Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 02:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
IGÇÖm Alyxportur, a current resident of sov nullsec, and IGÇÖm campaigning for CSM9.
EDIT: I'll try to keep issues/ideas from this thread updated here for anyone that doesn't want to click through multiple pages.
When CCP changed the voting method for last yearGÇÖs CSM8 election, players were given the right to vote for all 14 of the CSM candidates they wanted as their representatives rather than a single individual. To me, this underscores their desire for CSM members to represent the interests of all groups and not just special interests.
The last three years of my experience in EVE has moved from highsec to lowsec to wormhole space and then finally to sov nullsec. As the game has changed, some things have still remained the same.
One of the core issues I am campaigning on is the expansion of corporate bookmarks (perhaps skill-scaled like member size) and the addition of alliance bookmarks. The usefulness and need for bookmarks doesn't decrease when your corp size goes up. If skills can increase your maximum corp size, perhaps they should increase your maximum bookmark size as well. However, for corporations in an alliance, locations important to all member corps should have their own section, rather than bloat corporate lists. One alliance set of bookmarks seems far more utilitarian than a dozen identical corp sets.
Two issues that will be found throughout most of the CSM posts:
- Corporation Management (tied to POS structures and their management; it needs an update, but I surmise that the coding effort would be high)
- Power Projection (on the one hand, if they own the space, shouldnGÇÖt they be able to protect it, on the other hand large empires should still have vulnerabilities)
I look forward to feedback on these issues and any new ones as well in the replies below, since again, if elected IGÇÖm supposed to speak for you, not just my interests. If youGÇÖd like me to elaborate on anything, please post a question as well.
If youGÇÖre wondering about my PVP experience, itGÇÖs likely higher or lower than your preference----depending on where you live in EVE----but nullsec has given me some of the best and worst experiences, and for the foreseeable future, I canGÇÖt imagine wanting to leave it. IGÇÖve fought in large-TiDi battles that lasted long enough for me to make my number two several times. I've sat on gatecamps listening to EVE-Radio and enjoyed warping about in interceptors since they were changed in Rubicon.
If IGÇÖve ever stolen things, it wasnGÇÖt a large enough value for me to remember it. IGÇÖve trained plenty of skills that ended up useless on their respective character. I served Phreeze and Emperor Salazar with loyalty in the tedium of SRP payouts while in Insidious Empire. I also enjoy recruiting more friends into playing EVE, whether it be into my corporation or into RvB or Brave Newbies Inc.
In real life, I live at my computer whether IGÇÖm at work, school, or home. I plan on attending EVE Vegas in the fall with corpmates and EVE friends. IGÇÖm currently attending university to earn my Geography MA.
(EDITED) Additional issues:
- GUI alterations: Coding an additional chat client program allowing players to login to their corp, alliance, and private channels (if logged into the same account via EVE, then show local as well). This would allow the chat channels in-game to be closed/minimized and free up valuable space on a players view, with the side program running the channels on a different monitor. First objection I would note is that you'd want your fleet chat to be open on the main EVE window for adding players to watchlist, however with all your other general channels cleared off the screen, you won't need to have fleet chat compressed to a tiny shoebox.
- 'Switch Character' button: I really hope this doesn't need an explanation. Being able to go back to the character selection screen would be an extremely utilitarian improvement to EVE for anyone that more than one character on an account.
- Switching training without switching characters: With the recent addition to PLEX (where you can choose which account to add it to or activate it on), players may prefer being able to pause training on one character and activate it on another while being logged into one of the characters on the account
Whether you vote for me or not, if I win, I will still represent you all as best as I can.
Endorsed by www.eveskunk.com: https://twitter.com/eveskunk/status/444734528385323008 |
xenoace
The Brutor Vendetta
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 04:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
You have my vote for sure as a past corp mate and friend i think they would be lucky to have you |
Yan Skshetuski
Furyan Federation Carthage Empires
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 07:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
I demand alliance bookmarks! This is all. |
Maxwell Donovan
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 11:49:00 -
[4] - Quote
You have my vote..:)
+1 |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
31
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 16:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:Two issues that will be found throughout most of the CSM posts:
- Corporation Management (tied to POS structures and their management; it needs an update, but I surmise that the coding effort would be high)
- Power Projection (on the one hand, if they own the space, shouldnGÇÖt they be able to protect it, on the other hand large empires should still have vulnerabilities)
I look forward to feedback on these issues and any new ones as well in the replies below, since again, if elected IGÇÖm supposed to speak for you, not just my interests. If youGÇÖd like me to elaborate on anything, please post a question as well.
You've accurately described what everyone else is talking about. What do you think about these issues?
(put otherwise, why should we vote for you above one of those other candidates?) |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 18:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ranamar wrote:Alyxportur wrote:Two issues that will be found throughout most of the CSM posts:
- Corporation Management (tied to POS structures and their management; it needs an update, but I surmise that the coding effort would be high)
- Power Projection (on the one hand, if they own the space, shouldnGÇÖt they be able to protect it, on the other hand large empires should still have vulnerabilities)
I look forward to feedback on these issues and any new ones as well in the replies below, since again, if elected IGÇÖm supposed to speak for you, not just my interests. If youGÇÖd like me to elaborate on anything, please post a question as well. You've accurately described what everyone else is talking about. What do you think about these issues? (put otherwise, why should we vote for you above one of those other candidates?)
If you want to vote for someone who has the same view as you on a topic, I understand that.
My personal views on those two issues:
- Corporation Management: Corporation management needs to be changed. An overhaul in role management and assignation benefits the majority without removing content creation from the game. For example, giving someone the ability to research their blueprints means that they have the ability to cancel and deliver any corporate BPO in the progress of research in addition to their own. In real life, just because I can login to my email on campus, doesn't mean I can access other students email and delete/reply to their messages. 20,000+ years in the future, we should have at least the same partitioning of control.
- Power Projection: I don't think power projection in terms of jump-capable ships will ever be removed from the game. I believe the logistical difficulties involved in creating and sustaining a titan-bridge link to move a fleet of subcapitals across territory with multiple bridges is already difficult. The ease of jumping capital ships themselves is something that I am very on the fence about. I can't imagine living in nullsec without them, however if the mechanic was removed from the game, it would be an equal disadvantage for all the blocs. Considering how the nullsec empires layout their defensive and offensive tactics around the range limitations of their capital fleets (defensive, offensive, and logistical), I believe the blocs have enough experience and intelligence to quickly adapt to any changes to the mechanic (such as limiting range, increasing fuel consumption, etc.). If I were to really be pressed on the issue, I would still say that it's a complex issue (I wouldn't call it a 'problem' because of my own nullsec bias), and I don't consider that response a non-answer. There would be no change that would not upset a significant portion of the playerbase.
If I were to spend my time arguing on behalf of players for one of the above issues, it would be corporation management. I would also do more research on the corp management improvements that need to happen, especially in regard to management issues that particularly come up with wormhole corporations who live in a very different manner than the rest of us----truly settlers on the 'frontier'. |
Black Ivan Bakshonen
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
8
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 23:10:00 -
[7] - Quote
A fellow corpmate and a friend, I know he has the passion and commitment to be an excellent CSM rep for all EVE players. He'll put in the time for all of us on every single issue - and for that he has my vote. |
Jasmine Carnius
Carnius Offshore Holdings
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 00:09:00 -
[8] - Quote
I approve of these products and services |
Col Crunch
Industrial Guardians of New Eden
13
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 09:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
You will have my vote.
Though something that I would like to know, is what (if any) other issues interest you? |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 00:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Col Crunch wrote:You will have my vote.
Though something that I would like to know, is what (if any) other issues interest you?
More issues:
- It would be nice to be able to save planet setups (building positions/links) similar to how fittings are saved. Giving players the ability to save their layouts (which in my experience are pretty standard when it comes to processing) or even design them on an empty planet tool would augment all the documentation work players have already done.
- Fixing the Industrial Core bug/anomaly. It's been around since before I came to nullsec (1.5+ years?). It's a niche issue.
- I love the new d-scan. I wish the standings box (for adding/modifying standings) had a text box too rather than the same slider the old d-scan had.
I'll setup an ongoing list at some point this weekend and then link it on this thread. |
|
Hulky Boy
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 07:30:00 -
[11] - Quote
This guy is alright, two thumbs up !! |
King of Warcraft
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 09:41:00 -
[12] - Quote
During the recent Wormhole townhall meeting, CCP Fozzie gave an explanation about how Alliances work and why making improvements to Alliance management is so difficult. How do you feel about his explanation, and how do you think it effects your platform? |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 08:29:00 -
[13] - Quote
King of Warcraft wrote:During the recent Wormhole townhall meeting, CCP Fozzie gave an explanation about how Alliances work and why making improvements to Alliance management is so difficult. How do you feel about his explanation, and how do you think it effects your platform?
Not ignoring this. Will post an actual reply tomorrow night if I can squeeze in listening to part 2 of the townhall mp3.
Can I ask how you feel about blapdreads in wormhole space? |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 08:37:00 -
[14] - Quote
As I put into the original post, I'll try to keep issues/ideas from this thread updated here for anyone that doesn't want to click through multiple pages. |
King of Warcraft
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2014.03.17 18:58:00 -
[15] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:[Can I ask how you feel about blapdreads in wormhole space?
I am not a wormhole resident on any of my toons, so I do not have any feelings about wormhole mechanics. My initial impression is that they provide a significant advantage to a defender, but then again, a determined attacker could overcome such an advantage through stealth, trickery, and better fleet comps. But as I have previously stated, I am not a wormhole resident, so I may be wrong. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 05:42:00 -
[16] - Quote
(This list has been added to the initial post.)
Additional issues:
- GUI alterations: Coding an additional chat client program allowing players to login to their corp, alliance, and private channels (if logged into the same account via EVE, then show local as well). This would allow the chat channels in-game to be closed/minimized and free up valuable space on a players view, with the side program running the channels on a different monitor. First objection I would note is that you'd want your fleet chat to be open on the main EVE window for adding players to watchlist, however with all your other general channels cleared off the screen, you won't need to have fleet chat compressed to a tiny shoebox.
- 'Switch Character' button: I really hope this doesn't need an explanation. Being able to go back to the character selection screen would be an extremely utilitarian improvement to EVE for anyone that more than one character on an account.
- Switching training without switching characters: With the recent addition to PLEX (where you can choose which account to add it to or activate it on), players may prefer being able to pause training on one character and activate it on another while being logged into one of the characters on the account
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 05:53:00 -
[17] - Quote
King of Warcraft wrote:Alyxportur wrote:[Can I ask how you feel about blapdreads in wormhole space? I am not a wormhole resident on any of my toons, so I do not have any feelings about wormhole mechanics. My initial impression is that they provide a significant advantage to a defender, but then again, a determined attacker could overcome such an advantage through stealth, trickery, and better fleet comps. But as I have previously stated, I am not a wormhole resident, so I may be wrong.
From talking to one of the larger C5/C6 wormhole groups' members, the gist of the conversation was that they not had trouble invading wormholes with capitals. Their main issue was blapdreads being able to massively overpower battleship opposition using target painters and siege.
I wasn't really certain how to deal with that without changing it for everyone, but I'm waiting to hear their opinion on changing target painter modules to be a % chance of working (like jammers) or have wormhole effects which reduce the effectiveness of target painters. The % chance seemed like one of the better choices as more of a 'tweak' than change, without disrupting too much of the utility for players. When I think of target painters, I think of Battle L.A. where you point the laser at something and wait for a airstrike, but you don't always have the laser pointed accurately or in the perfect place. |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
125
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 08:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
Alyxportur wrote:GUI alterations: Coding an additional chat client program allowing players to login to their corp, alliance, and private channels (if logged into the same account via EVE, then show local as well). This would allow the chat channels in-game to be closed/minimized and free up valuable space on a players view, with the side program running the channels on a different monitor. First objection I would note is that you'd want your fleet chat to be open on the main EVE window for adding players to watchlist, however with all your other general channels cleared off the screen, you won't need to have fleet chat compressed to a tiny shoebox. Why should CCP spend dev time to features that player already made available for their alliances via great tools like jabber and irc?
Follow me on twitter: @ForlornW Follow my blog: http://crossingzebras.com/author/forlorn-wongraven |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 08:56:00 -
[19] - Quote
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:Alyxportur wrote:GUI alterations: Coding an additional chat client program allowing players to login to their corp, alliance, and private channels (if logged into the same account via EVE, then show local as well). This would allow the chat channels in-game to be closed/minimized and free up valuable space on a players view, with the side program running the channels on a different monitor. First objection I would note is that you'd want your fleet chat to be open on the main EVE window for adding players to watchlist, however with all your other general channels cleared off the screen, you won't need to have fleet chat compressed to a tiny shoebox. Why should CCP spend dev time to features that player already made available for their alliances via great tools like jabber and irc?
(1) Those tools help your alliance(s), not all players. (2) They may augment the in-game channels, but they don't replace them or allow you to move them to a different screen
I'm not saying it's a higher priority than the other items, but it's still something to consider. As with any major changes, they could need to gauge player feedback before spending money on it. Sometimes I turn on my Captain's Quarters to walk around though. |
Forlorn Wongraven
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
125
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 12:26:00 -
[20] - Quote
Will you make copying more than 2000 bookmarks a non-pain in the arse? Follow me on twitter: @ForlornW Follow my blog: http://crossingzebras.com/author/forlorn-wongraven |
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
80
|
Posted - 2014.03.18 20:47:00 -
[21] - Quote
Forlorn Wongraven wrote:Will you make copying more than 2000 bookmarks a non-pain in the arse?
A great aspect that I completely overlooked. Yes, I advocate being able to copy and move more than 5 bookmarks at a time. That would certainly go in-hand with increasing bookmark capacity. There's certainly a reason for the current limit, but changing it would be something I'd recommend as a priority.
EDIT: Aside from the maximum number of bookmarks that you can have in your corporation, there's not a limit on how many you can drag between your personal and corporate sections. Are you making bookmark-packs of something to sell? 2000 would bump up against other limits as well, forcing you to organize them into cans if you were to contract that many. |
Pendux
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.21 09:47:00 -
[22] - Quote
You have my vote!!
|
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 00:18:00 -
[23] - Quote
King of Warcraft wrote:During the recent Wormhole townhall meeting, CCP Fozzie gave an explanation about how Alliances work and why making improvements to Alliance management is so difficult. How do you feel about his explanation, and how do you think it effects your platform?
I'll start off my response by posting the notes that I took while listening to the recording.
Quote:fozzie likes that wh space is healthy and best pve content likes that it makes for group bonding and teamwork agrees black holes arent desirable to be in change something about them *check the black hole thread nebulous pos mechanic changes fozzie likes alliance bookmarks issue because of a hack/not in the database (sounds like they already plan to fix it) linking bookmarks (fozzie not sure) *look up eve down under keynotes (fozzie's talk) *make sure each ship has a ton of uses but distinct personality ships getting too many boosts? orca = great ship with unique function (rorqual too) more ships with unique functions? gnosis will remain special edition, no bpo; limited run bpcs the difficulty of wh space nagivation is an intentional mechanic/part of the interest tweaking the randomness of wormhole connections to 'active' wormholes wormhole 'landing' radius blapdreads = fozzie wants it usable but not oppresive; currently strongest in wormholes; reduces options; solution = larger jump radius around wh radius to decrease liklihood of landing within moros optimal range; not get rid of it, but not leave it as is logistics ships +/- t3s = small % of subsystems being used = not good/not happy coding issues = # programmers; multithreading hacking 'abandoned' towers in wh space getting word out to new players about how wh space really works changes to local chat (nullsec/wh space) how to drive conflict all over the game (and in wh space particular) divisions for xlarge SAA
My answer to your question is that it sounded like the same explanation that I've heard before, but it sounded like he approves of changing it----although in light of the whole conversation, that has to be balanced with a lot of other issues for their programmers to work on.
It also seems like the bookmark issues may be easier to fix than the overall alliance management:
- expanding the corp limit on bookmarks is easiest
- having bookmarks be linkable in a chat is less easy but possible? (I'd advocate this as one of the better solutions.)
- an alliance bookmark folder is hardest because it involves the overall management changes
So overall, actual changes to the management of alliances will take a while no matter what, but I would lobby to get them done sooner rather than later. For bookmarks in particular, I would honestly prefer they be linkable very soon. Whether or not CCP prioritizes alliance management, I think linkable bookmarks would satisfy a large part of the appetite involving bookmark changes----provided you can drag/drop more than 5 at a time in a channel....
EDIT: I listened to the file from http://downthepipe-wh.com/csm-wh-townhall-meeting/ |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.03.22 23:47:00 -
[24] - Quote
With the announced compression changes, I expect the Rorqual bug created via trading it between players will never show up again, so that will now be a non-issue.
For reference: http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/reprocess-all-the-things/ |
Lanctharus Onzo
Alea Iacta Est Universal Brave Collective
25
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 01:08:00 -
[25] - Quote
CSM9 Candidate Interview: Alyxportur http://www.capstable.net/2014/03/23/csm9alyxportur/ Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast Twitter: @Lanctharus |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.03.25 07:22:00 -
[26] - Quote
I enjoyed it! |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.03.28 05:43:00 -
[27] - Quote
More issues:
- Link kill mail values to the average minimum sell price in Jita? Just because the region it was killed in doesn't have a market average, doesn't mean the kill isn't worth something. - Similarly, an inventory window option to link estimated values to Jita or Amarr sell prices? As much as I'd love a single round of Antimatter XL to be worth 2bil in my nullsec region, I'd prefer something more consistent. We all know Jita is the market hub of the universe, except our inventory window has yet to be taught that information. - BPO/BPC management for individual players. The tab within corporate management is very useful, unless you're trying to organize your personal collections.... Adding a similar tab to a player's personal assets window so that they can sort through their library of BPOs/BPCs is a simple solution. |
SeneschaI
Ordo Ministorum Violent Society
13
|
Posted - 2014.03.30 06:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
"CCP Fozzie Interview" wrote:Q: Will you ever allow us to build stargates? It would be pretty interesting to have systems that will require you to build an exit yourself. A: "Yes, yes, we definitely will. That's something that has been announced by our senior producer as early as our last Fanfest and we reiterated that that our vision for the future of the game includes allowing players to build major projects together. One of those projects will be player controlled and player built stargates. I'll say that the result of that may not be what people expect. They may not take the form that people expect, but yes, we are definitely working on in the future allowing people to build stargates. The last changes in corp industry roles were very nice but there is one more step to go: Corp Hangar! How about a private tab where a member can share access to BPOs without letting everyone take them? Such a tab could be limited by role assignment. Better yet: A section of your private hangar that allows "view" access to other corp members. Yep, so a better way of allowing people to use your BPOs without having control to take them is something we've been thinking about for a while, and is definitely something that we would like to do. Um, I can't say for sure exactly how that implementation is going to work, but it is something we definitely want to do, yes. " Would you as a CSM member focus on past teasers whenever possible to engage CCP on a pragmatic level in prioritizing corporate management as something that's been so long on the backburner?
Things i'd like to see is better lockdown abilities for CEOs that don't depend on the horrible voting system, dueling removed as a default popup (something you have to opt-in to) and merged into the corporate fratricide mechanics to prevent awoxing in high sec, removing the ability for griefers to use neutral logis (who don't currently get suspect flagged RRing awoxers), going all the way with the corporate fix made recently to prevent only those that installed (and directors/ceos) to 'deliver' jobs (either that or be able to track who delivers jobs because currently there isn't a column for that), etc etc. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 01:05:00 -
[29] - Quote
PVP/Killmail Idea: Adding FleetID of each participant onto a killmail. This allows third-party apps to easily identify who is on which side within a battle report. No more manual sorting. |
Alyxportur
From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2014.03.31 01:24:00 -
[30] - Quote
SeneschaI wrote:"CCP Fozzie Interview" wrote:Q: Will you ever allow us to build stargates? It would be pretty interesting to have systems that will require you to build an exit yourself. A: "Yes, yes, we definitely will. That's something that has been announced by our senior producer as early as our last Fanfest and we reiterated that that our vision for the future of the game includes allowing players to build major projects together. One of those projects will be player controlled and player built stargates. I'll say that the result of that may not be what people expect. They may not take the form that people expect, but yes, we are definitely working on in the future allowing people to build stargates. The last changes in corp industry roles were very nice but there is one more step to go: Corp Hangar! How about a private tab where a member can share access to BPOs without letting everyone take them? Such a tab could be limited by role assignment. Better yet: A section of your private hangar that allows "view" access to other corp members. Yep, so a better way of allowing people to use your BPOs without having control to take them is something we've been thinking about for a while, and is definitely something that we would like to do. Um, I can't say for sure exactly how that implementation is going to work, but it is something we definitely want to do, yes. " Would you as a CSM member focus on past teasers whenever possible to engage CCP on a pragmatic level in prioritizing corporate management as something that's been so long on the backburner? Things i'd like to see is better lockdown abilities for CEOs that don't depend on the horrible voting system, dueling removed as a default popup (something you have to opt-in to) and merged into the corporate fratricide mechanics to prevent awoxing in high sec, removing the ability for griefers to use neutral logis (who don't currently get suspect flagged RRing awoxers), going all the way with the corporate fix made recently to prevent only those that installed (and directors/ceos) to 'deliver' jobs (either that or be able to track who delivers jobs because currently there isn't a column for that), etc etc.
I support: - Adding an auto reject duel option that is in the same place as the auto reject invites/conversations setting - I believe the usage of neutral logi/reps will be fixed when logi are able to get on killmails (which they've said they are working on fixing). Once they're getting on killmails, that implies that they participated in the fight (i.e. aggression). In short, I support neutrals being given aggression for their actions in helping someone die and/or survive in a fight. - I agree on BPO lockdown. BPOs can be locked 'en masse' when put into a secure can, but not selected in a corporate station hangar and locked down that way. That needs to be changed. - Being able to kill corporation members without CONCORD interfering has its uses, however it makes sense that the leadership of a corp should be able to turn that option on/off the same as raising/lowering taxes. If that option is added, then the safety button would give a warning (depending on how you have it set) when you're about to kill a corp mate 'against corp policy'. On the alternative side, I can see the argument that CONCORD shouldn't start interfering with how corps are run because they're intrusive enough as it is. Personally, I support that on/off option being added though, but turned on by default for new corps. Awoxing is a valid method of play and should not be completely removed. - Corporate management is being revamped as CCP has said several times, but it's a long slog to complete it (multi-year). I would support corporate jobs only being deliverable by the installer *AND* any CEOs/Directors. As a corporate job, you may have installed it for the corp, but leadership should have access to anything that uses their infrastructure, otherwise they can't cancel a job when a pos needs to be moved and you're afk on a beach somewhere. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |