EVE Search - Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

Check My IP Information

All Channels

CSM Campaigns

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 3952	Posted - 2014.12.05 04:18:03 - [61] - Quote Tengu Grib wrote: Hi Sabriz, How high of a priority do place a reworking of the currently badly outdated corporation mechanics and interface? In follow up questions: 1) Do you feel that an improved mechanic and interface could be used to create incentive for players to join a player corporation thereby increasing player interaction? 3) Do you feel that an improvement to corp mechanics could be an incentive for people to remain in their corporation in the face of a war dec rather than simply dissolving their corp? 4) Do you feel that such a rework would do anything either way for new player retention or veteran retention? There is no question 2. These are basically all one question, so I'll combine the answer. Firstly, there's people that want a 'corporation lite' that is just a chat channel. I think this functionality is better served by actual chat channels. There is a community around the minerbumping channel which includes people who are in CODE., people who support CODE., people who don't support our in game actions but find us hilarious, and spies. This community was my home, not the various corporations I've been in, since I discovered it. It's currently extremely hard to find a corporation that seems like it might be a good fit for your playstyle within the game client. This isn't an EVE exclusive phenomenon - it's the case in every online game I've played. In my experience from other games, voice chat is what coheres communities, and helps you quickly ascertain 'nope, these people aren't for me' or 'yep, I'll get on well with this group'. Corporation public chat rooms with voice chat would go a long way to improving players finding corps, I believe. If I could make one change to the 'corp interface' it would be encouraging the use of corp public voice chat (through EVE Voice). Corporations could then carry out whatever recruitment security screening they felt was appropriate and recruit interested people that pass their #opsec. I'd also add the ability for corporations to bring non-members into their corp chat channel. I want to see players incentivised to hold on to a corporation and defend it when attacked, through some mixture of carrots and sticks that makes holding on usually the highest EV play (from a game theoretical point of view). Currently the in-game benefits to being in a 1 person corp that was established yesterday are the same as, or slightly higher than, the benefits of being in a six month old 30 person corp. I would like to see some setup where the more ore your corp has mined over its history, the more mining related boosts your corp's medium to long term members receive. The more rats your corp has killed, the more bonuses to missioning and/or incursion running and/or anomoly ratting you receive, and so on. I don't have all of the answers here. For retention: Getting newbies interacting with other players is needed, otherwise they mostly follow the 'level up your Dominix then quit' path. For retaining established players, it's their social ties within game that are key. Witness the CFC titan pilot that was recently accused of being a spy and expelled with extreme prejudice - the Titan loss wasn't what made him uninstall EVE, it was the severing of social ties. (From what I've heard he's back playing now and his alliance reinstated him in good standing, replaced his Titan and consider him loyal, not a spy). Making the 'game theoretical correct play' be to stay invested in your corp will help with keeping those social ties. Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4482	Posted - 2014.12.05 08:11:55 - [62] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: I don't claim there aren't people who play without wanting conflict. Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Players don't play the game for the thrill of scanning and running a solo Serpentis 8/10 site solo or with their static group for the fifteenth time GÇô if that experience was what players sought, they'd load up the test server and get their fix there. Instead they play on a server where their actions matter, and so do those of their rivals. This statement is incorrect. Sabriz Adoudel wrote: The thing is, those people do get involved in conflict without realising it. Depends on your definition of "conflict". Arguably if you play any multiplayer game you have an effect on other players, but when you say that all activities should be "balanced in ways that drive player conflict", you're talking about direct conflict as the examples of conflict in your initial post show. At the end of the day, you're against players who want to just do PvE and treat them as if the are irrelevant. A CSM member has a duty to respect that people don't all want to play in just the way that CSM member likes to play. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Tora Bushido EVE Corporation 987654321-POP The Marmite Collective 1494	Posted - 2014.12.05 12:55:45 - [63] - Quote Quote: Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... You are missing a surprising end game. TORA FOR CSM X - A NEW HIGH-SEC YOU EITHER LOVE US OR WE HATE YOU - ADAPT OR DIE - DELETE THE WEAK
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 185	Posted - 2014.12.06 05:32:19 - [64] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Cara Forelli wrote: I would encourage you to read through her posting history - particularly in NCQA and Market Discussions - before you write her off as a simple ganker. I feel her expertise in market economics and deep understanding of ship stat balancing are great traits for a CSM candidate. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. I'm not writing her off as a simple ganker. I'm writing her off as someone with knowledge of the game, who is willing to help out new players, but who I wouldn't trust with the responsibility of taking the needs of other player groups seriously. Already in her campaign outline she's decided that nobody plays without expressly wanting conflict, which is obviously false and puts across the impression that players who seek to play without conflict are irrelevant. From what I've read in the past, I'd be very surprised if any players who did not confirm to her ideas of how to play would be considered relevant. A CSM members has a duty to put that aside. While they should have their own thoughts and opinions derived from their own experiences, we should be able to trust them to look beyond that and consider the whole playerbase. I wouldn't trust her to do that. Is her membership of CODE part of that? Sure, it takes a certain type of person to support CODE, a type of person who I wouldn't trust to make selfless decisions or consider other people feelings, but that's not the only, or even the majority factor. I'm not a newbie here and I've seen enough Sabriz posts to have a fairly idea of her thoughts on the direction of EVE. "Actions matter" is not the same as conflict. There is no conflict. Miners love to say "Without us you wouldn't have your ships/modules/etc". These people don't want to have to deal with suicide gankers(conflict) but they do want to feel like they have an impact on the rest of the game.
Thomas Mayaki Perkone Caldari State 41	Posted - 2014.12.06 08:51:59 - [65] - Quote 'The first half of the ship Tiericide initiative was a mixed bag GÇô it made new players more powerful in PVP engagements in frigates and cruisers (a positive), but it also increased cruiser build cost significantly and made it much more crippling for a new player to lose a ship. This is a significant issue GÇô when I was a rookie, a Vexor cost 6 million ISK, or about 3 hours of running level 2 missions with low skills and little game knowledge. Now itGÇÖs 11 million, or about 5 hours, despite the mineral price index being about the same.' And yet you actively support destroying newbie mining ships costing much more than the 11million isk. The current cost of a retriever costs about 30 million almost three times as much as the 11 million vexor. A low skilled retriever pilot can easily be killed by couple of New Order catalysts costing an couple of million isk (which is fully reimbursable). So just to recap the costs newbie mining pilot 30million isk ( about 15 hour grind (3*5) ) against Sabriz's two New Order pilots 2 million isk ( reimbursable 0 hrs). I guess the guy was a 'goofus' for mining. Seems ok doesn't it??
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4489	Posted - 2014.12.06 10:27:46 - [66] - Quote Tear Jar wrote: "Actions matter" is not the same as conflict. There is no conflict. Miners love to say "Without us you wouldn't have your ships/modules/etc". These people don't want to have to deal with suicide gankers(conflict) but they do want to feel like they have an impact on the rest of the game. Some miners do, some don't care. There's a significant subset of players who just play for the game mechanics, regardless of if they interact with others or not in any way. Pretending they don't exist or ignoring them completely as an irrelevant is not the way a CSM candidate should conduct themselves. It shows that if Sabriz doesn't agree with your playstyle, your opinion no longer matters. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Don Purple 1067	Posted - 2014.12.06 11:36:10 - [67] - Quote Salutations dear Sabriz New player retention is an issue with this game and our play style can and does effect this. A new player mining in his first retriever very well may quit after his first gank. There is also the chance he will be thrilled and excited and maybe curious. This all depends on the player and how others interact with him or her. Many see you as a negative effect on players but do not see all the help you give them. Any ideas on mechanics that may help them? I believe solo ganking is terribly easy on people like this [solo new player alone in a belt]. I feel the best answer is community support on current mechanics and heavier interaction between players but well you know how some people are. I believe confronting this with your possible voters could help them understand what a wonderful player you are. I approve of you running for CSM. I thought about it myself but I feel you are a good choice. Don Purple. I am just here to snuggle.
Hiasa Kite Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 39	Posted - 2014.12.06 18:15:22 - [68] - Quote Thomas Mayaki wrote: And yet you actively support destroying newbie mining ships costing much more than the 11million isk. A fully fit Venture costs less than 1mil ISK. Quote: The current cost of a retriever costs about 30 million almost three times as much as the 11 million vexor. The much more powerful procurer costs 20mil ISK. Quote: A low skilled retriever pilot can easily be killed by couple of New Order catalysts costing an couple of million isk (which is fully reimbursable). So just to recap the costs newbie mining pilot 30million isk ( about 15 hour grind (35) ) against Sabriz's two New Order pilots 2 million isk ( reimbursable 0 hrs). A low skilled procurer pilot with a ~30mil yield* fit in a 0.5 system with prepulled CONCORD requires at least 4, preferably 5 T2 fit catalysts costing about 40mil. A fully tanked procurer requires closer to ten. Remember: these are best case scenario numbers for gankers. In higher security systems, it gets much worse. Quote: I guess the guy was a 'goofus' for mining. Seems ok doesn't it?? For mining? No. For using a suboptimal ship and fit? Yes.
Django Askulf Sledgehammer Logistics 72	Posted - 2014.12.07 14:34:13 - [69] - Quote What a joke. This is about as funny as your campaign on ganking incursion runners. Probably end up about as successful. Also, per your comment in Tora's thread. "Out of game - he's absolutely, positively someone the CSM needs, and will probably receive second (maybe third) place on my recommended how to vote list." You sure sound full of yourself, even have a recommended how to vote list, for the sheep? Just another ******, trying for some Eve fame.
admiral root Red Galaxy 1963	Posted - 2014.12.07 14:38:02 - [70] - Quote Django Askulf wrote: What a joke. This is about as funny as your campaign on ganking incursion runners. Probably end up about as successful. Also, per your comment in Tora's thread. "Out of game - he's absolutely, positively someone the CSM needs, and will probably receive second (maybe third) place on my recommended how to vote list." You sure sound full of yourself, even have a recommended how to vote list, for the sheep? Just another *****, trying for some Eve fame. Thank-you for supporting Sabriz's campaign by bumping the thread. No, your rights end in optimal+2falloff \| Sabriz for CSM New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that

Hiasa Kite Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 40	Posted - 2014.12.07 17:50:24 - [71] - Quote In addition to helping create a stereotype of what his opponents are like. People to vote for CSM X(in order): Sabriz Adoudel, Steve Ronuken, Mike Azariah, Gorski Car
Meilandra Vanderganken Aliastra Gallente Federation 172	Posted - 2014.12.07 21:38:20 - [72] - Quote You have my votes.
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 3991	Posted - 2014.12.08 00:07:15 - [73] - Quote BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote: To throw a curveball Sabriz, do you support the addition of new pve content in high sec? God knows pve in eve is in a boring state right now, what should be done to improve the game experience for those players? OK. I promised to respond more in detail to this when I had time; so I'll do so now. PVE content in highsec is currently designed to be grind-based and fairly low player interaction. Anomalies are the most competitive content in highsec but they have their rewards tuned so low that noone runs them. With the exception of quite new players, this leads to an environment where PVE stops being about "Can I succeed at this mission" and instead becomes about "How can I most quickly/efficiently succeed at this mission". Efficiency becomes everything, and PVE does not remain interesting once you get efficiency focused. Fundamentally, this comes down to the fact that player opponents are dynamic and unpredictable, while NPC opponents are static and predictable. Even where NPCs have very high stats (such as the burner missions) it all comes down to learning an established efficient way to beat them and doing so. Add in competition with other players (not necessarily starship combat) and this becomes a very different equation. Look at how terrible the PVE aspect of Factional Warfare is - 'kill one rat, orbit a beacon, kill the rat when it respawns, then sometimes shoot a structure'. This utterly terrible PVE content entertains thousands of players because of the involvement of other players. There is a form of conflict available in incursions via the mechanics for contested sites, but the stakes are just too low for contests to matter much. If your fleet loses a site contest, you incur no real cost and only a hundred million or so in opportunity costs. You can also quite easily determine who will be likely to win before a contest happens, and if you assess that you can't win a contest you usually just warp out of the site and go and do another one. Some rough ideas of what player conflict driven PVE content in highsec could look like, from lowest to highest level of PVP: - Add level 5 security missions to highsec, but have them take place in deadspace areas where CONCORD only responds to PVP aggression towards pods (not towards ships). Unlike lowsec L5s, you will need to be scanned down to be attacked (in lowsec, you can be attacked on gates or undocks as well). - A new type of mission agent that give missions only once per thirty minutes (at a set time). Everyone gets the same mission in the same deadspace pocket. These missions are designed in such a way that a limited number of people can succeed at them - perhaps you have to land a killing blow on an elite battleship NPC and there are only three of them in the site, or perhaps you have to collect a particular dog tag or cargo item. Penalties for failure are purely ISK (no standings loss) and are at a level that irritates, not a level that cripples. - New types of anomalies that always offer escalations. However, anyone else doing these anomalies in the constellation or region will also get the same escalation. CONCORD will not respond to PVP aggression in the escalation site. - New anomalies that always offer escalations, however, the escalations always occur in lowsec. - Region-wide events where at unpredictable times an NPC fleet fight takes place, and players can join in on the side of their choice, and have the right to shoot both players and NPCs fighting for the other side. Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4492	Posted - 2014.12.08 10:51:51 - [74] - Quote Sounds like your ideas pretty much boil down to "Replace PVE with PVP" and "Make places where I can gank without concord getting involved". What you fail to understand is that some people like PVE, not PVP. Better ideas will be around making PVE more engaging without turning it into PVP. The second you try to make it more engaging by adding PVP conflict, you fundamentally miss the reasons people enjoy PVE. It's certainly possible for NPC based content to be challenging, it needs to simply be less formulaic and require more on the spot thought from a player. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Meilandra Vanderganken Aliastra Gallente Federation 173	Posted - 2014.12.08 12:25:36 - [75] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Sounds like your ideas pretty much boil down to "Replace PVE with PVP" and "Make places where I can gank without concord getting involved". She's talking about adding stuff that will lead to PVP/PVE hybrid situations, that's not 'replacing PVE'. I really can't see why anyone would object to adding stuff like that. Nobody will be forced to run them, they merely add another, imo interesting option.
Kaea Astridsson Yggdrasil Belators Dirt Nap Squad. 132	Posted - 2014.12.08 12:51:49 - [76] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: - Apply the NPC corp tax rate to the ISK component (not the LP component) of incursion payouts. This gives incursion runners a reason to join a corp and (combined with the next suggestion) to actively fight off anyone that wardecs them rather than merely surrendering. This tax already applies, if you care to run a site you'll see a piece getting taken by corp tax. If anything this encourages people to create 'tax haven' one man corps. I think players don't join corps and stay fighting for them is mostly because of the effort to organise for game play they don't generally enjoy.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4496	Posted - 2014.12.08 14:09:40 - [77] - Quote Meilandra Vanderganken wrote: She's talking about adding stuff that will lead to PVP/PVE hybrid situations, that's not 'replacing PVE'. I really can't see why anyone would object to adding stuff like that. Nobody will be forced to run them, they merely add another, imo interesting option. Because it's all an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP. I'm sure that the arguments would be made that because it's PVP, thus more risk, that it should then be more rewarding, then traditional PVE would be left behind to rot. And lets face it, the last attempt at hybrid PVE/PVP was FW, and that got abused by people ganking their alts and is now pretty much dominated by double stabbed plexing. The objection I have is that Sabriz has absolutely no intention of accepting the existence of PVE players. It's in the OP. PVE players don't want PVP. What they want is more engaging PVE. Why should those players be ignored so players who want to PVP can have more hybrid content created for them? The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Cara Forelli Green Skull LLC 744	Posted - 2014.12.08 14:21:15 - [78] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: The objection I have is that Sabriz has absolutely no intention of accepting the existence of PVE players. It's in the OP. PVE players don't want PVP. What they want is more engaging PVE. Why should those players be ignored so players who want to PVP can have more hybrid content created for them? Perhaps you have some suggestions for Sabriz on how to make PVE more engaging? In my eyes, players who only want to PVE already have quite a few options, but by it's nature PVE always becomes optimized and grindy. Incursions and Wormhole Sites were designed to be very challenging, but even they have been "figured out" and reduced to an efficiency game. (And yes, WH sites do have an element of PvP). So how would YOU make PVE more engaging - without including player interaction? Sabriz has some ideas of her own, but one of the most important traits of a CSM candidate is being able to listen to and identify good ideas from the community. What is yours? Adventures New player with questions? Join my public channel in game: *House Forelli* GSLLC is recruiting
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 234	Posted - 2014.12.08 14:34:29 - [79] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Because it's all an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP. I'm sure that the arguments would be made that because it's PVP, thus more risk, that it should then be more rewarding, then traditional PVE would be left behind to rot. And lets face it, the last attempt at hybrid PVE/PVP was FW, and that got abused by people ganking their alts and is now pretty much dominated by double stabbed plexing. The objection I have is that Sabriz has absolutely no intention of accepting the existence of PVE players. It's in the OP. PVE players don't want PVP. What they want is more engaging PVE. Why should those players be ignored so players who want to PVP can have more hybrid content created for them? While the first part of your reply is a bit of slippery slope argument, Sabriz seems to be voicing a reasonable position. She is saying that since Eve is a single-universe competitive sandbox, any new PvE content should be designed with fostering this competition and the emergent gameplay that results from it. You are welcome to disagree, but it doesn't seem to me that Sabriz is proposing anything especially egregious. Now there are arguments about where best limited development resources should be spent - on more solo PvE content which (according to CCP) the majority of these consumers quit the game quite quickly, or on more interactive content and game mechanisms that promote social interactions and thus player retention. However, that is really a CCP business decision which requires information that I lack to make any solid conclusions. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4498	Posted - 2014.12.08 15:19:14 - [80] - Quote Cara Forelli wrote: Perhaps you have some suggestions for Sabriz on how to make PVE more engaging? In my eyes, players who only want to PVE already have quite a few options, but by it's nature PVE always becomes optimized and grindy. Incursions and Wormhole Sites were designed to be very challenging, but even they have been "figured out" and reduced to an efficiency game. (And yes, WH sites do have an element of PvP). The simplest way would be adding more variation, so "figuring out" PVE is more difficult because it's dynamic. Take for example missions. They are made up of static waves of NPCs from static triggers. Instead, give each wave a set of points, and randomise the NPCs where tougher NPCs cost more points. Add the need to engage in ECM and counter-logistics to rats and it's already miles ahead of where it currently is. I've played more games that I could possibly try to count, and many of them have very engaging offline modes. It's certainly possible to achieve without needing to add PvP Cara Forelli wrote: So how would YOU make PVE more engaging - without including player interaction? Sabriz has some ideas of her own, but one of the most important traits of a CSM candidate is being able to listen to and identify good ideas from the community. What is yours? Another important trait of a CSM candidate is accepting that not everyone plays EVE for the same reasons you do. It seem pretty obvious that Sabriz has absolutely no respect for players with gameplay styles which aren't focused around PvP. The OP even goes so far as to suggest that a certain subgroup of players simply don't exist. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!

Black Pedro Yammerschooner 236	Posted - 2014.12.08 17:20:48 - [81] - Quote Lucas Kell wrote: Slippery slopes aren't always wrong. Suggesting they are is to suggest that changes would never occur as a precursor to further changes in the same direction. And while all content should have levels of competition, making it so that new PVE content forces you to move to an area when you can be ganked without concord protection certainly doesn't seem like the right way to go about it. To be honest it sounds like "I'm running out of targets and want a new mechanic that allows me to kill more people who don;t want to fight". Ok, sure, but if you frame it that way then any attempts to add mechanics that promote more interaction or competition between players is "an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP". Even Mike Azariah agrees that CCP should be spending development time on increasing the mechanisms facilitating group and player interaction. I see no problem adding new, optional, PvE content that is more rewarding but has additional risks (such as, but not limited to, reduced/no CONCORD). It's essentially just a proposal to bring a bit of lowsec into a specific highsec context. Eve is all about risk vs. reward and lowsec (or this hypothetical new mechanic) PvE should be more rewarding. Lucas Kell wrote: Now to me, this would be an indicator to devote time to making PVE more engaging. Considering PVE gets very little work, and mechanics like mining have been the same dull gameplay for pretty much ever it would seem it's long overdue. Obviously there are players joining who like that experience, so pretending they do not exist and focusing on yet more PVP zones would seem to be a bit backwards. Perhaps you are right, and more people would stay if the PvE would massively revamped. However, Eve is not a single-player PvE game: it is a sandbox where social interactions, both competitive and cooperative are paramount. CCP seems to have recognized that and everything CCP Seagull has said points to development being focused on a more player-controlled, player-driven Eve universe in the future, so I doubt you are going to see any significant solo PvE content ever again. Even if a complete revamp was done (which for mining might happen eventually), it will be to make it more group orientated and competitive, not make it more solo-friendly and isolationist. I am not saying you are wrong in your views - you like what you like - but you appear to be fighting an uphill battle against the direction Eve is moving. You've made it clear that Sabriz isn't your candidate, but I am not sure you are going to find many other CSM candidates that share your view that Eve development resources should be spent on expanding Eve solo content over group content, nor even if you did would the developers listen to that CSM member. Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10 is a good idea.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4504	Posted - 2014.12.08 19:38:22 - [82] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Ok, sure, but if you frame it that way then any attempts to add mechanics that promote more interaction or competition between players is "an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP". Even Mike Azariah agrees that CCP should be spending development time on increasing the mechanisms facilitating group and player interaction. Sure, adding more social tools (and if you noticed he mentioned pure PVE activities for that too) is generally a good idea. I strongly believe that people would work together on PVE if everything wasn't stacked against doing so. Many games give bonuses to working in groups, EVE simply splits the rewards, so there's really no benefit in working together. More tools for collaboration all round is a good idea. The real difference is though that Mike accepts there are players who like to play solo, and that it's OK to do so. Black Pedro wrote: Perhaps you are right, and more people would stay if the PvE would massively revamped. However, Eve is not a single-player PvE game: it is a sandbox where social interactions, both competitive and cooperative are paramount. CCP seems to have recognized that and everything CCP Seagull has said points to development being focused on a more player-controlled, player-driven Eve universe in the future, so I doubt you are going to see any significant solo PvE content ever again. Even if a complete revamp was done (which for mining might happen eventually), it will be to make it more group orientated and competitive, not make it more solo-friendly and isolationist. EVE is a game for all types. And to be honest, whatever Seagull says, the game needs players to accomplish anything. Some players like to play without combat. If they are going to simply write those people off, then it really doesn't matter who's CSM. Black Pedro wrote: I am not saying you are wrong in your views - you like what you like - but you appear to be fighting an uphill battle against the direction Eve is moving. You've made it clear that Sabriz isn't your candidate, but I am not sure you are going to find many other CSM candidates that share your view that Eve development resources should be spent on expanding Eve solo content over group content, nor even if you did would the developers listen to that CSM member. I'm not saying that solo content necessarily needs to be a focus, but it certainly needs to be accepted as part of the game, and non-combat content will always be required and certainly needs love. Sabriz's ideas amount to "add more places to gank people who don't want to be attacked" seem to be pretty selfish in design. Like I said before, a CSM candidate needs to be trusted to look out for the needs of the community, not just their own. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 4003	Posted - 2014.12.08 20:48:08 - [83] - Quote There is definitively no such thing as people that play without impacting the rest of the game. There are definitely people that think they don't affect anyone else. The ore they produce, the meta and faction modules they add to the economy - these people turn the tide of wars. Would Goonswarm have defeated TEST if 'Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I' cost ten million ISK, not 2.5 million? It would cost ten million or more without career highsec mission grinders. If people want to experience PVE content completely sheltered from other players' actions - they already can do so on the test server, where surprise PVP is completely banned. However these players do not want to do so, because when they do so they also lose their ability to impose their actions upon other players through the market. I started as a 'carebear' player, levelling up my Dominix. Had I not been shaken out of that, I would have definitely left EVE. The server structure enforces a 1 second 'tick' needed to support fleet fights which, when combined with inertia mechanics, removes any prospect for a 'fast action' feel in combat in the game. For those reasons EVE's PVE will always be slower paced and can never manage to be as engaging as the PVE found in games like Path of Exile that are designed for PVE first and foremost. Finally EVE is not a game for all types. It never has been. So many of its fundamental design decisions - real loss PVP, extremely high productive capacity to fuel all of that destruction, making sure that 'low level' ships remain useful to experienced players and more - all of these are designed to push EVE down a very different path to other games. There have been many PVE-oriented games with better PVE than EVE that have gone broke. Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 4005	Posted - 2014.12.09 01:01:00 - [84] - Quote I've just posted a Soundcloud recording of a very informal discussion about wardec mechanics I did with BeBopARhubarbPie and a couple of other people. It's available here: https://soundcloud.com/sabriz-adoudel/wardecs Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 16905	Posted - 2014.12.09 02:27:39 - [85] - Quote Wonderful accent on you and an interesting topic. I'm glad you are not shying away from these vectors in the game that seem to have garnered such distaste recently (at least from what I see looking around). I would like to add that these darker elements of EVE are interesting to me as well. Friendship is the best ship. Sabriz for CSM go go go
Tisiphone Dira New Order Logistics CODE. 32	Posted - 2014.12.09 06:41:51 - [86] - Quote It was you and bebop who kept me in the game sabriz. Met you in the mining chat, bebop in e-uni chat. Without you two I'd not have joined the New Order. I was on the verge of quitting this game, whilst on the path to leveling up to a dominix. You have my vote.
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4505	Posted - 2014.12.09 08:51:07 - [87] - Quote Sabriz Adoudel wrote: There is definitively no such thing as people that play without impacting the rest of the game. WEll for starters, that's nto what you said. This is: Sabriz Adoudel wrote: Players don't play the game for the thrill of scanning and running a solo Serpentis 8/10 site solo or with their static group for the fifteenth time GÇô if that experience was what players sought, they'd load up the test server and get their fix there. Which is wrong. Some people do play just to play the PVE content. Did you even listen to fanfest? It's not about whether or not they think they affect other things, its about how they want to play. And you won't accept there are other people who play in a different way to you, and who can and should be able to continue doing so, because it's a sandbox, not an "everybody plays my way". And sure, EVE is about impacting each other. What it's not about is adding more game mechanics so you and your mates have more cannon fodder in the form of players who don't want to fight. Adding better paying missions which require people to fly into "gank zones" isn't about adding unique ways for players to interact, it's about adding a place you can gank ships that would normally be ungankable with very little at risk. At the end of the day, you're a scammer, a ganker, and you seem to have very little interest in even acknowledging other players playstyles let alone supporting them, so you'd really not be doing the game a favour if you secured a position in the CSM. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!
admiral root Red Galaxy 1969	Posted - 2014.12.09 09:10:07 - [88] - Quote And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| Sabriz for CSM New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that
Sabriz Adoudel Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 4013	Posted - 2014.12.09 09:18:51 - [89] - Quote admiral root wrote: And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to ** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell. I actually want Lucas and others like him that reject large swathes of my platform but are capable of remaining civil to bring some hard questions to my 'Ask Me Anything' interview (details to be confirmed but probably December 20, 2330 EVE time on the Minerbumping teamspeak). He'll be welcome in person if he wishes and is OK with being recorded, or he can submit questions in absentia. Chaos. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement... Vote #1 Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10**
Lucas Kell Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4505	Posted - 2014.12.09 10:02:31 - [90] - Quote admiral root wrote: And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to ** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell. Who are you again? Oh, nobody. Shush then kiddo. Grown ups are talking. Sabriz Adoudel wrote:** I actually want Lucas and others like him that reject large swathes of my platform but are capable of remaining civil to bring some hard questions to my 'Ask Me Anything' interview (details to be confirmed but probably December 20, 2330 EVE time on the Minerbumping teamspeak). He'll be welcome in person if he wishes and is OK with being recorded, or he can submit questions in absentia. There would be no point. So you can hop on your teamspeak server and record yourself saying whatever you can to get votes. The only thing that matters is looking at your past and seeing what is is you are and are not in favour of. Whether or not your can bs your way through an interview now is irrelevant. I'm not against scamming and ganking, or generating more opportunities for PvP, but they certainly shouldn't take priority over historically bad mechanics long overdue for a revamp, and players who don't scam, gank and PvP shouldn't be treated as if they do not exist. The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog. Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list. Chrysus Industries - Savings made simple!



Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 .. 15 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.