really its not worth the energy.
|
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1797
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:24:00 -
[517] - Quote
What is your stance on AFK skill training? Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8024
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:34:00 -
[518] - 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 |
Poetic Stanziel
Fweddit I Whip My Slaves Back and Forth
1797
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:40:00 -
[519] - Quote
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.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8026
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 21:50:00 -
[520] - 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 |
|
Xearal
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
506
|
Posted - 2013.03.07 23:12:00 -
[521] - Quote
I sort of stumbled across you while browsing other topics that you commented on.
I think you will be a great asset to the CSM and CCP and Eve were you on the council. You will definitely have my ( and my alts ) votes.
Being an industrialist myself ( though not super 'hardcore', but not a small blip either ), I've poured over spreadsheets, did the math-fu, and found out that yes, as things are at the moment, there's no real point in doing Industry in Nullsec, unless you're either a massive industrial machine, or the guy in an alliance that builds supers en masse for said alliance.
Convenience, Risk, production costs, estimated margins, everything on my sheets tell me, doing industry at my level ( about 6-8B turnover a month ) is simply not worth it. Which really makes me sad, because I've gotten rather bored sitting in high sec. Hence between my hauling runs and production setups, I tend to live my life in NPC null and in low-sec.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8035
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 06:57:00 -
[522] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2300
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 07:56:00 -
[523] - Quote
Not just enabled, encouraged. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1765
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 07:56:00 -
[524] - Quote
Hello I am wondering as to your opinion of this
Frying Doom wrote:baltec1 wrote:Frying Doom wrote:Alavaria Fera wrote:How much is the cost to keep an NPC station in highsec running (that people use like crazy) again? Well as the objective of this from my perspective is for player structures to be better than NPC ones. So the cost to use a slot would be more than that of a player owned one. For the costs of the facilities you would need to ask CCP as that is a lore thingy. But on a case of balancing, I can see the need for making an Outpost good with a slot usage isk sink involved but as to the number of slots. Tippia wrote:If CCP allowed multiple outposts per system, most nulsec areas would then have the potential to easily equal hisec for industry and research, but you would have to work for it. Actually, it wouldn't. Outposts are still so hideously unable to even begin to come close to the capabilities of even a single station that you'd run out of planets long before you got something that even remotely resembled a highsec system.
I suppose I'll have to post my standard improvement requirement list in this thread tooGǪ
1. One outpost per system probably has to remain for sov reasons (sov needs a revamp, but let's break one thing at a time). 2. Every outpost type gets 50 each of every industry slot type. Industry-specific outposts get twice that (up from a best-case scenario of 10 of one type). 3. Every outpost type gets 20 offices; Gallente outposts get twice that (up from 4GÇô8 / 24). 4. Every outpost type gets a 30% refinery; a 50% refinery is a single basic upgrade. 5. Basic industry upgrades add 50 each of every slot type (up from 5 of a specific type); Intermediate upgrades add 100 (up from 7); Advanced upgrades add 150 (up from 9). Time bonuses could probably remain the same. So an Advanced upgraded Outpost would have 350 slots of each type (Industry Type having 400). That is a lot of slots NPC stations have normally 50 manufacturing slots, 10 copy slots. 20 Invention slots. 20 material research slots and 20 time efficiency research slots. Frankly I thought my position (as you can only have one per system) of 50% of what you are requesting, with 75% as an out side was frankly a bit unbalanced towards outposts given the extra risk involved in an Outpost. but the fact that you will not take less than what is a massive number of slots is frankly a bit naive as you would frankly be lucky to get 50% of what was asked for. Yet having five high sec systems that out produce all of nullsec combined is perfectly fine. Even with 400 slots high sec would out produce null. What exactly is unbalanced about tippias idea? Ok so lets just look at Goonswarm and Test the biggest 2 to answer that. Goonswarm 71 outposts Test alliance 67 Out posts So combined 138 Outposts So under Tippias proposal they would have 48300 Manufacturing slots equaling 966 Hi-sec stations 48300 Copy Slots equaling 4830 High sec stations 48300 Invention slots equaling 2415 Hi-sec stations 48300 Material Research Stations equaling 2415 Hi-sec stations 48300 Time Efficiency Research equaling 2415 Hi-sec stations. These calculations done at 350 per station so assuming they all have advanced upgrades but are not Industry type. All of Hi-sec Empire contains 2996 Stations so just between the outposts owned by goonswarm and TEST would be greater than the manufacturing capability of the whole of high sec. So yeah I do feel that would be unbalanced and having gone over the numbers like this I would be more inclined to say 5-10% of the amount you want would be balanced.
In relation to a rebalancing of industry via the prioritization of reward=risk*capital expendature
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. We all thought CSM 6 was a war crime with it's massive Null Presence CSM7 topped it by selling out our Council to CCP, don't let it happen again. Vote or next time Incarna is your fault Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8036
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 07:58:00 -
[525] - 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 -
[526] - 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 |
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1767
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 09:21:00 -
[527] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Actually after reading that it is a shame such a thing would probably require more resources than CCP would ever delicate.
Having a station that can be fully customizable actually sounds kind of neat. We all thought CSM 6 was a war crime with it's massive Null Presence CSM7 topped it by selling out our Council to CCP, don't let it happen again. Vote or next time Incarna is your fault Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8036
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 09:27:00 -
[528] - 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 |
Fearghaz Tiwas
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:10:00 -
[529] - Quote
Malcanis has clearly thought about EVE in the bigger picture and the balance required between different play-styles. His philosophy holds true to what I see as the correct vision for EVE. Keep Hi-sec interesting, and make null sec more diverse.
Definitely getting my vote |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1250
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:16:00 -
[530] - Quote
Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:Malcanis has clearly thought about EVE in the bigger picture and the balance required between different play-styles. His philosophy holds true to what I see as the correct vision for EVE. Keep Hi-sec interesting, and make null sec more diverse.
Definitely getting my vote
Apparenlty he also thinks that double-taxing novice miners in hisec is good for something... but don't ask him what. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8048
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:18:00 -
[531] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2300
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:19:00 -
[532] - Quote
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? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8048
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:25:00 -
[533] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2300
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:26:00 -
[534] - Quote
Oops. My bad. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Indahmawar Fazmarai
1250
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:34:00 -
[535] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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!
I am waiting for an answer, what's the purpose to double tax novice miners by NPC taxing the hisec refining of minerals? It's a pretty simple question. EVE is Serious Business: You shall not feel entitled to being allowed to play EVE just because you are paying it. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8048
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:39:00 -
[536] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2300
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 14:40:00 -
[537] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:double tax Elucidation is requested. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. |
Fearghaz Tiwas
ZOMBIEBEACHPARTYPATROL Circle-Of-Two
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.08 16:31:00 -
[538] - Quote
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:Fearghaz Tiwas wrote:Malcanis has clearly thought about EVE in the bigger picture and the balance required between different play-styles. His philosophy holds true to what I see as the correct vision for EVE. Keep Hi-sec interesting, and make null sec more diverse.
Definitely getting my vote Apparenlty he also thinks that double-taxing novice miners in hisec is good for something... but don't ask him what.
You mean taxing all miners in high sec? And in fact margin traders I believe... sounds about right. Hi sec taxes are stupidly low for the benefits people get |
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1682
|
Posted - 2013.03.10 13:14:00 -
[539] - Quote
No but you see highsec is supposed to be the best at absolutely everything with no downsides whatsoever, just like CCP intended! 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. |
Xearal
Black Thorne Corporation Black Thorne Alliance
523
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 18:33:00 -
[540] - Quote
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 ;)
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8097
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 18:49:00 -
[541] - 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 |
Robert Tables
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.11 22:11:00 -
[542] - Quote
Crossing from Trebor's thread...
Malcanis wrote:Trebor Daehdoow wrote:Since you gentlemen have invited yourselves over and gotten comfortable, how about you demonstrate your applied CSMing skills by explaining how you'd go about persuading CCP to increase the differentiation between (or granularity of) player vs. NPC corps? I'd start by taking a leaf from your book, Trebor, and going back to first principles: what are NPC corps supposed to be for? The current mode of "unelected choice of undifferentiated dumping ground for people who aren't in a player corp" seems to me to be... suboptimal. I'd like to see players able to choose their own NPC corp, and I'd like to see that choice actually mean something wrt to game mechanics - advantages, disadvantages, bonuses, penalties, drawbacks and opportunities. This NPC corp should be a natural choice for people who like mining, that NPC corp might attract haulers, and so on. As this would encourage people with similar interests to be in contact with each other, they'd be forming communities with a common outlook, and this in turn would also provide a good solute for more player corps to crystallise from
You are so getting my vote... |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 12:44:00 -
[543] - Quote
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!
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8102
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 12:55:00 -
[544] - 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 |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 13:02:00 -
[545] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
Well that explains the headaches... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8102
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 13:16:00 -
[546] - 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 |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
714
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 21:47:00 -
[547] - Quote
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.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8111
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 21:54:00 -
[548] - 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 |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
714
|
Posted - 2013.03.12 22:31:00 -
[549] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Well, since they never do anything I tell them to, what that amounts to is that I endorse *EVERYONE ELSE*!
(You should be a shoe in!)
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8130
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 14:36:00 -
[550] - 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 |
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:17:00 -
[551] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:...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. That sounds very good.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:41:00 -
[552] - Quote
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. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 16:57:00 -
[553] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Malcanis wrote: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. As a new player (+5 months), I see a deep chasm around HighsecGǪ the drop of is both sharp and deep, but change that by modifying the risk and things will changeGǪ for most in both High and Low Sec. A miner in 0.5 space is fairly safeGǪ easy money and usually death for the pirate. A miner in 0.4 is nuts. An easy kill for the pirate. Modify the risk/reward for both by blurring the line and the game has gotten a whole lot more dynamic.
There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.
There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:01:00 -
[554] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote:...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. I thought he was a TEST stoogeGǪ damn I need a player score card.
I donGÇÖt agree with Malcanis on some or many issues, and he sometimes falls back on nerf highsec, but I think there is more to him than simple label you wish to attach.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:05:00 -
[555] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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?
Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:08:00 -
[556] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote: There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.
There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees. I donGÇÖt gank. It seem fairly boring to me. I use to mineGǪ now I run missions. Altering the way Concord/Faction Navies respondGǪ down into .3 space, would add to the game.
It shouldnGÇÖt be in 0.4 the pirate knows he can always kill a minerGǪ make it dynamic. He will most likely get that untanked retriever, but that Skiff?
In 0.3, four Skiffs and some escorts means any pirate will not only have to fight the escorts, but get it done or flee before the Faction Navy arrives. Dynamic for both pirate and miner.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:10:00 -
[557] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote:...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. I thought he was a TEST stoogeGǪ damn I need a player score card. I donGÇÖt agree with Malcanis on some or many issues, and he sometimes falls back on nerf highsec, but I think there is more to him than simple label you wish to attach.
Hmm. It's like when you could buy blue or pinkish-red parafin (fuel for lamps,greenhouse heaters etc.) in the UK years ago. Some people would swear the blue or the pink version was better. But in actual fact they were exactly the same bar the different colour. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:10:00 -
[558] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote: Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec.
Nullsec is broken... it sucks... it is dead. That is why they are in highsec.
It doesn't mean that high and low couldn't use some change.
|
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:17:00 -
[559] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote: There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.
There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees. I donGÇÖt gank. It seem fairly boring to me. I use to mineGǪ now I run missions. Altering the way Concord/Faction Navies respondGǪ down into .3 space, would add to the game. It shouldnGÇÖt be in 0.4 the pirate knows he can always kill a minerGǪ make it dynamic. He will most likely get that untanked retriever, but that Skiff? In 0.3, four Skiffs and some escorts means any pirate will not only have to fight the escorts, but get it done or flee before the Faction Navy arrives. Dynamic for both pirate and miner.
Aye I also feel low sec needs something done to it to improve it but I'm not sure what or how that should be done. I don't feel it was a good idea to have datacores coming from Factional Warfare and it has indeed turned out to be a bit of a mess. Would have been far better to leave datacores just coming from research agents as before. I hope that once DUST 514 is officially released it can be fully integrated with FW to help make low sec much better. |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:20:00 -
[560] - Quote
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:Bethan Le Troix wrote: Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec.
Nullsec is broken... it sucks... it is dead. That is why they are in highsec. It doesn't mean that high and low couldn't use some change.
Nul sec is for large fleet battles and sovreignty. Working for 'the man' in enlarge allaince territory etc. I'm not sure it's broken. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8133
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:25:00 -
[561] - 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 |
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:33:00 -
[562] - Quote
"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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8133
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:41:00 -
[563] - 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 |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 17:59:00 -
[564] - Quote
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. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 18:00:00 -
[565] - Quote
Bethan Le Troix wrote: Nul sec is for large fleet battles and sovreignty. Working for 'the man' in enlarge allaince territory etc. I'm not sure it's broken.
It needs more, because players are voting with their feet and going to highsec. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8133
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 18:01:00 -
[566] - 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 |
Asuri Kinnes
Adhocracy Incorporated Adhocracy
714
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 18:03:00 -
[567] - 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. I'm not sure you read his post. If you did, I would have to say, I'm fairly sure you didn't understand it.
Interdict Hi-Sec - it's the only way to be sure... |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8134
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 22:03:00 -
[568] - 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 |
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
607
|
Posted - 2013.03.13 23:44:00 -
[569] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE.
Best kind of campaigning. Don't worry about posting with your main! -áPost with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 10:33:00 -
[570] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE.
I hope it was dark rum.
Dark rum, best rum. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 10:38:00 -
[571] - Quote
One cannot yarr on Bacardi. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
240
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 10:45:00 -
[572] - Quote
Navy rum or get out. |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 11:35:00 -
[573] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:One cannot yarr on Bacardi.
Or yo ho ho, for that matter. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 11:43:00 -
[574] - 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 |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
51
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:17:00 -
[575] - Quote
I tend to think that it's a waste of time for any CSM members to get caught up in the minutae of specific gameplay styles or specific game mechanics.
I think that CCP knows perfectly well what's wrong with the game, why nullsec is stagnant, why high-sec is unexciting, etc etc. they know full well what needs to be done. I'm sure that most CSM candidates and the players also know this. Dear god we've been tellling CCP for long enough.
Therefore all the CSM needs to do, is to put pressure on CCP to just get the f**k on with it. We don't want endless debates and meetings, we want results! Don't Panic.
|
Lord Zim
2301
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:24:00 -
[576] - Quote
Speedkermit Damo wrote:I think that CCP knows perfectly well what's wrong with the game, why nullsec is stagnant, why high-sec is unexciting, etc etc. they know full well what needs to be done. Such optimism is often the first step down the road to disappointment. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Speedkermit Damo
Callide Vulpis Curatores Veritatis Alliance
51
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:32:00 -
[577] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Speedkermit Damo wrote:I think that CCP knows perfectly well what's wrong with the game, why nullsec is stagnant, why high-sec is unexciting, etc etc. they know full well what needs to be done. Such optimism is often the first step down the road to disappointment.
Oh I think know know what's broken, they've just decided that fixing it is far too much effort. Don't Panic.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:34:00 -
[578] - 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 |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:42:00 -
[579] - Quote
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
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:48:00 -
[580] - 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 |
|
Lord Zim
2301
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:50:00 -
[581] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:and we'd have 13! opinions... I wonder how many people would actually get how many opinions this would expand into. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8136
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 14:57:00 -
[582] - 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 |
Signal11th
The Retirement Club
926
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:08:00 -
[583] - Quote
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. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8137
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:12:00 -
[584] - 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 |
Signal11th
The Retirement Club
926
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:15:00 -
[585] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
lol I was going to include Armagnac (as I actually do prefer this) but unfortunately I couldn't remember how to spell it, so it got changed to Cognac to hide my lack of intelligence. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1347
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:22:00 -
[586] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Instead of campaigning tonight, I drank rum and played EVE. What is your stance on tequila? I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8138
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:29:00 -
[587] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1347
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:34:00 -
[588] - Quote
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. You're drunk, sir! I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Signal11th
The Retirement Club
926
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:42:00 -
[589] - Quote
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. God Said "Come Forth and receive eternal life!" I came fifth and won a toaster. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1347
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 15:55:00 -
[590] - Quote
Signal11th wrote:I find Tequila quite useful for removing wood stains and powering my lawnmower but apart from that it's a foul drink. I get the feeling I'm talking to a bunch of Brits here... I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8140
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 16:04:00 -
[591] - 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 |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
52
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 16:33:00 -
[592] - Quote
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? |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
462
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 18:11:00 -
[593] - Quote
You guys obviously don't get any of the good tequila across the pond, speaking as someone who enjoys a good single malt.
If the best I could get was Cuervo, I'd probably hate tequila too. Malcanis, Ripard Teg, and Trebor Daehdoow for CSM 8
(I have three accounts, so why not?) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8154
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 20:42:00 -
[594] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1350
|
Posted - 2013.03.14 21:17:00 -
[595] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Anunzi wrote: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. You've redeemed yourself in my eyes. Jack is ****, though. Gentleman Jack is quite good. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 12:51:00 -
[596] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. This sounds very acceptable to me, even though there is room for improvement in the rum department. Dear Malcanis, you are about get my votes |
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
129
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 17:05:00 -
[597] - Quote
Sui'Djin wrote:Malcanis wrote: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. This sounds very acceptable to me, even though there is room for improvement in the rum department. Dear Malcanis, you are about get my votes
And people keep telling that drinking isn't good for you. Little do they know. Malcanis for CSM 8 Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8170
|
Posted - 2013.03.15 18:09:00 -
[598] - 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 |
Naughty Ferret
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.16 00:27:00 -
[599] - Quote
You don't pick the side that bacon is on...bacon picks you.
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/health/i-am-the-greatest-thing-of-all-time-says-bacon-2013030761993
|
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
53
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 09:07:00 -
[600] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Drinking isn't good for you. Neither is knowledge, love, honesty or bacon.
I've picked a side.
Given your demographic (Internet spaceship nerds) saying bacon isnGÇÖt good for you may not be a wise move as far as voter retention goes :P
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8209
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 09:30:00 -
[601] - Quote
I said I picked a side. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=192717&find=unread |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
53
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 11:18:00 -
[602] - Quote
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for Bacon then
Also, your thread seems to have derailed in to topic about booze and bacon. Not a bad thing!
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8209
|
Posted - 2013.03.18 12:01:00 -
[603] - 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 |
Temba Ronin
205
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 11:37:00 -
[604] - Quote
Malcanis for CSM ..... Seems like an idea that will benefit players ..... I can endorse this man because he has the patience and the knowledge to make the game more playable for both new and veteran players. VOTE MALCANIS for CSM8
Power to the Players! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8215
|
Posted - 2013.03.19 11:50:00 -
[605] - 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 |
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
242
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 09:51:00 -
[606] - Quote
Combining whisky and bacon is also something that should be done.
(I am glad that you know what good drinks are, and I agree that tequila is only useful for clearing out plumbing.)
|
Naughty Ferret
Star Frontiers THORN Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.20 21:23:00 -
[607] - Quote
I vote bacon therefore I vote Malcanis |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8242
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 18:53:00 -
[608] - 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 |
Kytayn
Explora Empire Darkspawn.
142
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 20:02:00 -
[609] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Malcanis wrote:Anunzi wrote: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. You've redeemed yourself in my eyes. Jack is ****, though. Gentleman Jack is quite good. Gentleman Jack isn't bad, but you can have a bottle of The Glenlivet 12yo or a bottle of Johnnie Walker Black Label for the same price. The Glenlivet blows Gentleman Jack out of the cask.
related https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=212413&find=unread
Congrats on being official Malcanis. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1390
|
Posted - 2013.03.21 22:37:00 -
[610] - Quote
Kytayn wrote:The Glenlivet blows Gentleman Jack out of the cask. Confirming this. I was simply pointing out that Jack is **** but they can do better. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
|
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 08:54:00 -
[611] - Quote
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!
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vot for bacon! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8251
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 09:00:00 -
[612] - 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 |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
59
|
Posted - 2013.03.22 09:16:00 -
[613] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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...
I can understand that. However, I have every confidence in your ability to see it through, win or lose.
I do think that you will get elected, you just have to look at this thread and the amount of people pledging their support to you via the well known medium of EvE-O forum signatures to see that you have a lot of support within this community.
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vot for bacon! |
None ofthe Above
462
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 18:40:00 -
[614] - Quote
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. EVE is a sandbox; The only "end-game" content in EVE is the crap that makes you rage-quit. Vote, you bastards! CSM 8 Endorsements: Malcanis, Mike Azaria, Psychotic Monk, Trebor Daehdoow, Ripard Teg |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8278
|
Posted - 2013.03.24 19:04:00 -
[615] - 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 |
Xander Phoena
Zebra Corp Gentlemen's Agreement
114
|
Posted - 2013.03.25 00:52:00 -
[616] - Quote
I interviewed Malcanis as part of the Crossing Zebras CSM8 Election Interviews. You can check it out here:
http://c-z.me/csm8malcanis www.crossingzebras.com |
Dibblerette
The Phantom Regiment THE ROYAL NAVY
144
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 06:55:00 -
[617] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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?
More traffic is good, as FW has taught us, but you hit the nail on the head. Make lowsec too much better and why bother with null? I guess I would like it better if we had something worth coming to (non-FW) lowsec to do or see, something beyond taking a shortcut. There was an old idea trotted out awhile back to allow pirates to corrupt a system, and anti-pirates, or even a rival pirate group, could reverse this trend and "purify" the system. Not that it would allow enough people to turn Rancer into Yulai, but perhaps with enough corruption, pirates would be able to temporarily disable or redirect gate guns. Or gain access to hidden stargates, run drugs for a new breed of NPC agents, or something like that. I've always seen lowsec as the murky underworld of EVE, and I hope some day it reflects that. Now I know you can't exactly walk up to CCP and tell them what to do, but maybe you can help plant a seed that will someday transform the bastard space of lowsec into something much more interesting and dynamic than gatecamps and ganking noobs in belts. |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 14:53:00 -
[618] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Well all the directly EVE related topics seem to have been covered, so now I can address issues relevant to EVE players...
mynnna wrote:...but "tech moons are idiotic" has been the official stance of Goonswarm for a very long time...
Would you like to elaborate on how you would correct this situation? |
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 14:57:00 -
[619] - Quote
Dibblerette wrote:...run drugs... Before I joined this game, I truly believed that lowsec... the home of pirates and the lawless would be where kinds of illegal activities and products would be found.
Perhaps... it just isn't PC. What a shame. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8305
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 15:03:00 -
[620] - 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 |
|
Bi-Mi Lansatha
Tactical Universal Research and Development Caldari Industrialist Association
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 15:14:00 -
[621] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. I wanted to compare your view to that of the official Goonswarm candidate and see if you agree.
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8308
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 18:02:00 -
[622] - 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 |
Temba Ronin
206
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:01:00 -
[623] - Quote
If you like me want to help improve gameplay in EVE join me in endorsing Malcanis for CSM8. Please use the link Malcanis posted above and endorse him. Then VOTE MALCANIS for CSM8 Power To The Players! |
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
557
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:04:00 -
[624] - Quote
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? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8311
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 19:26:00 -
[625] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2304
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:25:00 -
[626] - Quote
If the mining barge change hadn't turned ore theft extinct, then the crimewatch 2.0 suspect-when-stealing-anything change probably would've. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8312
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:36:00 -
[627] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2304
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:47:00 -
[628] - Quote
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". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8312
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 20:53:00 -
[629] - 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 |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
251
|
Posted - 2013.03.26 21:55:00 -
[630] - Quote
I'm glad you're finally running. With your intellect, vision and levelheadedness you'd be a great addition to the CSM. |
|
Apricot Baby
caldariprimeponyclub
32
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 05:34:00 -
[631] - Quote
The Caldari Prime Pony Club endorses this product and/or service CSM Participation Reward Program - www.tinyurl.com/caldariprimeponyclub Earn rewards for taking part in this year's CSM Elections |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 07:33:00 -
[632] - Quote
I still require endorsements!
Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:04:00 -
[633] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I still require endorsements!
you already got mine |
Frying Doom
2015
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:19:00 -
[634] - Quote
Sui'Djin wrote:Malcanis wrote:I still require endorsements!
you already got mine Same We all thought CSM 6 was a war crime with it's massive Null Presence CSM7 topped it by selling out our Council to CCP, don't let it happen again. Vote or next time Incarna is your fault. Stupid Signature Broke
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:59:00 -
[635] - 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 |
mr ed thehouseofed
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
48
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:23:00 -
[636] - Quote
you got mine mate real gamers only need one toon-á |
Ivy Romanova
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
845
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:25:00 -
[637] - Quote
tell me . What have you done for the masses over the years? What have you once said that helped the community survive , if not thrive . Do you believe in one man should have the right to determine the future for all. Do you believe you will be able to represent all , stand for all , and fight for all. Where do you stand in this war between carebears and pvpers . How do you maintain neutrality ? How do you stand strong despite of the pressure that will sure to come over your term as CSM8. Who are you? Where are you? What are you ?
FFREEDOM!!!!! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:55:00 -
[638] - 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 |
Ivy Romanova
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
845
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:58:00 -
[639] - Quote
rhetoric fails when taken literally , but ok lol Forever cynical.Forever human. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8318
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:01:00 -
[640] - 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 |
|
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
66
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 11:43:00 -
[641] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:I still require endorsements!
You have both of mine!
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |
Ferro Mapindazi
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:38:00 -
[642] - Quote
I just endorsed Malcanis and will vote for him to represent all of us on CSM8.
This bro has a level head and a long record of respectable forum posts.
I do not expect to agree with him on every issue but I feel that he will think things through and render his best judgment afterwards.
I find his balanced approach to high, low, and null sec far superior to those advocating for just their favorite part of our EVE sandbox. I am optimistic that he will be a very effective voice for people like me who like to play in all sectors of the EVE universe. So i am asking you to endorse Malcanis today, and then vote MALCANIS for CSM8. Eject from your ship & flee! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8323
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 14:42:00 -
[643] - 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 |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
216
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 15:51:00 -
[644] - Quote
Mal, we don't always see eye to eye, but you're an honorable person, with mostly well thought out points. You have my endorsement. |
Simplus Massive
Weird Prodigy Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 16:30:00 -
[645] - Quote
Not counting the fine opinions Malcanis has produced in earlier days, the Crossing Zebras interview did it for me. Malcanis showed integrity, insight, imagination and intelligence far beyond what many of the other sockpuppets in the race are seemingly even capable of. You'll have my primary vote. |
Arydanika
Amok. Goonswarm Federation
283
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 23:23:00 -
[646] - Quote
For those of you who would like hear a little more from Malcanis, please check out his appearance on Voices from the Void. Thank you to Malcanis and all those who participated. I appreciate them taking the time to come on the show and answer my questions. I hope this question and discussion sessions will help those on the fence and ignite those supporting Malcanis to continue campaigning for him. Runner of Voices from the Void podcast, Eve Online Pod Pack & DJ on eve-radio.com Sundays at 1800.-á Organizer of the ATX Eve Online Meet. GÖÑ |
Temba Ronin
207
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:07:00 -
[647] - Quote
OK the whole tone of the CSM8 Election is so much more positive! I just listened to an entire podcast of four of the candidates https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=warning&l=http%3a%2f%2fvoicesfromthevoid.net&domain=voicesfromthevoid.net and ALL of them wanted to improve the game.
I think the Malcanis Manifesto effect is in full force! Endorse Malcanis today and vote for him and some of these other good candidates and let us get moving forward on making CCP respond to what the players need in High sec, low sec, null sec, and wh space. The sandbox needs to expand and continue to adapt to the needs of the players.
Power To The Players! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8336
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 06:35:00 -
[648] - 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 |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 08:12:00 -
[649] - Quote
How would you rebalance or rework supers and titans?
Can you give a concrete example of how you would change sov mechanics? I need to ask because your problem analysis is good, the vision (farms-and-fields) is good, but the HOW is still vague. You mentioned ways to get more people to 0.0, however it is all derived from/secondary to the governing sov mechanics.
I know these are open-ended questions as there are no silver bullets, so they are rather intended to make you speak your mind a bit more than just agreeing that changes are needed.
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8337
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 08:53:00 -
[650] - 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 |
|
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:09:00 -
[651] - Quote
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.
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?
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:24:00 -
[652] - 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 |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:29:00 -
[653] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:33:00 -
[654] - 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 |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
67
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:43:00 -
[655] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:
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.
I would also that we need pve content fixing first aswell.
Given the current abortion that is EvE pve content its going to cause problems if one is fixed before the other. With local the way it is now, coupled with the way pve is if you get neuts in system while ratting you have to dock/warp to a POS or safe simply because pve and pvp combat is drastically different. A pvp fitted boat will almost always beat a pve boat, assuming equal pilot skill/experience.
If pvp and pve were similar thus allowing ratting to be done in a pvp fitted ship then I guess that would alleviate this issue somewhat. It would also make ratting a lot more interesting, like that feeling of someone watching you get when running anoms in WH spaceGǪ
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:44:00 -
[656] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:45:00 -
[657] - 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 |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 09:54:00 -
[658] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8339
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:00:00 -
[659] - 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 |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:05:00 -
[660] - Quote
Of course it will. And it will hit newer players harder than older. Thus Malcanis law applies. |
|
Lord Zim
2304
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:08:00 -
[661] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:I already did. The older, richer and JF capable industrials will simply be able to avoid the increased costs in hi(er)-sec. By moving manufacturing further out from Jita, thus making Jita slightly less of a "you must get as close as you can" place. And, incidentally, considering the fact I have no problems finding stations which are completely (or mostly completely) empty within 2 jumps of jita as it is today, isn't a problem.
Aineko Macx wrote: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. It'd be a case of "build stuff near Jita and have a smaller margin" vs "build it far away from Jita and spend time transporting". Oh, and "build your stuff locally in nullsec and help revitalize nullsec by giving a reason for players to care about that pesky little 10 man gang that keeps derping around in your back yard, because that'd be your miners being unable to do the work extracting minerals". Provided, of course, that CCP makes nullsec not suck at industry in comparison with hisec, capacity/convenience-wise. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
217
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:24:00 -
[662] - 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. 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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8340
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:34:00 -
[663] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2305
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:46:00 -
[664] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8343
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 10:54:00 -
[665] - 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 |
Arkady Vachon
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
218
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:09:00 -
[666] - Quote
Made mine Malcanis this time out, good luck. Nothing Personal - Just Business...
Chaos Creates Content |
Caitlyn Tufy
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse Sanctuary Pact
217
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:11:00 -
[667] - Quote
Quote: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.
Oh absolutely, I agree. I'm just saying that if profit margins would evaporate under the way things are now it doesn't mean they'll do so in a proposed system. It's similar to mineral refinery - if you drop the perfect refinery from NPC stations, of course the profit margins there will go down. However, they will go down for everyone, meaning the relative power of refining elsewhere (say in POSes) will go up. |
Lord Zim
2305
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:14:00 -
[668] - Quote
Exactly like profit margins shifted when the PI system changed. I literally giggle every time I remember how loudly and proudly people were proclaiming that it would KILL HISEC PI PROFITABILITY, and yet... Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:24:00 -
[669] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:It'd be a case of "build stuff near Jita and have a smaller margin" vs "build it far away from Jita and spend time transporting". From the farms and fields lessons learned: Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it Going to 0.5 for production would be the only sensible option in the vast majority of cases where people are doing it for profit. People are not afraid to use the autopilot.
Quote:Oh, and "build your stuff locally in nullsec and help revitalize nullsec by giving a reason for players to care about that pesky little 10 man gang that keeps derping around in your back yard, because that'd be your miners being unable to do the work extracting minerals". Provided, of course, that CCP makes nullsec not suck at industry in comparison with hisec, capacity/convenience-wise. I'm a fan of the farms and fields concept, however i have yet to see a concrete idea of how to implement it catering to the needs of all the player types in 0.0.
Caitlyn Tufy wrote:Aineko Macx wrote: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. That is true in theory. However if you run the numbers on T1 items (the ones that new players can actually produce) in Jita you'll find that they are barely above material cost. Most people seem to not value their time.
Anyway, to sum this up: Malcanis believes, but IMO hasn't produced arguments supporting it, that the proposed change affects the player base neutrally across the char age groups. I say it is a classic example of a proposal where Malcanis law applies.
A production time bonus tied to the sec status would be much more reasonable, because it doesn't instantly kill the production of low margin items in 0.6+ systems. You'd still have crowded 0.5 slots but less badly. The incentive to go to lower sec is still there, so industrials wanting to maximize their volume can chose to put in the risk and effort. Plays in nicely with risk/reward and choice. |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 11:56:00 -
[670] - Quote
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. |
|
Lord Zim
2305
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:09:00 -
[671] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:From the farms and fields lessons learned: Making something tedious will not stop players doing it if it's very clearly the best option. They'll do it, and they'll hate it Going to 0.5 for production would be the only sensible option in the vast majority of cases where people are doing it for profit. People are not afraid to use the autopilot. There won't be "more tedium", there'll be "more options". They can choose to try to lower their costs isk-wise by moving their operation to a .5 system, they can take the increased manufacturing costs of manufacturing closer to major trade hubs, they can move their operation to POSes, they can start using courier contracts more, they can move their point of sale to somewhere other than major trade hubs, etc etc etc.
I'm sorry there are suggestions in the air of making it so a BS can't be made for 2k isk. Actually, no, I'm not, because today's system is tedious. I have absolutely no problems finding a system with 50+ free slots within 2 jumps of jita, which means that the only thing I have to take care of is buying minerals at a low enough rate that sales/broker taxes and the 2k manufacturing fee is covered, haul it 2 jumps, press a few buttons and haul it back.
Aineko Macx wrote:I'm a fan of the farms and fields concept, however i have yet to see a concrete idea of how to implement it catering to the needs of all the player types in 0.0. Considering the current state of nullsec is "farm moons, build supercaps and shoot people in the face", with absolutely no real incentive to actually do anything even remotely industry-related (...apart from supercaps, since that's the only place they can be built), any improvement to make nullsec even vaguely more populated would be a welcome change.
I'm serious. Hop in a noobship and fly around in nullsec, and take a note on how many people are actually out and about, doing things.
Aineko Macx wrote:That is true in theory. However if you run the numbers on T1 items (the ones that new players can actually produce) in Jita you'll find that they are barely above material cost. Most people seem to not value their time. And why do you think this is? It is like this because I can do all my manufacturing within 2 jumps of Jita. There is literally no timesink involved here, literally the only difference between the raw material and the finished product is sales taxes and broker fees, and a very miniscule bit of time.
Aineko Macx wrote:Anyway, to sum this up: Malcanis believes, but IMO hasn't produced arguments supporting it, that the proposed change affects the player base neutrally across the char age groups. I say it is a classic example of a proposal where Malcanis law applies. I'd go so far as to say that if anything, it would affect the bigger manufacturers more than it would the small newbies. The small newbies won't have a huge volume of raw material to haul to the 0.5 system of choice, he won't have to move tons of things around when a .5 system gets zerged, he won't make himself vulnerable to wardecs by putting a POS up etc etc etc.
All of these things would have to be put into consideration when putting a price, and the current practice of literally making a BS at mineral cost + barely enough to cover the sales tax/broker's fee is more detrimental than making the system deeper would be.
Aineko Macx wrote:A production time bonus tied to the sec status would be much more reasonable, because it doesn't instantly kill the production of low margin items in 0.6+ systems. You'd still have crowded 0.5 slots but less badly. The incentive to go to lower sec is still there, so industrials wanting to maximize their volume can chose to put in the risk and effort. Plays in nicely with risk/reward and choice. I'd say that things are being manufactured too quickly as it is, if we were to go for a "production time bonus tied to the sec status", then production times should increase heavily across the board beforehand, because building a full BS in 3-4 hours isn't exactly a very limiting factor. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
252
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 12:44:00 -
[672] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Considering the current state of nullsec is "farm moons, build supercaps and shoot people in the face", with absolutely no real incentive to actually do anything even remotely industry-related (...apart from supercaps, since that's the only place they can be built), any improvement to make nullsec even vaguely more populated would be a welcome change.
I'm serious. Hop in a noobship and fly around in nullsec, and take a note on how many people are actually out and about, doing things. You're preaching to the converted, my main is a long time 0.0 citizen. The quoted statement was directed more at Malc, because while he formulated a desirable destination (from a grunt perspective), he hasn't said much about how to get there.
Quote:And why do you think this is? It is like this because I can do all my manufacturing within 2 jumps of Jita. There is literally no timesink involved here, literally the only difference between the raw material and the finished product is sales taxes and broker fees, and a very miniscule bit of time. I'd say it's competition above all. And people being bad at math. And not valuing their time.
Quote:I'd go so far as to say that if anything, it would affect the bigger manufacturers more than it would the small newbies. The small newbies won't have a huge volume of raw material to haul to the 0.5 system of choice, he won't have to move tons of things around when a .5 system gets zerged, he won't make himself vulnerable to wardecs by putting a POS up etc etc etc. There is a strong correlation between market competition and the entry barrier to producing a certain item. Meaning, the items that can be produced by new players are already the ones with the worst margins. Established industrial operations already move large quantities of materials and have POSes setup, so they suffer no change. Therefore I disagree with this argument.
Quote:Aineko Macx wrote:A production time bonus tied to the sec status would be much more reasonable, because it doesn't instantly kill the production of low margin items in 0.6+ systems. You'd still have crowded 0.5 slots but less badly. The incentive to go to lower sec is still there, so industrials wanting to maximize their volume can chose to put in the risk and effort. Plays in nicely with risk/reward and choice. I'd say that things are being manufactured too quickly as it is, if we were to go for a "production time bonus tied to the sec status", then production times should increase heavily across the board beforehand, because building a full BS in 3-4 hours isn't exactly a very limiting factor. Agreed. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8348
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:03:00 -
[673] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2306
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 13:06:00 -
[674] - Quote
Aineko Macx wrote:You're preaching to the converted, my main is a long time 0.0 citizen. The quoted statement was directed more at Malc, because while he formulated a desirable destination (from a grunt perspective), he hasn't said much about how to get there. I'm sure we could start arguing exactly what needs to be done, in minute detail, but that would be a ridiculous waste of time since CCP aren't likely to use it. The better way of doing things is to come up with high level goals such as "there are absolutely no reason to do industry in nullsec as it is, because it's a cockstab to refine and manufacture, there's next to no capacity in nullsec, and as such there's no real point in mining extensively in nullsec when hisec offers the most necessary of minerals at almost no risk, which in turn makes it more profitable to do almost all mining in hisec and export from jita/hisec to nullsec. We need to fix this." and "it costs 2k to build a maelstrom in hisec, 2 jumps out of Jita. The price of exporting it is 250000% of the build cost, and it's still cheaper than building it in nullsec. We need to fix this."
Personally I would've gone for a massive industry revamp of nullsec, to the point where a single system in nullsec can handily outperform any system in hisec, maybe even constellations, and I would make manufacturing anything take longer (with a time bonus in low/null, because "they can use less safe methods due to laxer regulations"), and the manufacturing cost be based on a percentage of the mineral cost (which, in turn, would facilitate bottom-up financing of alliances, and would incentivize alliances actually trying to get their people to use their space ... as opposed to now). But that's just me.
Aineko Macx wrote:I'd say it's competition above all. And people being bad at math. And not valuing their time. So let's make sure people who are bad at math are penalized for being bad at math. vOv
Aineko Macx wrote:There is a strong correlation between market competition and the entry barrier to producing a certain item. Meaning, the items that can be produced by new players are already the ones with the worst margins. Established industrial operations already move large quantities of materials and have POSes setup, so they suffer no change. Therefore I disagree with this argument. Who uses POSes for anything other than invention, when there are literally tons of slots which are available and unused, which cost absolutely nothing to run, has no risk attached and is convenient as all hell? And how far do these "established industrial operations" move large quantities of materials? I've never moved any raw materials more than 2-3 jumps outside of Jita. vOv
As for supercarriers and titans, I agree with Malc here as well. In fact, I would like to see supercarriers turned into actual motherships, and maybe titans into mobile POSes or something similar (or something completely different, I don't give a ****), just not just a supersized carrier or dread. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
378
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 14:49:00 -
[675] - Quote
What's your stance over small-scale structure operations ? I'm talking about highsec POSes, lowsec POCOs and POSes inside C3s and lower. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8353
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:01:00 -
[676] - 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 |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
378
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:09:00 -
[677] - Quote
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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8353
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:14:00 -
[678] - 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 |
DarthNefarius
Minmatar Heavy Industries
786
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:30:00 -
[679] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: Anyway, just to let you all know: I'm in.
CONGRATZ... Looks like alot of peeps got preelecion qualified on the first day Ripard Teg-á for CSM 8 Disclaimer: CCP Bias is a fictional character. In case that some CCP Bias does exist,-áis he an ex-goon? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8354
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:33:00 -
[680] - 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 |
|
Temba Ronin
208
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 15:47:00 -
[681] - Quote
First Gratz to Malcanis for making it into the election, next we have to get him on CSM8!
That being said I find the nullsec vs highsec manufacturing discussion quite compelling. Being the reviled miner/ builder/ inventor type myself I am very interested in how it is resolved.
Having spent my formative days as a highsec miner/ builder/ inventor before moving up to lowsec and now residing in nullsec I can tell you that the system surely requires fixing.
When you are in highsec you dream of the lowsec ores and the hopefully greater profit margins, and of course the moongoo to fund your building plans. So you and your corp make the jump to lowsec to jumpstart your industrial careers. You've already learned how to support a POS with PI in highsec and you dive right into moon mining and mining those yummy lowsec belts! Then after a time the ganking picks up in your little corner of EVE and suddenly you find yourself outgunned or constantly jumping into your fighting ships to repel tourists, gankers, and mission roamers chasing escalations in your backyard. Your productivity is down and your pvp is up, gate camping becomes an interesting diversion and gives you a taste of "fleet" action. Of course this comes at a price, now a good slice of your industrial corp will become enamored with pvp and spend less time mining. You start to get annoyed at the ease with which bigger roams and gangs can pour thru your lowsec home looking for laughs and easy kills on the weekend. Then you start to absorb the other industrial corps in your area because you all feel the same constraints squeezing you and greater numbers hopefully mean quicker responses to threats and thus more time to be about the business of making things that earn profits. However even as a larger corp you never can get a handle on safer operations in lowsec so your eye starts to wander towards nullsec and joining an alliance and reaping the benefits of holding sov.
Of course with the passage of time you make it, woo hoo! You are a nullsec resident miner/ buider/ inventor/ pve & pvp pilot. But there are a few more surprises in store for you, remember that lowly ore veldspar you starting mining as a noob, well you'll be mining it again in your sov because tritanium is essential and the vast quantities of it are now far away in the highsec trade hubs. As an Alliance member you'll be building ships that your corp mates and Alliance mates need for defense and for roams making profits from the building of ships becomes less important then building the ships that will help your alliance hold sov.
You're going to spend a lot more time flying in pvp fleets learning to be a more valuable member of your alliance because the threats to sov trickle thru every week. You will find it less and less compelling to build ships because of the supply chain required to make them is now stretched from nullsec to Jita and your essential import & export routes to highsec can be disrupted by wardecs from freighter killers looking for the JF or cloaky hauler who thinks it won't happen to him until it does. Your best pvp people and fc's to fight back against a wardec are busy defending your sov in nullsec, so your supply route is compromised and your building grinds to a halt.
Nullsec is a wasteland for manufacturing because it is forced to rely upon highsec and the tethers that connect high to null are easily disrupted, add to that the ease for roams to slip into sov space to gank miners who don't keep an eye on local or monitor intel channels for neuts and reds in their area and you quickly enter the zone of diminishing returns.
In my humble opinion Null sec needs the expanded ability to create manufacturing/ trade hubs that are completely autonomous from highsec, which means seeding the systems with gravs and belts that contain all the ores available in empire space with sufficient quantities to support robust building.
As a miner/ builder/ inventor/ pve & pvp pilot that has invested my time to gain the skills to reside in nullsec it seems wrong to have to depend upon highsec for my continued existence. I don't want to be at the whim of wardec corps who have very little risk beyond paying for the wardec they inflict upon nullsec corps and then hang around highsec trade hubs to prey upon haulers. If you consider this an improved wardec system then perhaps I am just not aware of how bad the old system was. Nullsec needs to become autonomous I hope the new members of CSM8 can get that message to CCP.
I am not a highsec basher, I honestly believe the meta game of EVE online is demanding improvements in null so the game can continue it's evolution.
Please join me in voting for MALCANIS for CSM8
Power To The Players! |
Reppyk
Yarrbear Inc. BricK sQuAD.
378
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:00:00 -
[682] - Quote
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. :) |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
12
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 16:11:00 -
[683] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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! glad to hear that |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8363
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:02:00 -
[684] - 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 |
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
465
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:05:00 -
[685] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
There are some requirements for hanging POSes in high sec that don't apply in WH space (standings, charters), so those could be manipulated to make small and medium POSes more attractive to high sec dwellers, and large POSes less attractive. WH POSes would not be affected at all, except perhaps for price rebalances caused by changing demand in Empire space.
Malcanis, Ripard Teg, and Trebor Daehdoow for CSM 8
(I have three accounts, so why not?) |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 17:08:00 -
[686] - Quote
I was going to yap about -75% shield strength in hisec due to regulations, but that doesn't have any impact on the fact that to take down a hisec pos, you have to wardec that corp, and when that happens they have 24 hours to pull it down, meaning the "worst" that'll happen, unless the defenders are complete muppets, is a disruption.
Muttering about HP etc is just arguing about convenience for the attacker. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8363
|
Posted - 2013.03.28 18:06:00 -
[687] - 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 |
Lelob
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
124
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 09:57:00 -
[688] - Quote
I would rather vote for some publord from SMA then a publord from INIT. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8371
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 10:02:00 -
[689] - 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 |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:01:00 -
[690] - Quote
So you are endorsed by nullsec bears to protect their business? What's the point of "nerfing" high sec when low sec is garbage (heeheehe get wreckt by instalockers at gates heehehe gee I wonder why lowsec is **** let's nerf highsec because my goons overlords told me to) then there is nullsec, but you have to commit yourself and become a slave till you can get a piece of the cake, null pvp is just plain boring. FIx lowsec, it'll fix high sec, but hey since you're just another goon's pet you will only defend your private interests. |
|
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:05:00 -
[691] - Quote
Nullbear, "nerfing" hisec, goons overlords and goon's pet. That post ticks all the troll checkboxes. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:16:00 -
[692] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Nullbear, "nerfing" hisec, goons overlords and goon's pet. That post ticks all the troll checkboxes. I have a different opinion, I must be a troll. You can't prove me wrong so you try to be provocative but I see clearly trough your ruse. If they "nerf" high sec they need to nerf nullsec for the same reasons, they also need to make low sec attractive and fun.
|
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:30:00 -
[693] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:If they "nerf" high sec they need to nerf nullsec for the same reasons Do tell what these reasons are.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:they also need to make low sec attractive and fun. Do tell how this'll benefit either hisec or nullsec. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Marian Devers
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:47:00 -
[694] - Quote
Malcanis, what are your thoughts regarding supercaps; also, regarding Shadoo's 0.0 Thunderdome? |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:49:00 -
[695] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Do tell what these reasons are.
I don't know dude, aren't you voting for this guy? You should know the reasons better mate. - no risk, high reward isk that can be scaled - huge afk income - convenient and easy to setup etc
Lord Zim wrote: Do tell how this'll benefit either hisec or nullsec.
If you don't see how making lowsec more attractive will benefit hisec I don't know what to say friendo. Gatecamp and instalockers are horrible designs, don't get me wrong you should be able to die but only if you fail/got outplayed not because people are camping a gate with a setup that require no skill. There is no way to annoy pirates for example, on the other hand you can suicide gank bears in hs pretty easily, they should allow bombs in lowsec and remove instalocks gg you fixed ls, maybe add a % of lock time that scale with the number of ships next to the gate.
|
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:53:00 -
[696] - Quote
So in short, lots of usual trolly catchphrases in the first post, made by a day 0 alt with trolly name, most likely no idea what these "hisec nerfs" it's complaining about actually are, and a hilarious assumption that the only thing wrong with lowsec is "gatecamps everywhere" and "instalocks ruining mah game".
Yep. All the troll checkboxes. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 19:58:00 -
[697] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So in short, lots of usual trolly catchphrases in the first post, made by a day 0 alt with trolly name, most likely no idea what these "hisec nerfs" it's complaining about actually are, and a hilarious assumption that the only thing wrong with lowsec is "gatecamps everywhere" and "instalocks ruining mah game".
Yep. All the troll checkboxes. All you do is call me names, not a single argument. Afk Moon Goo is a serious problem and a reality, you're in denial if you don't believe that. Instalocks and gatecamps are bad designs, it's ok for null because sov and **** and you should be punished in null for running into camps but it's the main reason why low sec is bad, you can't punish pirates, being a pirate is literally the easiest pvp you can get.
|
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:08:00 -
[698] - Quote
So what you're really here for is to ***** about how moongoo works as a financial tool, after there's been indications that CCP might be working towards a better system for money generation for alliances, and you're bitching at some of the things which would help shift alliances' finances towards this by bitching about "you just want to nerf hisec" (and, of course, throwing some tripe about how nullsec needs to be nerfed the same way ... I don't even know what you're on about there, but do elucidate)? Moongoo does work in an suboptimal manner as a financial tool, but there are far, far better ways of going about getting it fixed than making a dedicated/gimmicky troll account and spouting gimmick troll memes. But I don't really expect you to come up with anything non-trolly.
And no, lowsec's main problems don't involve the word "gatecamp". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:21:00 -
[699] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:So what you're really here for is to ***** about how moongoo works as a financial tool, after there's been indications that CCP might be working towards a better system for money generation for alliances, and you're bitching at some of the things which would help shift alliances' finances towards this by bitching about "you just want to nerf hisec" (and, of course, throwing some tripe about how nullsec needs to be nerfed the same way ... I don't even know what you're on about there, but do elucidate)? Moongoo does work in an suboptimal manner as a financial tool, but there are far, far better ways of going about getting it fixed than making a dedicated/gimmicky troll account and spouting gimmick troll memes. But I don't really expect you to come up with anything non-trolly.
And no, lowsec's main problems don't involve the word "gatecamp". Hey that's some pretty harsh words friendo, kinda rude. That moon goo money shouldn't be used to suicide gank in high sec because noone is fighting in nullsec because lol politics and why fight when you can make easy money, that's a problem. I'll keep it simple for you since you seems to have problems understanding my logic : - afk income = ok - afk income that can scale = bad I seemed to have touched a chord, moongoo seems to be really important for you and I can understand why. Yes gatecamp and instalocks are a bad designs when there is no way you can punish gatecampers, feel free to explain yourself tho, you seems confused maybe you should take some time to breath and think about your post I feel kinda bad for you when I'm reading your posts... By the way I'm pretty sure you are misusing the word "troll", a different opinion with decent arguments is not a troll, you can disagree with me but I'm pretty sure you are the one "spouting" troll memes we are not in funnyjunk ahaha. Thanks in advance friendo.
Afk Moon Goo for CSM9 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:25:00 -
[700] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:when there is no way you can punish gatecampers Get some frien...
Right.
Nevermind. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:28:00 -
[701] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Afk Moon Goo wrote:when there is no way you can punish gatecampers Get some frien... Right. Nevermind. Eve pvp shouldn't be about who can have more dudes. I'd rather be soloing or doing really small gangs than fleeting to gatecamp the gatecampers. But you said nevermind so you already know you're wrong and your post is just a joke. Nice joke dude 8/10 joke I laughed in real life. |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:30:00 -
[702] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:because noone is fighting in nullsec because lol politics Wrong.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:and why fight when you can make easy money Wrong.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:I seemed to have touched a chord, moongoo seems to be really important for you and I can understand why. Considering I've been advocating moving away from moongoo as an alliance's primary source of income and onto bottom-up financing for a long time, no, you haven't touched squat. In fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Yes gatecamp and instalocks are a bad designs when there is no way you can punish gatecampers Gatecamps and instalocks aren't "bad design", they're not even "a problem". I mean, next you'll try to claim that every lowsec system is camped.
Oh and PS: instalocking ships are usually pretty fragile. HTH.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:feel free to explain yourself tho, you seems confused maybe you should take some time to breath and think about your post I feel kinda bad for you when I'm reading your posts... Here's an interesting question for you, since you seem to be all about "making lowsec better": why should anyone go to lowsec? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:32:00 -
[703] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:I'd rather be soloing or doing really small gangs than fleeting to gatecamp the gatecampers. I don't seem to have a problem getting by low-sec gate-campers while solo roaming. You must just suck terribly. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:41:00 -
[704] - Quote
No you're wrong.
No you're wrong.
Lord Zim wrote: Considering I've been advocating moving away from moongoo as an alliance's primary source of income and onto bottom-up financing for a long time, no, you haven't touched squat. In fact, you couldn't be further from the truth.
Good so you agree with me that's nice.
Lord Zim wrote: Gatecamps and instalocks aren't "bad design", they're not even "a problem". I mean, next you'll try to claim that every lowsec system is camped.
Oh and PS: instalocking ships are usually pretty fragile. HTH.
It's a bad design, even if only person is getting instalocked per year it's still a bad design, keyword is "bad design".
Oh and PS: they are not alone, they are not taking any risk. HTH.
Lord Zim wrote: Here's an interesting question for you, since you seem to be all about "making lowsec better": why should anyone go to lowsec?
Lowsec should be smallgang pvp land, should give nice income for indy but we should still be able to chase them, should punish people for making big fleets, that's why anyone should go to lowsec. Do you even solo pvp or only know how to blob/hotdrop a.k.a elite pvp?
I'm telling you : Afk Moon Goo for CMS9, it's happening. |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:47:00 -
[705] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Afk Moon Goo wrote:I'd rather be soloing or doing really small gangs than fleeting to gatecamp the gatecampers. I don't seem to have a problem getting by low-sec gate-campers while solo roaming. You must just suck. I don't, most of the time I'm ok thanks for asking (ps : after reviewing you're killboard you don't seems to be relevant to this discussion but thanks for you're opinion mang) but it's still a bad design nonetheless. And again your just calling me names because you can't prove me wrong. *sigh* step it up.. |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 20:49:00 -
[706] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:It's a bad design, even if only person is getting instalocked per year it's still a bad design, keyword is "bad design". So what would you do to fix it, then, and what would the ramifications be on other parts of EVE?
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Oh and PS: they are not alone, they are not taking any risk. HTH. EVE is all about counters, not just numbers. Think up something, or oh I dunno avoid that gate maybe? vOv
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Lowsec should be smallgang pvp land, should give nice income for indy but we should still be able to chase them, should punish people for making big fleets, that's why anyone should go to lowsec. Last I checked, it was a nice place for smallgang pvp, sucked for industry, and doesn't reward big fleets any more than it does anywhere else in the game. So, what exactly is wrong, and what do you propose to fix it? What will the ramifications be on the rest of the eve universe? Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:00:00 -
[707] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:after reviewing you're killboard you don't seems to be relevant to this discussion but thanks for you're opinion mang After reviewing your killboard I find that you definitely have no idea what you're talking about, so thanks for your completely irrelevant opinion mang. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:04:00 -
[708] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So what would you do to fix it, then, and what would the ramifications be on other parts of EVE?
Pretty easy, add a scaling % for locktime depending on the numbers of ships at any lowsec gate, people can still camp and warp after but I'll give you more time to do ****.
Lord Zim wrote: EVE is all about counters, not just numbers. Think up something, or oh I dunno avoid that gate maybe? vOv
It's plain dumb, in lowsec you should die because you got outplayed not because people are camping a gate, up the skill-ceiling remove low risk high reward pvp.
Lord Zim wrote: Last I checked, it was a nice place for smallgang pvp, sucked for industry, and doesn't reward big fleets any more than it does anywhere else in the game. So, what exactly is wrong, and what do you propose to fix it? What will the ramifications be on the rest of the eve universe?
It's a nice place for smallgang pvp if you are a pirate because you have tons of targets thanks to fw. You can't really counter pirates, they will disengage if you bring more dudes and just come back after, allow bombs in low sec so dedicated small bombers gangs could annoy/deal with pirates camping gates. Make pi more profitable in ls, maybe remove p4 prod in hs it's not that difficult anyway to do pi in ls with mwd cloak trick or with a blockade, more people will go to lowsec, they'll be able to scale harder than highsec indys gg.
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:05:00 -
[709] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote:Afk Moon Goo wrote:after reviewing you're killboard you don't seems to be relevant to this discussion but thanks for you're opinion mang After reviewing your killboard I find that you definitely have no idea what you're talking about, so thanks for your completely irrelevant opinion mang. I have no killboard on this character, you must be drunk or this is another joke lol nice joke 7/10 joke I giggled in front of my computer screen. |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:08:00 -
[710] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:I have no killboard on this character, you must be drunk or this is another joke lol nice joke 7/10 joke I giggled in front of my computer screen. I can only conclude you have no killboard at all and no experience with any of the topics you take issue with, and must be drunk posting. 1/10 for the gimmicky alt, I guess.
E: This is rich:
Afk Moon Goo wrote:in lowsec you should die because you got outplayed not because people are camping a gate You got outplayed homie, they brought more friends. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:15:00 -
[711] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote: I can only conclude you have no killboard at all and no experience with any of the topics you take issue with, and must be drunk posting. 1/10 for for the gimmicky alt, I guess.
keyword is "on this alt" I have 3 alts on my account, is that a problem good sir? You can only guess, maybe I'm the elitest pvper with relevant sov, you'll never know mang.
Karl Hobb wrote: You got outplayed homie, they brought more friends.
But that's for nullsec elite pvp, we are talking about low sec are you confused? |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:22:00 -
[712] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Pretty easy, add a scaling % for locktime depending on the numbers of ships at any lowsec gate, people can still camp and warp after but I'll give you more time to do ****. So your idea of "fixing gatecamps" (which isn't a problem) is to make any fights on lowsec gates suck more, and for the servers to spend even more CPU time on non-essential bull.
Interesting.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:It's plain dumb, in lowsec you should die because you got outplayed not because people are camping a gate, up the skill-ceiling remove low risk high reward pvp. Fly ships designed to move around unsupported, or bring a scout. vOv
Afk Moon Goo wrote:It's a nice place for smallgang pvp if you are a pirate because you have tons of targets thanks to fw. You can't really counter pirates, they will disengage if you bring more dudes and just come back after, allow bombs in low sec so dedicated small bombers gangs could annoy/deal with pirates camping gates. There are alternatives which work just as well as bombs. I suggest you use them.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Make pi more profitable in ls, maybe remove p4 prod in hs it's not that difficult anyway to do pi in ls with mwd cloak trick or with a blockade, more people will go to lowsec, they'll be able to scale harder than highsec indys gg. PI is an insignificant minority of the term "industry" in EVE, and their exposure to danger is insignificantly small. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:24:00 -
[713] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:You can only guess, maybe I'm the elitest pvper with relevant sov, you'll never know mang. All I know is that you're a few-hours-old character I can only conclude is talking about topics they obviously have no experience with since I have no other verifiable facts to work from.
Karl Hobb wrote:You got outplayed homie, they brought more friends. Afk Moon Goo wrote:But that's for nullsec elite pvp, we are talking about low sec are you confused? Not at all. There isn't any logical reason to artificially limit the size of a fleet based on system sec status. In fact, I'd say that's a very un-EVE-like concept. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:34:00 -
[714] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: So your idea of "fixing gatecamps" (which isn't a problem) is to make any fights on lowsec gates suck more, and for the servers to spend even more CPU time on non-essential bull.
Interesting.
Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Bad design = need to go, even if it's not a problem for you.
Lord Zim wrote: Fly ships designed to move around unsupported, or bring a scout. vOv
Doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad design, low skill requirement low risk high reward pvp. vOv
Lord Zim wrote: There are alternatives which work just as well as bombs. I suggest you use them.
Bombs could punish big fleets in low sec too, do you even read my posts? Sec status change might be a problem tho
Lord Zim wrote: PI is an insignificant minority of the term "industry" in EVE, and their exposure to danger is insignificantly small.
Pos change is coming, PI isn't changed, p3-p4 stuff should be ls only, it's a start. I'm not sure how to help lowsec miners, maybe remove belts and put roids in grav sites, that won't keep pirates from probing them tho.
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7247
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:36:00 -
[715] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Bad design = need to go, even if it's not a problem for you.
"engaging 20 dudes on my own should be undeniably in my favor" ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:38:00 -
[716] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote: All I know is that you're a few-hours-old character I can only conclude is talking about topics they obviously have no experience with since I have no other verifiable facts to work from.
I'm a few-hours old character and I know more than you about accounts (yes you can have 3 alts per account, check the faq if you don't trust me) so I guess you just bought your account from craigslist.
Karl Hobb wrote:Not at all. There isn't any logical reason to artificially limit the size of a fleet based on system sec status. In fact, I'd say that's a very un-EVE-like concept. There is no artificial limitation, just less reward. Low risk, high reward pvp that's very un-EVE-like, but then again since you bought your account you must be new to this.
Afk Moon Goo for CSM9
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:40:00 -
[717] - Quote
Andski wrote:Afk Moon Goo wrote:Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Bad design = need to go, even if it's not a problem for you.
"engaging 20 dudes on my own should be undeniably in my favor" "people jumping in my 20 dudes fleet should always die because we are camping" |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:50:00 -
[718] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Why would they "suck" more ? It'll make 1vsx more fair, make smallgang vs smallgang more strategic Because to make any inroads at all against your "instalock" problem, you would have to make every lock excruciatingly long, which'll have its impact on everything, even "small gang vs small gang".
And again, gatecamps isn't a problem. I've yet to die to a single gatecamp, and I flew to/from the hisec island in solitude multiple times a day for a long, long time. I just flew a ship designed to get around the "problem" of gatecamps. Only bads whine about gatecamps.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:and you probably have no idea how fast it is to make a server side division. Actually, yes, I do. It'll be more than you think.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Doesn't change the fact that it's still a bad design, low skill requirement low risk high reward pvp. vOv No, what it doesn't change is the fact that you're complaining about not being able to get away from a gate which is camped, when everyone that's even remotely sensible would take precautions in the form of either using a ship designed to break through those gatecamps (and, incidentally, there's a lot of ships designed for that express purpose) or using a scout.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Bombs could punish big fleets in low sec too, do you even read my posts? Sec status change might be a problem tho I'm going to just continue to point out the fact that there are alternatives which work just fine in lowsec, today, to bust up larger gatecamps, and it doesn't involve bombs or "moar numbers". Use them, instead of bitching about gatecamps (and showing us you don't want to adapt). Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:51:00 -
[719] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Andski wrote:"engaging 20 dudes on my own should be undeniably in my favor" "people jumping in my 20 dudes fleet should always die because we are camping" "People who suck at eve and jump blind into a gatecamp in a ship which isn't designed for busting through gatecamps should be able to get away scot free. Even freighters." Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 21:58:00 -
[720] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:yes you can have 3 alts per account I have no proof of you using more than one of those character slots.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:There is no artificial limitation, just less reward. I don't see how any of your propositions to deal with gate camping result in less reward for anyone. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:01:00 -
[721] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: Because to make any inroads at all against your "instalock" problem, you would have to make every lock excruciatingly long, which'll have its impact on everything, even "small gang vs small gang".
And again, gatecamps isn't a problem. I've yet to die to a single gatecamp, and I flew to/from the hisec island in solitude multiple times a day for a long, long time. I just flew a ship designed to get around the "problem" of gatecamps. Only bads whine about gatecamps.
You must be roleplaying a braindead capsuleer, that could explain why you keep answering wrong. *sigh* I'll keep it simple for you AGAIN : - I never said not dieing to gatecamps is hard when you commit to fly a ship to do so - I said it's a bad design : low risk, high reward pvp which is ruining low sec. If you don't understand that I give up on you, It' won't have impact on everything most fw fights are in plexes/hubs where they should be (feel free to camp acceleration gates).
Lord Zim wrote: Actually, yes, I do. It'll be more than you think.
Then stop saying stupid stuff friendo.
Lord Zim wrote: No, what it doesn't change is the fact that you're complaining about not being able to get away from a gate which is camped, when everyone that's even remotely sensible would take precautions in the form of either using a ship designed to break through those gatecamps (and, incidentally, there's a lot of ships designed for that express purpose) or using a scout.
Again, it's low risk high reward pvp, therefore it's bad design and should be removed, especially regarding the actual state of low sec.
Lord Zim wrote: I'm going to just continue to point out the fact that there are alternatives which work just fine in lowsec, today, to bust up larger gatecamps, and it doesn't involve bombs or "moar numbers". Use them, instead of bitching about gatecamps (and showing us you don't want to adapt).
It's not only about gatecamps, bomb have their use in lowsec.
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:07:00 -
[722] - Quote
Karl Hobb wrote: I have no proof of you using more than one of those character slots.
This is not nazy germany where you need an api to post on forum, silly new guy.
Karl Hobb wrote: I don't see how any of your propositions to deal with gate camping result in less reward for anyone.
That's because you are not very smart friendo, I'm sorry but I can't help.
Lord Zim wrote:"People who suck at eve and jump blind into a gatecamp in a ship which isn't designed for busting through gatecamps should be able to get away scot free. Even freighters." "people should only fly in shuttles because we are camping" No wonder why solo pvp is dead with bears like you. Stay at gate, instalock randoms, pew pew elite pvp 2013. I guess I vote for Malcanis is a vote for bad design, I'm off it was easy like camping a gate.
|
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:12:00 -
[723] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:You must be roleplaying a braindead capsuleer, that could explain why you keep answering wrong. *sigh* I'll keep it simple for you AGAIN : - I never said not dieing to gatecamps is hard when you commit to fly a ship to do so - I said it's a bad design : low risk, high reward pvp which is ruining low sec. If you don't understand that I give up on you, It' won't have impact on everything most fw fights are in plexes/hubs where they should be (feel free to camp acceleration gates). Gatecamps isn't "ruining lowsec", no matter how much you want to howl about it ruining lowsec.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Again, it's low risk high reward pvp, therefore it's bad design and should be removed, especially regarding the actual state of low sec. The "actual state of low sec" has nothing to do with gatecamps.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:"people should only fly in shuttles because we are camping" I didn't fly a shuttle, I flew something which was designed to bust through gatecamps. You should try it.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:No wonder why solo pvp is dead with bears like you. Stay at gate, instalock randoms, pew pew elite pvp 2013. Ah, I knew there was a trollword missing from your posts, and there it is: "bears". Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1428
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:14:00 -
[724] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:Karl Hobb wrote:I have no proof of you using more than one of those character slots. This is not nazy germany where you need an api to post on forum, silly new guy. In other words you won't prove you know what you're talking about. Cool.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:No wonder why solo pvp is dead I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:28:00 -
[725] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Afk Moon Goo wrote:You must be roleplaying a braindead capsuleer, that could explain why you keep answering wrong. *sigh* I'll keep it simple for you AGAIN : - I never said not dieing to gatecamps is hard when you commit to fly a ship to do so - I said it's a bad design : low risk, high reward pvp which is ruining low sec. If you don't understand that I give up on you, It' won't have impact on everything most fw fights are in plexes/hubs where they should be (feel free to camp acceleration gates). Gatecamps isn't "ruining lowsec", no matter how much you want to howl about it ruining lowsec. That's just like your opinion I can provide facts why it's ruining lowsec : - Average solo pvper can't fly what he wants because we are camping - People won't fleet to fight campers because most of the time they disengage unless they are 100% sure they'll kill you (typical bears) - Can be annoying for small gang doing fw, but it's ok I guess when you have a scout Notice how you are in full damage control mode since it's bad design.
Lord Zim wrote: The "actual state of low sec" has nothing to do with gatecamps.
It's not helping, but ye low sec isn't appealing for order reasons. I should be more specific, it's ruining solo pvp in low sec.
Lord Zim wrote: I didn't fly a shuttle, I flew something which was designed to bust through gatecamps. You should try it.
So low sec solo pvp is limited to one type of ship, good to know homie.
Lord Zim wrote: Ah, I knew there was a trollword missing from your posts, and there it is: "bears".
Mommie always told me "you must be proud of who you are", it's ok to be a lil bear friendo. You want easy kills, you want elite pvp, you want easy afk money? It's ok you are not alone ^_^. Have a good night/day sir bbz.
PS : I do pi/research in ls for 5 months, never died to a single gatecamp on my indy because I can scout and cloak, doesn't mean it's not a bad design who is ruining low sec solo pvp.
|
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.29 22:42:00 -
[726] - Quote
Afk Moon Goo wrote:That's just like your opinion I can provide facts why it's ruining lowsec : - Average solo pvper can't fly what he wants because we are camping - People won't fleet to fight campers because most of the time they disengage unless they are 100% sure they'll kill you (typical bears) - Can be annoying for small gang doing fw, but it's ok I guess when you have a scout Notice how you are in full damage control mode since it's bad design. The "average solo PVPer" can't fly what he wants in lowsec because the environment he's flying in is dangerous. I'd love to fly around in lowsec in a titan, but I can't, because it's not designed for that.
So no, gatecamps are still not ruining lowsec.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:It's not helping, but ye low sec isn't appealing for order reasons. I should be more specific, it's ruining solo pvp in low sec. No, it isn't. It's "ruining" your idea of "solo PVP", because you want to use tools which aren't adapted/adaptable to the environment in which you're flying.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:So low sec solo pvp is limited to one type of ship, good to know homie. There's more than 1 type of ship which can (and does) work in lowsec, even solo.
Afk Moon Goo wrote:You want easy kills, you want elite pvp, you want easy afk money? It's ok you are not alone ^_^. I don't want "easy kills" (since I don't gatecamp), I don't want "elite PVP" (no, "blobs" isn't "elite PVP"), and I don't want "easy afk money" (I haven't had a single ship reimbursed in a very, very long time; then again I make my isk mostly AFK in Jita).
But thanks for making incorrect assumptions. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7249
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 08:35:00 -
[727] - Quote
Marian Devers wrote:Malcanis, what are your thoughts regarding supercaps; also, regarding Shadoo's 0.0 Thunderdome?
Because somebody posting with an hours-old NPC corp forum alt that will inevitably be biomassed by the end of the election is clearly trying to derail this thread, I'm just quoting the last useful post to ~try~ to get this thing back on track. ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8384
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 08:43:00 -
[728] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2044
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 08:47:00 -
[729] - Quote
Did I miss something?
All this talk of lo-sec in a candidate thread who has said he is not sure what to do about lo-sec and that it is his weakest area. We all thought CSM 6 was a war crime with it's massive Null Presence CSM7 topped it by selling out our Council to CCP, don't let it happen again. Vote or next time Incarna is your fault. Stupid Signature Broke
|
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 09:20:00 -
[730] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote: The "average solo PVPer" can't fly what he wants in lowsec because the environment he's flying in is dangerous. I'd love to fly around in lowsec in a titan, but I can't, because it's not designed for that.
So no, gatecamps are still not ruining lowsec.
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.
Lord Zim wrote: No, it isn't. It's "ruining" your idea of "solo PVP", because you want to use tools which aren't adapted/adaptable to the environment in which you're flying.
There's more than 1 type of ship which can (and does) work in lowsec, even solo.
No, it isn't. It's "endorsing" your idea of "lowsec PVP", because you want to get easy kills with low risk and high reward (aka your average bear). Feel free to make a list and pass gates with tryhard instalocking loki fleets camping, I'll look forward that. Spoiler : you'll die in a frigate, in a frigate.
Lord Zim wrote: I don't want "easy kills" (since I don't gatecamp), I don't want "elite PVP" (no, "blobs" isn't "elite PVP"), and I don't want "easy afk money" (I haven't had a single ship reimbursed in a very, very long time; then again I make my isk mostly AFK in Jita).
But thanks for making incorrect assumptions.
I'm happy to know you are irrelevant to this discussion since you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Malcanis wrote: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. I never said I can't deal with lowsec gatecamps, I said it's a bad/toxic design did you even read my posts? I bet you didn't. Malcanis in charge of endorsing low risk, high reward pvp.
|
|
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7249
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 09:32:00 -
[731] - Quote
that's maybe because outside of plinking at tackled supercaps that somebody else is killing in the once-per-epoch big fight that manages to take place in lowsec, casual PvP in lowsec is reduced to camping because there is literally nothing else considering that the place is a desert
as far as PvE goes, great, you have l5s which require a gang or a carrier to run, and if you have a gang you're far better off running incursions and if you have a carrier you'll make more ISK running 0.0 anomalies
incursions are awful in lowsec so let's not even go there
if people aren't doing these things then there are no "targets" which means that basically all casual PvP is reduced to camping a gate or a station, and they don't do those things because they are more rewarding elsewhere with the same amount of effort ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
7249
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 09:36:00 -
[732] - Quote
Also fyi Fozzie announced a nerf to remote sensor boosters, which make those instalocking loki camps possible ~*a proud belligerent undesirable*~ TheMittani.com: The premier source for news, commentary and discussion of EVE Online and other games of interest. Malcanis for CSM 8 |
Afk Moon Goo
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 11:05:00 -
[733] - Quote
Andski wrote:that's maybe because outside of plinking at tackled supercaps that somebody else is killing in the once-per-epoch big fight that manages to take place in lowsec, casual PvP in lowsec is reduced to camping because there is literally nothing else considering that the place is a desert
as far as PvE goes, great, you have l5s which require a gang or a carrier to run, and if you have a gang you're far better off running incursions and if you have a carrier you'll make more ISK running 0.0 anomalies
incursions are awful in lowsec so let's not even go there
if people aren't doing these things then there are no "targets" which means that basically all casual PvP is reduced to camping a gate or a station, and they don't do those things because they are more rewarding elsewhere with the same amount of effort You are 100% right.
Andski wrote:Also fyi Fozzie announced a nerf to remote sensor boosters, which make those instalocking loki camps possible Holy **** the tears on that thread, delicious. |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 11:48:00 -
[734] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8384
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 12:33:00 -
[735] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2308
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 13:03:00 -
[736] - Quote
Actually, no, there's no point, it should've ended on my part with "gatecamping isn't a problem with/for lowsec", since that's all there is to it. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Ace Uoweme
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2013.03.30 23:16:00 -
[737] - Quote
Lord Zim wrote:Actually, no, there's no point, it should've ended on my part with "gatecamping isn't a problem with/for lowsec", since that's all there is to it.
Considering your sig, and learning it's a Goon, maybe you're posting about the wrong topic all together. Since it is the antics of Goons to troll and cause mischief, and they don't even try to hide it. "In a world of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act." ~George Orwell
|
Trebor Daehdoow
Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad.
2801
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 11:19:00 -
[738] - Quote
It goes without saying that Malcanis will be on my recommended ballot.
Pre-Election has begun! Click to endorse Trebor for CSM8 * Candidate thread * CSM Blog |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8396
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 11:21:00 -
[739] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2081
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 15:24:00 -
[740] - Quote
I just noticed you added qualified to your thread
Gratz We all thought CSM 6 was a war crime with it's massive Null Presence CSM7 topped it by selling out our Council to CCP, don't let it happen again. Vote or next time Incarna is your fault. Stupid Signature Broke
|
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8400
|
Posted - 2013.04.01 15:45:00 -
[741] - 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 |
Indus Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 05:26:00 -
[742] - Quote
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.
What proportion of HS characters are null sec alts in your estimation? Is this a problem? What would you propose to do about it if someone handed you a junior game developer hat?
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8400
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 06:30:00 -
[743] - 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 -
[744] - 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 -
[745] - 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 |
Beaver Retriever
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
31
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:00:00 -
[746] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
Psychotic Monk is both the hisec candidate we deserve and need right now.
Jus' sayin' |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8408
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 13:08:00 -
[747] - Quote
Maybe I'll endorse him too! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
236
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 17:55:00 -
[748] - Quote
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? Ali Aras for CSM 8 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8421
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 18:18:00 -
[749] - 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 -
[750] - 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 -
[751] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1450
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:24:00 -
[752] - Quote
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. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8425
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:31:00 -
[753] - 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 |
Karl Hobb
Stellar Ore Refinery and Crematorium
1451
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:39:00 -
[754] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. I think you're taking my post a bit too seriously because it was definitely a "thank you" regarding certain candidates, but that's alright. If it helps, you're number 1 on one account and number 2 on the other and (you might end up #1 on the second account because) I'm heavily promoting you as a secondary to my corp (P Monk will end up #1 on pretty much everyone's list). Sure there's only nine accounts between us, but that's gotta count for something.
E: For instance, I am now compelled to find Roc Weiler's CS Interview, as well as Korvin's. I support Malcanis and Psychotic Monk for CSM8. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8425
|
Posted - 2013.04.02 19:41:00 -
[755] - Quote
Every vote for me counts! Vote for Malcanis for CSM8: Read about my platform here
Please endorse my candidacy here |
Indus Fervens
Saiph Industries Talocan United
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 04:01:00 -
[756] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: 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.
Hmmmm....so you don't think many of the null sec alts are mission/incursion running? That they are in hi-sec for the industry? My feeling is that there are a lot of people/alts in hi-sec for the low risk highish isk/hr.
Look I know you are not running as an economic expert but where do you think ISK should be entering the game? Do you think there should be any ISK spouts in null-sec?
I was thinking about a system where vast effective isk per hour could be made in null sec but only in the form of raw materials that need to be made into something to be valuable. Much like tech moons are not isk fountains even though they make serious cash, it is only because people are prepared to pay for the tech that it is valuable. Whereas, a L4 mission runner makes 50+ mill isk/hr + salvage. (and is a isk spout) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8450
|
Posted - 2013.04.03 20:08:00 -
[757] - 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 |
Vilnius Zar
Ordo Ardish
821
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:16:00 -
[758] - Quote
I don't necessarily agree with everything Malc says but I do very much like his non-bullshit and knowledgeable approach to the game, the CSM and his input in the matter. Give him your vote! Amat victoria curam. Excellence in everything.
Some guides that may be useful to you: http://www.youtube.com/user/OrdoArdish |
Banlish
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
102
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:17:00 -
[759] - Quote
Gotta say we do need Malcanis on the CSM, I've kept a very low profile up till yesterday about the CSM votes but I'll NEVER say Malcanis doesn't know this game inside and out like few do. If you aren't sure who to vote for, make sure at the very least Malcanis is on your list.
He's on of the bitter vets at EVE that instead of just remaining bitter, is proactive. Who wouldn't want that? |
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation The Honda Accord
2333
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 18:29:00 -
[760] - Quote
I strongly endorse this candidate! Good luck!!
Issler |
|
Lmagno
Nex Exercitus Raiden.
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:05:00 -
[761] - Quote
Malcanis, you are my #1 candidate on my 3 accounts.
I will do the possible to convince my m8s to vote you |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8463
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 20:14:00 -
[762] - 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 |
Thrusting Motion
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 22:27:00 -
[763] - Quote
Vote the party line and everyone wins. |
Lord Zim
2333
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 22:29:00 -
[764] - Quote
Good thing CCP didn't make the voting UI terrible to use. :v: Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home. RIP Vile Rat |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1105
|
Posted - 2013.04.04 22:41:00 -
[765] - Quote
I'm endorsing Malcanis "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
BonusCan
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 03:51:00 -
[766] - Quote
+1 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8466
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 06:26:00 -
[767] - 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 |
Syaran
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
9
|
Posted - 2013.04.05 09:54:00 -
[768] - Quote
I put Malcanis in my list, as promised.Good luck! |
Temba Ronin
208
|
Posted - 2013.04.06 00:25:00 -
[769] - Quote
Malcanis is top of the list on all my accounts, my pleasure to vote for a good candidate! Best of luck to the 14 candidates who will represent all of us on CSM8. I am hoping they will work together and surprise the hell out of CCP. I hope we get a balance of views to compliment the level headed attitude that Malcanis brings to the table. I hope CSM8 turns out to be the best CSM to date! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8571
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 06:57:00 -
[770] - 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 |
|
Frying Doom
2265
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 08:51:00 -
[771] - Quote
"I love EvE"
From anyone else I would call bullshit Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Josef Djugashvilis
Acme Mining Corporation
1111
|
Posted - 2013.04.08 16:15:00 -
[772] - Quote
Well, despite what I saw as your somewhat overblown 'hard-man' posts in the run up to the elections, I voted for you with my measly two accounts in the belief that as you are well versed in the game, you will be an asset to CSM 8. This is not a signature. |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
12
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 08:56:00 -
[773] - Quote
Two more votes for you now. Cheers |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8586
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 09:50:00 -
[774] - Quote
Thanks guys, all votes gratefully received Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
421
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 19:51:00 -
[775] - Quote
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? Nightmares - A short story by Ch+¬ Biko |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8595
|
Posted - 2013.04.09 20:20:00 -
[776] - 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 |
Powers Sa
601
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 00:55:00 -
[777] - Quote
How do you feel about highsec freighter kamikazee/suicide ganks? This is a very important issue. Vote Nullsec for CSM8 Mynnna Kesper North-á Kaleb Rysode Malc00nis |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8597
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 06:49:00 -
[778] - 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 |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
421
|
Posted - 2013.04.10 23:58:00 -
[779] - Quote
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. Nightmares - A short story by Ch+¬ Biko |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8605
|
Posted - 2013.04.11 05:27:00 -
[780] - 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 |
|
Temba Ronin
211
|
Posted - 2013.04.12 00:26:00 -
[781] - Quote
Hello fellow internet spaceship pilots! Just wanted to remind you to vote for MALCANIS FOR CSM8!
Power To The Players! |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
93
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 10:45:00 -
[782] - Quote
Just finished a tres tasty bacon butty, it made me think I should come along and bump the thread for EvEGÇÖs premier CSM8 candidate and Bacon supporter extraordinaire.
Also, itGÇÖs a slow day in the world of network administration and I'm slightly bored.
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8677
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 10:56:00 -
[783] - 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 |
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
93
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 11:09:00 -
[784] - Quote
Interesting. Never tried Dijon with bacon... hmmm
Honey mustard is awesome in bacon sandwiches. I dont know if you have ever made your own, but i can recommend a recipe if not!
Malcanis for CSM8, Its about damn time.
A vote for Malcanis is a vote for bacon! |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.15 12:12:00 -
[785] - Quote
Anunzi wrote:
Interesting. Never tried Dijon with bacon... hmmm
Honey mustard is awesome in bacon sandwiches. I dont know if you have ever made your own, but i can recommend a recipe if not!
Confirming that honey mustard is awesome. Confessing I am becoming addicted to it. |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 16:57:00 -
[786] - Quote
what's your position regarding the recent CCP "direction" nerffing resistance bonus? |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8697
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:07:00 -
[787] - 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 |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:14:00 -
[788] - Quote
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 |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8697
|
Posted - 2013.04.16 22:54:00 -
[789] - 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 |
gascanu
Bearing Srl.
10
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 07:17:00 -
[790] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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.
heh, i think this has more to to with local armor reps being s**t than with anything else; there are allot of shield ships outhere that are using ASB for example; let me ask you something: is by your logic eagle an overpowerd ship? or sacrilege? i'm sure all the math there look nice but noone complained about res bonus untill CCP come and say" this is overpowered"; yes ppl complained about some ships with this bonus but that is more of a problem with certain ships and nerfing 40 ships to fix 2 is a very BAD solution in my book;
my point still stands, nerfbat is bad and a benevolent CSM is bad for eve in my opinion, no votes from me, thx for your time. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8697
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 08:29:00 -
[791] - 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 |
mynnna
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
842
|
Posted - 2013.04.17 15:12:00 -
[792] - Quote
gascanu wrote:my point still stands, nerfbat is bad and a benevolent CSM is bad for eve in my opinion, no votes from me, thx for your time.
If you think you're going to get a CSM that's always going to be getting up in CCP's face and yelling at them for you when you disagree with a change (because let's be honest here, your opposition to the change is rooted in "I don't like this don't nerf my ships") then you're probably in for a long, sad year. Mynnna for CSM 8 |
Alx Warlord
SUPERNOVA SOCIETY
405
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 03:37:00 -
[793] - Quote
Malcanis, I'm casting one of my votes to you. I hope You defend the POS revamp and the Sov Revamp, if CCP don't save Null-sec.. things will get worst and worst.... Please read these! > New POS system > New SOV system |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8709
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 06:42:00 -
[794] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2372
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 10:43:00 -
[795] - Quote
Do you feel the CSM needs to be seen as the voice of the players?
Also do you see the need for the CSM to distance its self from the corporate body of CCP, eg. to be seen as a separate entity? Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:05:00 -
[796] - 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 -
[797] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 11:55:00 -
[798] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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 No I wrote it in response to a comment in another thread, then decided to remove it from the candidates I had asked.
To be honest the biggest problem CSM 7 faced was lack of communication, transparency and forgetting who they actually work for.
Hopefully we will not have the same problems with CSM 8
As to table bashing, I am not sure of your options there.
I will leave you with a quote from Hans answering a statement of mine
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:Frying Doom wrote:As the CSM is the Voice of the players, don't you think endorsements from players would be more relevant?
This has been CSM7s biggest failing, they forgot who they actually work for. You really DON'T have a clue as to how this all works, do you. The minute the CSM fails to be of use to CCP is the minute it ceases to exist. The more practical benefit we provide the company, the longer we preserve our ability to operate and serve as the voice of the people. CSM7 has elevated the status of the institution internally by making ourselves too useful to ignore, and its now up to CSM8 to carry that momentum into their term as well. Especially with a new EP entering the picture at some point in 2013, its all the more critical that we prove our value to as wide a cross-section of the company as possible. Otherwise, new management may decide that an expensive handful of ragey players that can't channel their energy into anything more constructive than ranting on forums or skype isn't worth the effort.
So be useful to CCP or your gone. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:06:00 -
[799] - Quote
Well it was a quality soapbox opportunity, for which I thank you. Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Frying Doom
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:07:00 -
[800] - Quote
Apologies on the Edits, I am conflicted at this point. (And very tired) Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8710
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:10:00 -
[801] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:12:00 -
[802] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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 I will be happy to infer
But it is nice to see a candidate that is aware of what is going on. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Lord Zim
2367
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:22:00 -
[803] - Quote
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. Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
RIP Vile Rat |
Frying Doom
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:30:00 -
[804] - 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. STV-gate is still in the paper shredding stage
But I will definitely say CSM 7 was the biggest fail we have ever had. They forgot that they work for the players, anything after that point is just fluff. The fact they worked well with CCP is great, the fact that they seemed to work for CCP not so great.
When they came in it was all about transparency and communication, then half way through we stopped hearing from them, well all except Two Step and the transperancy resebles a brick wall.
Just look at the question who supported the STV, we have 2 yes and 2 no out of 14 people. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Frying Doom
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:35:00 -
[805] - Quote
I do wonder if CSM 8 will be allowed to alter the White Paper, now CSM 7 has so well "altered" it. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8711
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:40:00 -
[806] - 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 |
Lord Zim
2367
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:42:00 -
[807] - Quote
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: Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.
RIP Vile Rat |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8711
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 12:43:00 -
[808] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:05:00 -
[809] - Quote
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. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8712
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:14:00 -
[810] - 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 |
|
Frying Doom
2374
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:19:00 -
[811] - Quote
Malcanis wrote: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. Hell as long as CSM 8 is not here to represent CCP, I will be happy.
As for Non-voters, I can understand (more so today than ever), but there is always a way out like voting for only one candidate you pretty much know will lose (Insert Psyco bitches name here), then that way you have at least donkey voted. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8712
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 13:44:00 -
[812] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2376
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:30:00 -
[813] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Non voters should put in the effort to educate themselves as to why they should vote for me after all. I think re-education centers should be set up, to help teach them the error of their ways.
That and I voted badges as well for the forums, so we can tell the whiny little scum to STFU. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8712
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 14:32:00 -
[814] - Quote
Voting badges are a brilliant idea. CCP should enact them immediately.
Please vote for me for CSM8-áhere
My recommended voting list |
Frying Doom
2387
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:13:00 -
[815] - Quote
Before the polls close
How do you feel about the new STV voting system?
Do you understand it?
How do you feel about fact we can only identify 2 members of CSM7 who supported it?
Do you want it removed for a better or simpler system, while voting numbers are so low? Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8722
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:30:00 -
[816] - 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 |
Frying Doom
2387
|
Posted - 2013.04.18 22:35:00 -
[817] - Quote
Thank you for that. Vote Now! My recommendations are:-á 1.James Arget 2.Ayeson 3.Nathan Jameson 4.Cipreh 5.Chitsa Jason 6. Malcanis 7. Mike Azariah 8. Ripard Teg 9. Mangala Solaris 10. Ali Aras 11. Roc Wieler And remember not voting is the same as voting for Null. |
Temba Ronin
212
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 07:28:00 -
[818] - Quote
Everyone has had a chance to vote for Malcanis ...... now we need the results! Best of luck Malcanis!
Power To The Players! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8787
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 07:31:00 -
[819] - 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."
|
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
256
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 20:00:00 -
[820] - Quote
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? |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8815
|
Posted - 2013.04.21 20:35:00 -
[821] - 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 -
[822] - 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."
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2373
|
Posted - 2013.04.24 12:03:00 -
[823] - Quote
+ 1 Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk! |
Di Mulle
89
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:28:00 -
[824] - Quote
Congrats ! <<Insert some waste of screen space here>> |
Temba Ronin
212
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:29:00 -
[825] - Quote
You made it GRATZ!
Power To The Players! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
644
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:33:00 -
[826] - Quote
Congratulations |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8886
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:41:00 -
[827] - 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."
|
Draqone an'Alreigh
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 17:46:00 -
[828] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Thank you all very much. You sons of bitches, Odessey looks really good and now I'm not going to get to play it
You are welcome. Now we just need to put pressure on everyone to vote you Chairman. Seriously. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8888
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:04:00 -
[829] - 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."
|
Draqone an'Alreigh
EVE University Ivy League
0
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:16:00 -
[830] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:No
Look, it seems you'll do most of the work anyway. Being Chairman at least you get to have a pretty title to go along with it. And you get to pick the most comfortable seats at meetings too!
Malcanis for Chairman 2013! |
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8889
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 18:34:00 -
[831] - Quote
Sig updated to reflect my theme for CSM 8.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
145
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 19:09:00 -
[832] - Quote
Congratulations Malcanis.
Incidentally eight other people got elected from my list. Pretty good hit rate, I'm happy with that. But I'm not happy with the participation rate. You've got your work cut out for you Malcanis, get to it, make the CSM a more familiar beast to people. Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8903
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 20:32:00 -
[833] - Quote
I'm on it.
Me and those scorpions.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Frying Doom
2414
|
Posted - 2013.04.27 23:00:00 -
[834] - Quote
Congratulations. Any spelling and grammatical errors are because frankly, I don't care!! |
Shalia Ripper
412
|
Posted - 2013.04.28 01:30:00 -
[835] - Quote
Sweet victory!
But now I have to change my sig. Vote for Malcanis for CSM8
|
Anunzi
High House Of Shadows Tribal Band
125
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 07:54:00 -
[836] - Quote
Congratulations Mal, it is my hope that you get to crush your enemies, see them driven before you and hear the lamentations of their women.
"On we fly, on wings of thunder, never more to sheath our swords" |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
8942
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 08:09:00 -
[837] - 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
|
Dersen Lowery
Laurentson INC StructureDamage
486
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 13:11:00 -
[838] - Quote
Congrats! I'm really looking forward to seeing what this CSM does. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. |
Sui'Djin
Black Rise Guerilla Forces Blinky Red Brotherhood
13
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 15:22:00 -
[839] - Quote
Congrats Malcanis, glad you made it in \o/
About time to fetch a glass of [insert worthy drink here] . Cheers mate |
Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
434
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 16:08:00 -
[840] - Quote
Congrats, Malc. Nightmares - A short story by Ch+¬ Biko |
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1871
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 20:03:00 -
[841] - Quote
Grats and things. 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. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9003
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 20:19:00 -
[842] - Quote
Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things.
I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ
1 Kings 12:11
|
Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1871
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 20:20:00 -
[843] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things. I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ
You'd better share. 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. |
Frying Doom
2426
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 21:51:00 -
[844] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things. I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ Damn someone beat me to it. Any spelling and grammatical errors are because frankly, I don't care!! |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
1181
|
Posted - 2013.04.29 23:14:00 -
[845] - Quote
Be sure to hang it on the fridge along with your first CSM death threat. "Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á -Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
dark heartt
I Own Four Sheep The Methodical Alliance
143
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 02:41:00 -
[846] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things. I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ
Please share. Communicate with us. |
Mike Azariah
Gallente Benevolence Association
292
|
Posted - 2013.04.30 15:26:00 -
[847] - Quote
Damn, nobody has figured out who I am well enough to send me hatemail
so jelly
m Mike Azariah for CSM8 - Representing YOU |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9033
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 08:34:00 -
[848] - 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
|
Temba Ronin
214
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 09:33:00 -
[849] - Quote
I do not quite get the hostility being directed towards the newly "elected" CSM8 members. If you did not vote for them I can understand you not being enthusiastic, but I can not recall a campaign promise made that was an enormous threat to EVE Online gameplay by any of the major candidates.
Let's say there are 100 things that really need to be fixed in the game. Let's also say the newly elected CSM members decide they can support 25 of those things and will present them to CCP. Of course still hypothetically speaking CCP commits to having the time and resources to fix, and or attempt to fix 15 of these things. If they are fixes for null sec or wormholes or market traders and those areas are not where I play my game does that make them bad fixes? I think not. Improvements to the game are in the long run better for all game players.
My way of thinking resolves this as being a plus of 15 needed fixes for the game I play.
Power To The Players! |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9034
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 09:38:00 -
[850] - 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
|
|
Ali Aras
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
253
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 19:13:00 -
[851] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things. I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ Man, nobody's sent me hatemail. Some long laundry lists though. Ali Aras for CSM8 Warp to Sun (my blog) |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
776
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 19:22:00 -
[852] - Quote
Ali Aras wrote:Malcanis wrote:Scatim Helicon wrote:Grats and things. I got my first CSM hatemail already GÖÑ Man, nobody's sent me hatemail. Some long laundry lists though.
I don't like your face (ingame). That'll get you started.
|
GallowsCalibrator
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
298
|
Posted - 2013.05.01 21:43:00 -
[853] - Quote
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 |
Zhade Lezte
Merch Industrial Goonswarm Federation
105
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 03:36:00 -
[854] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sig updated to reflect my theme for CSM 8.
:allears:
(alternately 8-> !) |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
9064
|
Posted - 2013.05.02 06:58:00 -
[855] - 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 -
[856] - 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 -
[857] - Quote
I haz a tag \o/
1 Kings 12:11
|
Sway M4G
Terra Hawks The Initiative.
0
|
Posted - 2013.05.08 09:43:00 -
[858] - Quote
omg run his got the power now!!!!! gz btw |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 29 :: [one page] |