| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
799
   |
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:14:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'd like to announce my intent to run for CSM.
Why are you running?
I feel that there isn't enough representation advocating more creative, interactive and cutthroat gameplay in highsec. Eve is terrible when played as a grindfest with the non-interactive mindset that other MMOs encourage, and I notice a trend, both among players and within CCP, that interacting with other players in ways that they might not prefer is somehow evil or undesirable. It is my hope to show CCP that the messy interactions of one group of players trying to get what they want at the expense of another group of players is one of the greatest features of this game and is what allows the stories that inspire players to join or take a more active playstyle come about.
With a very large percentage of the playerbase in highsec (some estimate as much as 70%, although that's likely not accurate) it is of the utmost importance that those players have an engaging game experience. I want players rushing to log in after they get home because they have a plan to take revenge on someone or to steal their assets or to make sure their rivals industrial never makes it to a market hub. I want to see corporations and alliances in highsec forced to become better because this game is one that features a consequence of loss. I want players to be trying to outthink, outmanoeuvre and outgame their fellow players, rather than repetitively rescuing the damsel until they're in a marauder without building any community ties, wondering where to go from there and ultimately unsubbing.
Who are you and why are you qualified to represent me?
I am a wardeccer, awoxer, thief, scammer, occasional suicide ganker and all around content maker. Alongside my corp, The Skunkworks, we have dissected pretty nearly every facet of highsec looking for ways to make engaging gameplay for ourselves and our friends.
My successes include two rounds of wildly profitable incursion fuckery, hundreds of fun and interesting wardecs, several content-generating scams and thefts, and, most importantly, a great deal of community building. I've built an exceptionally talented community of belligerent undesirables, personally mentored dozens of players in an engaging lifestyle as well as inspiring many more and, when it looked like CCP was ready to completely crumple up engaging highsec play and throw it away, organized a round table of many of the most talented members of this walk of life in order to put our view forward to CCP.
And even if you aren't on the leading edge of interacting with other peoples game play, I want to represent you as a highsec player because I want you to have a fun and challenging time. I want you eager to play, either in a defensive or offensive role. I want you to be excitedly telling any fellow nerd that will listen about the great time you had in space.
What changes, specifically, would you like to see?
Firstly, I want CCP on board with our lifestyle. It has long been known and recently confirmed that CCP does not allow its employees to engage in behaviour like suicide ganking or other things they view as not 'light side'. They need to be having those experiences both so that they know the value of them and so that they have the hands on experience they'll need when altering systems that effect those types of game play.
Secondly, I want to see a revamp of the corporation system that actually encourages people to group up, form relationships, and actually join and stay with a corp, especially during times of distress. The unfortunate truth is that if your goal is to gain as much money as possible by running missions the correct choice for you is to be in a one-man corp and never interact with the world around you, and I think that's something that needs to change.
Thirdly, I want to work against the view that interacting with someone elses gameplay is somehow any more morally wrong than playing a better hand than someone at a poker table. If these tools that reactionaries tend to label as 'evil' were correctly viewed as simply tools, I feel that we wouldn't be shackled with fun-killing nerfs all the time.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Have a blog, if you care. |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
799
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
reserved
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Have a blog, if you care. |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
799
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
reserved
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.
Have a blog, if you care. |
Tom JBrokaw
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
5
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:18:00 -
[4] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:Thirdly, I want to work against the view that interacting with someone elses gameplay is somehow any more morally wrong than playing a better hand than someone at a poker table. If these tools that reactionaries tend to label as 'evil' were correctly viewed as simply tools, I feel that we wouldn't be shackled with fun-killing nerfs all the time.
laudible goal, but... good luck with that one sysuphus. |
Wescro
Mormos Industries
291
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 21:35:00 -
[5] - Quote
Monk's safari guide has inspired a lot of people, myself included, to step up to provide the role of the villain in our great sandbox. The guy clearly knows his game and his insight would be useful in crafting CSM documentation and generating feedback for CCP. +2 votes
P.S. If you haven't already, read the chatlogs he generously makes public on his blog. Great for a laugh when you have time to kill.
James 315 for CSM8. |
Varius Xeral
Galactic Trade Syndicate
586
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 22:05:00 -
[6] - Quote
I'll shoot you a top spot on my list for shizzle my nizzle. |
Adriel Malakai
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
306
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 22:08:00 -
[7] - Quote
As a long time jackass, douchebag, griefer, and merc, I approve of this message. |
Jimmy Rustler
New Order Logistics
CODE.
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 22:12:00 -
[8] - Quote
You have my support. With you and James 315 on the CSM, this would be the finest CSM in the history of EVE. |
Dyvim Slorm
Spaceriders Inc.
110
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 23:32:00 -
[9] - Quote
If you're serious about standing then here's a couple of questions:
The first is insurance (a personal hobby horse of mine), it was brought in to cushion players early in the game when isk was hard to come by. We're now awash with isk and its also an absurd concept as no insurance company would insure us without going bankrupt in a few hours. I would like insurance removed what's your view on that?
Secondly, NPC corps. It seems to me for the paltry sum of 11% players in NPC corps gain complete immunity to wardecs. Player corps have difficulty competing because even if they lower their tax rate to say 5% for the sake of a piffling 6% you may as well stay in the NPC corp. I'm not against players remaining in NPC corps (and they are necessary as a holding area) but I think that the wardec immunity should be paid for with a tax rate of say 50% on all transactions and mining yields. What would be your approach to this? |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
802
|
Posted - 2013.03.04 23:47:00 -
[10] - Quote
I think you underestimate how truely broke brand new players are. I was helping a week old with his first safari the other day and he couldn't afford ammo. If he'd lost the ship and didn't have someone like me looking out for him he would have likely given up.
I think for low level purposes insurance is absolutly required. The higher up the food chain the less it's a required crutch and the more it's a tool to mitigate risk aversion. If I kill somebody's Maelstrom and they tell me that they don't give a **** because they got the insurance back I'm pleased as **** that the result was me getting to murder a Maelstrom.
That said, an insurance nerf would certainly help pull some isk out of the economy.
As for NPC corps, they're thorn in my side, too.
I don't think increased tax on them is the answer, though, especially considering you can just make a 1-man tax dodging corp and the tax only really effects mission runners anyways.
I think the answer to the NPC corp is either to give player corps a way to allow the players in it to invest in order to be mechanically better, like possibly with some sort of corp-wide or system-wide command boosts mechanic or by making the NPC corps mechanically worse than a player corp.
In order to help with people dropping in wardecs I'd like to see it be something that you need to invest into in order to improve and I'd like there to be a way to lose that money if you abandon it. I also feel this would be a conflict driver in that people would want to defend it and it would help corp formation as a common goal and rallying benifit. Currently, unless you're a wardec corp, there is no mechanical reason to be in anything but a one-man alt corp in highsec.
Psychotic Monk for CSM.
Belligerent Undesirables Blog. |
|
|
Dyvim Slorm
Spaceriders Inc.
110
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 00:06:00 -
[11] - Quote
We'll have to agree to disagree on insurance.
I like your ideas on strengthening player corps that could add an interesting dynamic and cohesive effect for player corps.
One man alt corps are an issue but they are subject to a wardec which NPC corps aren't so unless you're a station trader there is still risk, unlike NPC corp members where there is no risk at all for a very small sum (suicide ganks don't count as that can happen to anyone). |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
802
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 00:09:00 -
[12] - Quote
One man alt corps aren't subject to wardec as the owner can dissolve the corp and reform it, even with the same name, at a whim, costing 5m and not being subject to the wardec.
Psychotic Monk for CSM.
Belligerent Undesirables Blog. |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Black Legion.
1049
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 00:18:00 -
[13] - Quote
Aaaaack Psychotic, now I dont know whether to book James315 against a prohighsec guy or to have you and James go at it to joust for the non-ass highsec vote.
WHY DO YOU MAKE ME CHOOSE
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
FloppieTheBanjoClown
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
2939
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 00:46:00 -
[14] - Quote
It should surprise no one that I'm throwing in my vote and endorsement for Monk. In the ~18 months that we've known each other, he's had a profound impact on the way I see Eve, and as the leader of The Skunkworks he's had some measure of impact on the culture and gameplay of Eve as well. What's more, he and others like him are producing the only player-generated content in highsec besides market orders and empty asteroid belts. He's an obvious choice for anyone who wants to see highsec become a more vibrant and interesting place.
If you're thinking "oh, guys like Monk just want CCP to make it easier for them to gank people", you're wrong. He's interested in balanced gameplay in a sandbox that remains open enough for people to find creative ways to do whatever it is they set out to do: whether it's maximizing their profitability on PVE content or looking for creative new ways to prevent people from doing so, the point is to make a compelling and open-ended universe that has room for both styles of gameplay.
Psychotic Monk wrote:I want you eager to play, either in a defensive or offensive role. I want you to be excitedly telling any fellow nerd that will listen about the great time you had in space.
It pretty much comes down to this for me.
For those who don't know, Monk and I share the Belligerent Undesirables blog. I'm going to close out with some copypasta from my own writings (this is actually three different pieces that work together well):
In any other game, people would be frothing at the mouth from screaming at their teammates for playing the game this poorly. I donGÇÖt care if itGÇÖs League of Legends or Call of Duty or StarCraftGǪEve is the only competitive game IGÇÖve ever seen where people demand to be able to continue playing badly without anyone interfering.
I want to see everyone who plays Eve get smarter and more involved. I want to see people learn to stop making stupid mistakes and become a part of the game rather than grinding at it like itGÇÖs a job. If all you want to do is shoot digital space ships to acquire a high score, Galaga never gets old.
What stories do highsec carebears have to tell? GÇ£Hey, you guys remember that time we ran that incursion and shot the Sanshas? No, the 107th time. Yeah, that was great!GÇ¥ How about GÇ£IGÇÖll never forget the time my agent gave me Angels Extravaganza twice in an hour,GÇ¥ or GÇ£Yeah, IGÇÖll never forget the first time I mined in a mackinaw. It was amazing!GÇ¥ No? But I bet they can tell you about the first time they got ganked. Or the first time they killed a ninja salvager. IGÇÖll never forget my first war and the lessons I learned from it.
Belligerent Undesirables create the stories of highsec. We are the bad guys those white knights desperately need to take them beyond the GÇ£what nowGÇ¥ endgame of shiny PVE ships and wallet balances.
Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement. |
Wescro
Mormos Industries
294
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 00:50:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Aaaaack Psychotic, now I dont know whether to book James315 against a prohighsec guy or to have you and James go at it to joust for the non-ass highsec vote.
WHY DO YOU MAKE ME CHOOSE
Whats this about? Id pay to watch either/hear/read either of those play out.
James 315 for CSM8. |
c 3 po
The New Eden School of trade
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 05:40:00 -
[16] - Quote
+1 monk to me represents a candidate that understands highsec in eve as an Ecosystem of gatherers of resources (herbivors) gatherers of isk (plants) and the predators (belligerent undesirables) keeping the whole system in balance. This balance is crucial if isk and resource gathering becomes completely safe and easy eve will loose the sense of real loss that affects everybody in the game.
I would like to know your stance on neutral logistics considering its high levels of use in our line of work.
|
Xander Phoena
Zebra Corp
Gentlemen's Agreement
94
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 05:45:00 -
[17] - Quote
Psychotic, I hope you join me for a Crossing Zebras interview to discuss your candidacy. Over 2/3rds of candidates have already been interviewed by me - a full list can be found here www.crossingzebras.com/CSM8
Details for contacting me can be found here - http://crossingzebras.com/post/40699271518/electioninterviews
www.crossingzebras.com |
New Targett
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:00:00 -
[18] - Quote
This needs to happen right now
Vote for monk  |
1234 5678
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:07:00 -
[19] - Quote
The actions inspired by this individual is what has made this game great, without the sick twisted clockwork heart of undesirables like monk eve will turn into an arcade style space shooter
A vote for monk is in my mind a vote for real change that the current csm primarily made up of massive alliance representatives can't offer |
Bombs Away Boy
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:17:00 -
[20] - Quote
I see a collection of rather unfriendly looking people gathering here I am very much in favor of this
I would like to see the issue of neutral logistics addressed but other than that I could not imagine a better representative for highsec affairs
Best possible friend worst possible enemy you definately have my vote |
|
|
Frying Doom
Zat's Affiliated Traders
1739
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 11:20:00 -
[21] - Quote
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:Aaaaack Psychotic, now I dont know whether to book James315 against a prohighsec guy or to have you and James go at it to joust for the non-ass highsec vote.
WHY DO YOU MAKE ME CHOOSE
Have you considered a longer 3 ringed circus episode?
EvE players have no voice. Just don't bother voting for the CSM, really its not worth the energy.
|
Cannibal Kane
The African Terrorist
1490
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 15:36:00 -
[22] - Quote
Monk has my Vote for CSM.
This is the first CSM member I can actually say I fully support.
On a side note... Monk don't advocate the grouping up of people that it will force me to have more members. I do enjoy my solitude.
"I saw him fight by the monument in Jita. -áHe flowed in his Machariel like a Shinto spirit, 800MM shells sprouting in his passing. -áHis hair flowed in the corona of his target's warp core breach. -áIt was truly majestic. -áAnd while everyone stared in awe I stole the loot and ran off.-áBecause I am like that." --áNEONOVUS |
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Black Legion.
1057
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 15:40:00 -
[23] - Quote
Bombs Away Boy wrote:I would like to see the issue of neutral logistics addressed
What are the continuing issues with neutral logistics, and what direction would Psychotic advocate to address them?
"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart."-á
-Arydanika, Voices from the Void
Hero of the CSM
Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
813
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 15:52:00 -
[24] - Quote
Well, there's still at least one way in which they can render assistance and not be legally shootable, which is broken as hell.
They are occasionally fun-killers in the context of solo or very small gangs, but as this game isn't balanced around solo and very small gangs, so that's no more unbalanced than Falcon. (/me shakes fist at Falcon) What would be better for me and my lifestyle isn't necessarily for the benefit of the entire game, and I think this is one of those times. As much as that sucks for me and mine.
A nerf to rep amount or possibly rep distance might have interesting consequences for the meta and is worth following logically along, but really only as a thought experiment at this point. If such a nerf were to happen I don't feel it would be in order to address any kind of need but rather just to shake up the game a bit.
Psychotic Monk for CSM.
Belligerent Undesirables Blog. |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
813
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 15:57:00 -
[25] - Quote
Cannibal Kane wrote:Monk has my Vote for CSM.
This is the first CSM member I can actually say I fully support.
On a side note... Monk don't advocate the grouping up of people that it will force me to have more members. I do enjoy my solitude.
Kane, if we do our job well they'll be forced to bring a higher level of gamesmanship to counter us. While I'm sure there will always space for they kiting 1vgang lifestyle and hunting will never go out of fashion, the day we can no longer just bring a 100mn tengu or legion and wipe the field nine times out of ten is a victory for us.
Besides, if we must form larger groups at least we have the best friends to do it with.
And I'd just like to say again, solo hunting lone dumbasses will never not be viable.
Psychotic Monk for CSM.
Belligerent Undesirables Blog. |
Dyvim Slorm
Spaceriders Inc.
111
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 19:28:00 -
[26] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:One man alt corps aren't subject to wardec as the owner can dissolve the corp and reform it, even with the same name, at a whim, costing 5m and not being subject to the wardec.
Good point but easily remedied by not allowing a corp to dissolve for (say) seven days after a wardec is issued (or maybe not at all), or up the cost of starting a corp to say 50mil.
|
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
815
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 20:51:00 -
[27] - Quote
Dissolved only happens when the last person leaves, so only required a CEO alt to leave in it.
If we're talking about locking more people than the CEO into a corp because of a wardec that's infinitely exploitable. I could lock an entire corp in for slightly more than 50m a week.
The band-aid solution is to have a war follow a player no matter what corp they go to if there were in the corp at the time of a dec. It's fairly inelegant and CCP has stated that they'd prefer to not have killability follow individuals because that's one of the reasons they got away from the previous crimewatch system. (There they were talking about complex chains of who could shoot who in agression flagging situations, so maybe they'd be okay with this, but you never know.)
The method I'd strongly prefer is some sort of investment the corp makes, whether that me parts fed into a structure or 'contracts' that the corp could buy that an individual would also have to buy into (at a much smaller amount). Individual invested monies would be lost if a character dropped corp and corp invested monies would be lost if it dissolved. This would also be the vehicle by which PC corps would be mechanically better than NPC corps.
That's just my thoughts on the matter and I'm not a developer, but in the NPC-corps-are-interaction-killers there's a couple of easy pitfalls that need to be avoided to come up with a good system.
Psychotic Monk for CSM.
Belligerent Undesirables Blog. |
Mallak Azaria
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
2579
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 21:21:00 -
[28] - Quote
A vote for Psychotic Monk is a vote for emergent gameplay.
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. |
Dyvim Slorm
Spaceriders Inc.
111
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 21:23:00 -
[29] - Quote
Psychotic Monk wrote:
If we're talking about locking more people than the CEO into a corp because of a wardec that's infinitely exploitable. I could lock an entire corp in for slightly more than 50m a week.
I was thinking more along the lines of a 7 day lock from the declaration of of the wardec, that's long enough to have an effect on the one man corps, but I certainly agree that it shouldn't be indefinite. Coupled with a higher tax rate on NPC corps I feel it would balance the risk more fairly and be easy for CCP to implement as the code is already in place (only tax rate and timers to change).
Psychotic Monk wrote:
The method I'd strongly prefer is some sort of investment the corp makes, whether that me parts fed into a structure or 'contracts' that the corp could buy that an individual would also have to buy into (at a much smaller amount). Individual invested monies would be lost if a character dropped corp and corp invested monies would be lost if it dissolved. This would also be the vehicle by which PC corps would be mechanically better than NPC corps.
Yes I'd be quite happy with this approach. It would obviously need some tweaking to get the balance right but certainly has potential |
Psychotic Monk
The Skunkworks
Petition Blizzard
816
|
Posted - 2013.03.05 21:26:00 -
[30] - Quote
Dyvim Slorm wrote:Psychotic Monk wrote:
If we're talking about locking more people than the CEO into a corp because of a wardec that's infinitely exploitable. I could lock an entire corp in for slightly more than 50m a week.
I was thinking more along the lines of a 7 day lock from the declaration of of the wardec, that's long enough to have an effect on the one man corps, but I certainly agree that it shouldn't be indefinite. Coupled with a higher tax rate on NPC corps I feel it would balance the risk more fairly and be easy for CCP to implement as the code is already in place (only tax rate and timers to change).
Sure, but then, on the sixth day I just have to declare with a new corp. Or even if they make it non-overlapping, I can redec almost immediatly after the dec fell off anyone wanting to leave would have to race me to the login screen in order to get out. For people who need to sleep and have jobs, that's just not feasible.
Psychotic Monk for CSM.
Belligerent Undesirables Blog. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |