Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
264
|
Posted - 2017.02.05 18:21:15 -
[1] - Quote
Hello!
My name is Lorelei and I am announcing my candidacy for CSM XII. I am running whilst focussed on High Sec. I am a self-confessed High Sec Carebear and am proud of it. I have analysed the commitments planned/coming up in my life for the next year and have decided that I can afford the time to run for CSM XII!
I really haven't changed, neither has what I am thinking, (and therefore neither has my opening campaign post, really) and I am looking forward to discussing with you all!
This is my Campaign Thread from last year:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=464501&find=unread
This is my Campaign Thread from the year before:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
This is my CapStable Podcast Interview from 2015:
http://capstable.net/blog/2015/01/26/lorelei-ierendi/
And this is my infrequently used blog:
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
But to recap for people that do not want to jump to other web sites:
Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart? I would like there to be a "High Sec" platform, for a candidate for the CSM. If no one else can step up to the plate, then I will. If someone else wants to run for CSM for the benefit of High Sec gameplay, then I am happy to step down and support them... if they can do a better job.
The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem...
This I know. I know that, although numerically High Sec has the largest number of log-ins... accounts... players... I know that High Sec will probably never be able to gather together enough in order to support a CSM candidate. But that is no reason to not try!! Come on, High Sec! If something is important for you, stand up for it!!!
Who am I?
I am a High Sec Carebear, and proud of it! High Sec Carebears tend not to socialize too much, and are only members of NPC or small corporations. If you are reading this thread, then sadly you probably do not belong to the player-metric that I mostly represent!
Well, this is not the first character I have created in order to play "EVE". I have never been a member of a big alliance or coalition. I have never been a member of a big corporation. Hell, I have never left High Sec space before the CSMX Election..
I gained my love of Spaceship games by playing Elite... way back on my ZX Spectrum 48k+ (with a jammed SHIFT key (jammed as in... raspberry jam)). Back then it was possible to try docking with a space station and to accidentally line up with the back of the station... and die whilst trying to fly through the back of the station to the entrance. Fun times.
I graduated to Frontier: Elite II on a 486 PC, and spent my time happily flying between Barnard's Star, SOL, and Wolf 359. I should have been studying, but flying a (mostly harmless) panther fully loaded with robots was more fun.
I kept my eyes open for an online version of a space-sim... and that is where EVE comes in. I really enjoy (as in "really") flying transports, fulfilling contracts, and, sometimes, mining.
My CSM Interests for 2017:
I think it is important for people to know what the CSM is, and can achieve. I could not run claiming that I would make all spaceships pink. As a member of the CSM I would not be in a position to dictate to CCP or enforce any "election promises". The scandals of the past have meant that the Player Base has lost some trust in this institution.
But well:
None Of The Above: Campaigning for an opportunity for people to vote for the CSM, but to vote for None Of The Above. The problem of player participation is disproportionately affecting those of us in high sec (because we carebears are not exactly non-solo). In order to increase the possibility of player participation, maybe CCP could work up some Popups. Reminding players to vote is not a bad thing.
Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case. On my blog I mentioned changes to Concord that I would like to see. I would also like to see some changes to Ice Spawning (maybe in random systems?) that would mean that the gankers would have to move around to gank ice miners! Local chat could also be changed to provide less free "intel" to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local... just the number of pilots. Please read my last threads before posting questions... we really do not need to cover the points that have been discussed before... high sec is worth fighting for!
New Player Experience: That was a WOW change in the last year. I managed to try it eventually. It is about a bazillion times better than the old way. It does however need observing, and I am looking forward to the statistics from Fanfest!
Player Corporations: See my blog and previous posts in Campaign threads for details. The need for player groups that are just social has not changed.
But when all is said and done, I believe a CSM member needs to be a conduit for information exchange between CCP and the players. I do not think that the CSM should be used for the Metagame.
Thank you for reading this far. I am looking forward to working with you / hearing from you, and although I am always busy at this time of year, I promise to read every post in my thread
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2017.02.05 21:27:41 -
[2] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:"The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem..." What is wrong with independence? This is a problem? Is being in a group the only way EVE should be played? Should they be forced to be social? Why would a carebear want to be part of a "we" in a game full of overly aggressive unpleasant types that you can't trust?
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:"Come on, High Sec! If something is important for you, stand up for it!!!" Why? What is the point? CCP aren't even interested in high sec players, they seem to only want people to join a gang and be F1 monkeys. Someone playing for fun and to look at pretty space themed eye candy is not high on their list.
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:"high sec is worth fighting for!" Told you last year, that moto is dangerously close to the moto of a known ingame ganker corp. Not a phrase synonymous with trust.
I did however vote for you last year, and will do so again this year.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
264
|
Posted - 2017.02.05 22:37:44 -
[3] - Quote
Thank you for stopping by my thread!
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:What is wrong with independence? This is a problem? Is being in a group the only way EVE should be played? Should they be forced to be social? Why would a carebear want to be part of a "we" in a game full of overly aggressive unpleasant types that you can't trust?
Nothing is wrong with independence... but plenty is wrong with apathy. Especially if my fellow carebears sit around whining in local about this or that... and then do not try using the avenues open to them to get their voices heard.
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote: .... CCP aren't even interested in high sec players, they seem to only want people to join a gang and be F1 monkeys. Someone playing for fun and to look at pretty space themed eye candy is not high on their list.
I'm sure that if there was a big enough carebear lobby, some of the issues affecting high sec play would have been tackled earlier... and before people start jumping around... I am not advocating turning high sec into more of a theme park.
Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:I did however vote for you last year, and will do so again this year.
Thank you!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine Second-Dawn
2861
|
Posted - 2017.02.06 07:38:13 -
[4] - Quote
Well I started to go through your blog but I was onto page 3 of older posts and...
I think that CCP should have a hisec carebear focus group which focus on making it fun for people who just want to play casual which would be a counter weight to the get them out of hisec 0.0 crowd hammering away at CCP. What do you think?
Personally I think ganking is in a good place at this point, except for a couple of things, the first is bumping, this makes it too easy and very annoying for the freighter pilot needs to be sorted. There are a number of ways this can be dealt with, but having a no consequence way of pointing someone for hours if they wanted is very poor game play. My preferred option is to put a bump counter on that after 20 bumps there is a an increasingly random chance that the bumper will go suspect when bumping a freighter.
Another change would be removing docking rights fro -5 or worse, there are now citadels in hisec, that will hopefully change how people look at ganging together and going after ganker citadels or those that give them docking rights.
The Astrahus and Raitaru have to have better cap and improved defences, the missile system in hisec is too weak and needs improving, perhaps an alternative is some very effective RR ability on those citadels which will make people more likely to defend them.
War decs, the system is in my opinion actually quite good, but need a few tweaks, the first is cap the war dec fee against major alliances, the second is give the locator agent the ability to say if someone is online as a request, but add in that if the agents corp has good standings with the player being asked about they will warn him of the interest, this also replies to the location request. I would make the war dec follow a character if he joins another player run corp within the week of the war dec, but on the other hand I would also limit the time that entities with less than 50 charactes can be war decked, perhaps two weeks max.
Hisec is made up mainly of people with support and indy accounts in hisec which is why it is so stale, but another reason is that people who are actually more hisec focused and casual play so as not to be noticed by war deckers who they have no chance of fighting effectively. That is a statement of the issue in hisec, but changing it is not easy because as you quite rightly pointed out it is I rather than we that is the issue here. I was hoping tah people would gang together to keep Citadels alive but they are so weak and the issue of not being able to rep allies in the war dec screws that one, CCP needs to change it so thath RR can be applied to allie sin a war. I know that this will benefit war deckers too, but only when they come in as defending allies....
Anyway a few things for you to respond to, or develop further.
When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.
Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
270
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 11:07:30 -
[5] - Quote
Dracvlad wrote:Well I started to go through your blog but I was onto page 3 of older posts and...
Well thank you for stopping by my thread...
Dracvlad wrote: I think that CCP should have a hisec carebear focus group which focus on making it fun for people who just want to play casual which would be a counter weight to the get them out of hisec 0.0 crowd hammering away at CCP. What do you think?
Not really sure I understood what you were getting at here. Of course making it fun for high sec players is a very important thing...
Dracvlad wrote:Personally I think ganking is in a good place at this point, except for a couple of things, the first is bumping, this makes it too easy and very annoying for the freighter pilot needs to be sorted.
I do not agree with you there. But then I have written about that on previous posts and my blog.There is a long thread on the EVE forums about bumping... have you read it?
Dracvlad wrote:because as you quite rightly pointed out it is I rather than we that is the issue here.
As you quite rightly say, I was indeed quite right.
Dracvlad wrote:I was hoping that people would gang together to keep Citadels alive but they are so weak and the issue of not being able to rep allies in the war dec screws that one, CCP needs to change it so that RR can be applied to allies in a war. I know that this will benefit war deckers too, but only when they come in as defending allies....
There are many things that one could change in War Decs to make the system more workable... changing the relations between allies is one of them... especially with the large number of small corporations that might have to band together (as if that would ever happen)... The population of high sec will probably never change in this respect. I think that we are still in the relatively early days of citadels... but over the years I expect we will reach some sort of equilibrium...
Thanks for taking the time to write.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Sasha Nemtsov
New Order Logistics CODE.
505
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 20:06:24 -
[6] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank.
Lorelei, you have a 100% chance of walking away from most ganks - if you're prepared to take some precautions and to use the tools with which CCP has provided you.
If you're implying that ganking is too easy (i.e. needs to be nerfed), then you should really come out and say so, citing whatever evidence you can produce (I think you'll struggle there, to be frank).
I think you might more usefully describe yourself as the Highsec carebearing candidate, and have done with it. You obviously won't be able honestly to represent the PvPers and Pirates who daily bring content to the region.
I'm working my way down the list of candidates, hoping that someone from Highsec will take on the challenging task of stopping the drip-drip-drip of nerfs to our playstyle and get those carebears actually involved in the game. It's an MMO, not a Multi-Single-Player-Online RPG.
But I realise that expecting a lone candidate to represent the interests of such a broad constituency may be just too much.
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
272
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 23:37:11 -
[7] - Quote
Thanks for stopping by my thread, Sasha. I've listened to several of you recordings. I think they are nice.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote: Lorelei, you have a 100% chance of walking away from most ganks - if you're prepared to take some precautions and to use the tools with which CCP has provided you.
If you're implying that ganking is too easy (i.e. needs to be nerfed), then you should really come out and say so, citing whatever evidence you can produce (I think you'll struggle there, to be frank).
I don't think ganking is too easy. Did you read the discussions at the time in my last two campaign threads? I think what I think was quite well talked about...
Did you see my post about my ideas for CONCORD adjustments? http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/2015/08/concord.html What do you think about what I said in my opening post about making changes to local chat?
I do (for example) definitely think that just adding more EHP to mining barges is not the right way to go about adjusting things.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:I think you might more usefully describe yourself as the Highsec carebearing candidate, and have done with it. You obviously won't be able honestly to represent the PvPers and Pirates who daily bring content to the region.
Really? I think I could represent PVPers and Pirates. Of course, more PVP and Pirate oriented players would have to tell me what they think/feel... but that is what communication would be for. If I were to be elected I would be spending more time talking to people and less time flying around niarja. What do you think PVPers an Pirates want? And what do you think a member of the CSM can actually do?
Sasha Nemtsov wrote: I'm working my way down the list of candidates, hoping that someone from Highsec will take on the challenging task of stopping the drip-drip-drip of nerfs to our playstyle and get those carebears actually involved in the game.
Getting carebears more involved in the game would be a great thing, and that is why it is important for CCP to keep tweaking and developing the NPE. I would be very interested to see information about where in the NPE the majority of "new" players stop and quit EVE (see Summit Minutes). Last year your alliance supported Xenuria. Probably you will be doing it again. That is not necessarily a bad thing... just not a High Sec thing.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:It's an MMO, not a Multi-Single-Player-Online RPG.
I know. I do not think I ever said anything about wanting to make solo-play easier. I am also in favour of increasing the possibilities to be social and interact with other players - and my thoughts about social player corporations have not changed over the last couple of years.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:But I realise that expecting a lone candidate to represent the interests of such a broad constituency may be just too much.
Noone can do everything. But High Sec needs voices, and high sec is worth fighting for!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
272
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 23:45:31 -
[8] - Quote
Serves me right for being lazy / pushed for time...
I was called out about wardecs. I do not know much about war deccing, not really having done it in any great way... but I am aware that war dec in high sec and also the bounty mechanics are very much broken... in fact in my original campaign war decs were #4 on "the list"
"4) Wardecs.
The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored.
I am also quite prepared to represent/push issues that other High Sec Carebears have, even if I have not mentioned them above. I think it is all-important that High Sec gathers behind a candidate... (even if it is not me) so that our interests do not get swept under the table by the massed/organised nullsec coalitions."
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Sasha Nemtsov
New Order Logistics CODE.
507
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 07:11:25 -
[9] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: (a considered and measured response)
I'm supposed to be on a train to Battersea Junction, so this is a very quick-fire reply Lorelei...
Your name reminds me of a boat-trip along the Rhine many many years ago, with school friends. Great times!
I'll pick up your references on my return, later today, but thanks for expanding a bit on your position; it was helpful. Thanks also for listening to the recordings; I appreciate your respect for player-generated content.
Catch you later! |
Sasha Nemtsov
New Order Logistics CODE.
508
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 18:12:04 -
[10] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: (helpful explanatory reply)
I looked at your CONCORD wish list Lorelei - thanks for the link.
Suicide ganking - whether of Retrievers or Charons - is a very exact science (or should be). You do seem to understand the mechanics behind the playstyle and thus I credit you with far more nous than the average Highsec Carebear.
Our basic aim is to maintain the presence of non-consensual aggression in Highsec and, as I said previously, to provide both the ganker and the person ganked with adequate tools for attack and defence.
CONCORD is naturally an important factor in our calculations, because upon their behaviour is based our ability to remove barges efficiently. Obviously we don't succeed at every attempt (I've been thwarted many times), and that is why my initial reaction was that there really wasn't very much wrong with the mechanics of ganking.
It seems that your suggestion is more about making the encounter less predictable - for both sides (I imagine).
CONCORD response behaviour is certainly predictable, which enables us to plan our ganks with some degree of precision. Naturally, introducing a random element as you suggest would affect that, but I'm not sure what actual benefits would be offered to the miners or to the gankers. If the outcome of a suicide gank became less certain because of the risk of CONCORD turning up before our blasters had finished their work, most of us would simply bring 2 instead of one ganker (some of my comrades already do this to be sure of snagging the pod). In effect, the change would be neutralised as soon as possible. There would thus be no real benefit to the miner, who would get ganked anyway - if not at his keyboard, paying attention, etc.
Introducing a random element into an activity usually does make it more interesting, but our business is not that kind of activity.
We don't like the Faction Police, though. If you could suggest something about getting rid of them, that would be interesting!
Thanks again Lorelei.
I'll continue looking down the list, but realistically, unless someone from our own community steps forward, our point of view may be aired but couldn't be pushed. I guess that's why so many New Order members vote for other supporters of our very distinctive playstyle. It's impossible to have an effective 'Highsec Representative', because of the broad scope I mentioned in my previous post. Perhaps playstyles should be represented in addition to regions; but then, I fear the bill for trips to Iceland might break into CCP's 'bottom line'.
|
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
275
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 22:59:05 -
[11] - Quote
Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:I looked at your CONCORD wish list Lorelei - thanks for the link.
Suicide ganking - whether of Retrievers or Charons - is a very exact science (or should be). You do seem to understand the mechanics behind the playstyle and thus I credit you with far more nous than the average Highsec Carebear.
Thank you. In my first campaign thread there was some discussion with Admiral Root about ganking... and I even tried it out a couple of times to see how it worked (the poor victims got more than reimbursed by me, and are still on my zkillboard to see).
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:Our basic aim is to maintain the presence of non-consensual aggression in Highsec and, as I said previously, to provide both the ganker and the person ganked with adequate tools for attack and defence.
CONCORD is naturally an important factor in our calculations, because upon their behaviour is based our ability to remove barges efficiently. Obviously we don't succeed at every attempt (I've been thwarted many times), and that is why my initial reaction was that there really wasn't very much wrong with the mechanics of ganking.
It seems that your suggestion is more about making the encounter less predictable - for both sides (I imagine).
Less predictable for both sides, and also to "feel" like it makes more sense. And of course, after a big freighter gank there are many CONCORD ships floating around that cause even more lag for someone playing on a low-end box like mine. Lag is not fun. So I am not just talking to stir things up, but also to improve the New Eden experience for people like me!
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:Introducing a random element into an activity usually does make it more interesting, but our business is not that kind of activity.
I am quite sure that the gankers will more quickly adapt to any changes than the gankees. But that is the way of the carebear... that is how we are.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:We don't like the Faction Police, though. If you could suggest something about getting rid of them, that would be interesting!
Interesting, but there is already the chance to buy tags and turn them in... or rat them. Sure it costs and/or takes time, but it is there to be taken advantage of. Not sure how much sense it makes to have to go to a station and turn the tags in but CONCORD need their blood money... bit like with wardec fees.
Sasha Nemtsov wrote:Thanks again Lorelei.
Thank you for taking the time to at least read what I was writing!
BTW I actually found Mike's post about the nature of the CSM encouraging... maybe there is hope for the future after all! https://mikeazariah.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/bb-80-voices-and-wrappers/
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Tengu Grib
The Dickwad Squad Legio De Mortem
1566
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 02:04:17 -
[12] - Quote
I almost dismissed you entirely, but after reading your exchange with Sasha, whom I hold in high regard and have great respect for, I will be watching you closely. You have not earned my vote yet, but you still have a chance to do so.
o7
Rabble Rabble Rabble
Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59665
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 08:14:41 -
[13] - Quote
Hello,
My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?
Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
279
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 11:10:17 -
[14] - Quote
thanks for stopping by!
Tengu Grib wrote:I almost dismissed you entirely, but after reading your exchange with Sasha, whom I hold in high regard and have great respect for, I will be watching you closely.
I feel I have grown up since my first (and most successful) campaign. The exchange with Sasha however is nothing new... there are similar exchanges in my last two campaign threads... I am neither naive nor arrogant enough to think that CCP will suddenly change their minds about (non-consensual) PVP just because I say so... anyway... I am playing EVE because I choose to play eve. When I want to play in peace and quite I play something like Transport Tycoon (although my old computer is too quick for that now).
Tengu Grib wrote:You have not earned my vote yet, but you still have a chance to do so.
Fantastic! Um... just a couple of questions...
1) Can you think of a way to turn war decs into a meaningful, consistent and playable experience for everyone involved? 2) Do you bring a voting block with you, or is it just you? 3) What do you want?
[quote=Tengu Grib]o7
o7
PS Bumping has been raised a lot as a theme... again. I belong to probably the 10 people that has actually gone and read the *whole* C&P thread on the subject... I plan to make a longer post about that this evening / night (EU Time). Maybe you could critique it, let me know what you think?
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
280
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 19:43:33 -
[15] - Quote
Thanks for stopping by.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Hello,
My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?
Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.
DMC
Faction standings? They seem a lot more superfluous since more things are getting done in Citadels, even in high sec. I wish someone had told me at the beginning that by doing missions I could end up being unable to fly in Gallente space... but other than stuff like that I think the issues they cause are overshadowed by other things! If I were to get elected however, of course the concerns of all carebears should be taken into account.
What is you problem with faction stanings and what do you think CCP should do about it?
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University Minmatar Republic
59678
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 21:08:35 -
[16] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:Thanks for stopping by. DeMichael Crimson wrote:Hello,
My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?
Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.
DMC Faction standings? They seem a lot more superfluous since more things are getting done in Citadels, even in high sec. I wish someone had told me at the beginning that by doing missions I could end up being unable to fly in Gallente space... but other than stuff like that I think the issues they cause are overshadowed by other things! If I were to get elected however, of course the concerns of all carebears should be taken into account. What is you problem with faction stanings and what do you think CCP should do about it? Thanks for the reply.
As a CSM candidate for high sec, I would think you'd view Faction standings a lot more than just superfluous since they have a large impact on high sec game play. As you very well know, the consequences of not knowing about Faction standing game mechanics can easily mess up a players game play activities, especially new players.
Personally I don't have any problems with Faction standings, especially after creating the Faction Standing Repair Plan back in 2010..
What I'd like to see CCP do is have the process of Faction standing repair be implemented into the game so that it's intuitive instead of being obscure. Anti-Empire missions should have a warning to alert players that accepting and completing those missions will have a negative affect on their Faction standings. Lastly CCP could add another group of NPC Agents to the game strictly for Faction standing repair, sorta like the proposal I have listed in my forum signature.
Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
282
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 17:44:25 -
[17] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:[Thanks for the reply.
My pleasure.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:As a CSM candidate for high sec, I would think you'd view Faction standings a lot more than just superfluous since they have a large impact on high sec game play.
I play in high sec. Faction Standings - now that I know not to do missions that end up with me being banished from (for example) Amarr Space have actually no effect on my high sec gameplay at all. Especially now that the standings requirement for Jump Clones has been removed. It is true I could make more ISKies trading at stations with better standings, refining at stations with better standings and manufacturing at stations with better standings... but then there are (for example) citadels that make me regret having wasted so much time grinding standings out. I make more than enough iskies without caring about standings, and the characters on which I ground out standings are actually now more or less sitting around so I can make more money with Skill Injectors.
Just in case I had one of those "not really knowing what it means" moment, I looked it up...
su-per-flu-ous adjective
1. being more than is sufficient or required; excessive. 2. unnecessary or needless. 3. Obsolete. possessing or spending more than enough or necessary; extravagant.
Which I think pretty exactly hits the nail on the head. I am sorry, I just don't think they are as relevant as they were in 2010.
DeMichael Crimson wrote: As you very well know, the consequences of not knowing about Faction standing game mechanics can easily mess up a players game play activities, especially new players.
That is indeed my only concern about them.... new players getting trapped into grinding after reading outdated guides, or accidentally getting their mains "kill on sight" by the Caldari Police.....
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.
DMC
I hope the other candidates had something constructive to say on the issue... maybe you should collate the responses somewhere... so that people interested in faction standings can easily reference who best to vote for!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
283
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 22:47:46 -
[18] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote: PS Bumping has been raised a lot as a theme... again. I belong to probably the 10 people that has actually gone and read the *whole* C&P thread on the subject... I plan to make a longer post about that this evening / night (EU Time). Maybe you could critique it, let me know what you think?
Just posted about bumping on my blog. Link is in the signature if anyone is interested. Didn't want to reproduce it here... the forums have seen enough posting about bumping.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
283
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 19:52:15 -
[19] - Quote
So the eve of the elections is upon us. I would like to take this time to encourage everyone to vote, for whoever they want (or whoever their block tells them). It would be nice, now that we have all forgotten the drama of CSMX if the percentage of participants in the voting could start climbing, so that the "playerbase representation" of the CSM could become fact instead of fiction.
I am afraid CCP has a long way to go in getting the numbers working for high sec... and from what I have observed in the last three years the interest in the CSM is dwindling...
"No and I'm also not going to look for one as I'm not going to vote." - A fairly typical response from one of my ex-Supporters on the subject of "a solution to the low turnout in High Sec Voters..."
I think it would be nice if CCP could bombard us with popups or notifications (like that cluster shutdown thing for downtime) - for example at login - so that everyone that logs into EVE is at least aware that the CSM exists.
Still I am looking forward to seeing what happens.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
284
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 15:48:49 -
[20] - Quote
I am actually planning to vote towards the end of the week, because I am waiting to see if anything new comes up... but... I know that statistically, most of the people that are going to vote do so in the first couple of days. They have already made up their minds, or had their minds made up for them.
So this is what my voting list looks like at the moment. - in case any of my supporters are unsure what to do with their votes. I will happily answer any questions people have about it.
Lorelei Ierendi
commander aze
Toxic Yaken
Roedyn
Steve Ronuken
rhiload Feron-drake
Ariel Rin
Juvenius Drakonius
Erika Mizune
DJ Thomas
Xenuria
JTClone Ares
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
286
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 22:50:18 -
[21] - Quote
So whilst running around in my transport ships and keeping an eye on zkillboard to check out where hotspots of ganking are, I saw this:
https://zkillboard.com/kill/60610795/
Someone lost a 19B Freighter to faction police. In Perimeter.
The game mechanics warn you when you undock and are going to get blapped by Concord... why not do the same for Faction Police?
Or why not stop warning people that undock and get blapped by CONCORD because of the criminal timer?
Either people need popup help or they do not...
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri
New Order Logistics CODE.
728
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 13:15:29 -
[22] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:So whilst running around in my transport ships and keeping an eye on zkillboard to check out where hotspots of ganking are, I saw this: https://zkillboard.com/kill/60610795/ Someone lost a 19B Freighter to faction police. In Perimeter. The game mechanics warn you when you undock and are going to get blapped by Concord... why not do the same for Faction Police? Or why not stop warning people that undock and get blapped by CONCORD because of the criminal timer? Either people need popup help or they do not...
It wasn't faction police that killed him, it was faction navy. Different thing. You get attacked by them for bad faction standings, not bad sec status. And you do get a popup warning when you try jumping into hghsec while under -5.0 sec.
Of course, ther could be a separate popup for jumping into hostile imperial systems, but where's the hilarity in that? |
Cochise Chiricahua
The Scope Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 17:04:08 -
[23] - Quote
07 Candidate!
First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! TheyGÇÖre much appreciated.
IGÇÖm preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.
By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, thatGÇÖs to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and IGÇÖve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.
So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? IGÇÖll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, IGÇÖd like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)
As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?
Regards, Cochise Chiricahua. |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
286
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:47:11 -
[24] - Quote
Thank you for taking the time to post in my thread... and by the looks of it in lots of other threads too! There cannot be enough engaging of the candidates to encourage debate.
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:07 Candidate!
First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! TheyGÇÖre much appreciated.
IGÇÖm preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.
Which information did you read?
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking?
I asked which information you read because I addressed and posted the subject of high sec ganking in my opening post in this thread. I also included links to where I talked about it in more detail in my campaign threads last year and the year before, and on my (seldom used) blog. As it happens, high sec ganking is one of the most important themes for me!
As you say... you read the information I posted... but obviously you are still unclear on where I stand. Do you have any specific questions about what I wrote that I could help you with?
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
I was proud to have been the CSMX Candidate endorsed by the Anti-Ganking community and channel. Especially proud because I did not actively court them, but dedicated members read through all the relevant candidates and decided that I was as close to a candidate that represented what they felt. They helped me come in 15th place in the election... Sadly people in High Sec have been losing interest in the CSM since then.
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?
And there was me thinking that you read what I wrote... Before I get any further, have you tried high sec ganking? Do you have an idea how difficult and dangerous it already is? (See campaign thread #1 back when I was the anti-ganking candidate for some discussion on this: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664 )
I get you wanted to copy/paste lots of candidates in the CSM thread in order to draw attention to Thomas' idea and bring up the issue of ganking in high sec... The answers to the majority of your questions have already been covered by me. Changes to ganking/bumping/CONCORD... As I wrote in my opening thread:
Please read my last threads before posting questions... we really do not need to cover the points that have been discussed before... high sec is worth fighting for!
I am more than happy to discuss the issue, my issue, with you... but I don't necessarily want to repeat the stuff I have been saying for three years now. If you would like to debate this with me, please take the time to do some reading... and/or look for me in the anti-ganking channel. I hope that you will read through my response before answering.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
290
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 23:11:35 -
[25] - Quote
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote: It wasn't faction police that killed him, it was faction navy. Different thing. You get attacked by them for bad faction standings, not bad sec status. And you do get a popup warning when you try jumping into hghsec while under -5.0 sec.
Of course, ther could be a separate popup for jumping into hostile imperial systems, but where's the hilarity in that?
Thanks for the correction.
What gets on my nerves is that some things are completely babysat (I get warnings when I accept a distribution mission if the cargo does not fit in my active ship... I get warnings when I try undocking without the cargo on my ship - no really!) and other things are not. By having so much babysitting it is hard for carebears to know what gets warned and what doesn't... and it leads to a false (unfair) sense of security. I mean if the game warns me that I am undocking without cargo, it warns me when CONCORD are going to turn off my engines and blap me... why wouldn't it warn me that the Navy are going to fry me?
I would plead for consistency. Partial babysitting is not fun from my perspective.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
290
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 19:44:27 -
[26] - Quote
I just happened to be online when I got a notification about the elections:
Greetings citizen of New Eden,
Voting for the Council of Stellar Management, the democratically elected EVE player council, is now open to all Omega accounts. If you are eligible to vote, please head to the CSM page where you can study the candidates and cast your vote for up to 10 candidates of your choice.
Make CSM 12 your CSM.
Video tutorial on how to vote
Happy voting!
This makes me so happy!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Myszokar Asterlan
Pro Tax Avoidence
12
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 20:25:27 -
[27] - Quote
Hello! I'd like to ask your opinion concerning recent changes, particularly alpha clones stuff and Aura's voice. |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
290
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 21:50:28 -
[28] - Quote
Thanks for stopping by my thread and taking time to post.
Myszokar Asterlan wrote:Hello! I'd like to ask your opinion concerning recent changes, particularly alpha clones stuff and Aura's voice.
Aura's voice: well apart from those times I need it, I play EVE with sound off... listening to my own music or something. I must admit, the change in voice takes some getting used to.
Alpha Clones: Having the potential to have more people experience EVE and join is not a bad thing... and being able to log in to the game to catch up with friends without having to subscribe for a month seems also to have postive sides. I tried out an Alpha clone... trying to think if I have any use for Alpha alts... but at the moment they are not for me.
Any other recent changes you would like my opinion on? My EVE experience is getting laggier with every update - or so it seems. I need to update my computer.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Myszokar Asterlan
Pro Tax Avoidence
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 13:20:56 -
[29] - Quote
Just asking out of curiosity. I didn't find any canditates sharing my disappointment in the direction CPP goes lately, unrelentingly ruining what good they built before. I guess it makes sense - unfortunately only happy and content players are willing to devote time to CSM, to confirm to CPP that everything they're dong is great... Sorry, not the right place to rant. Due to lack of suitable candidates voted for you anyway, as a carebear in my EVE days. Good luck and have fun. |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
297
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 06:30:01 -
[30] - Quote
"What is the CSM?"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VN2aIYHow-0
For those of you (like me) that missed CCP promoting this video... here it is!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
|
Sivar Ahishatsu
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 02:11:53 -
[31] - Quote
Hello Lorelei,
If I may I would like to ask a few questions to know your thoughts on some topics.
1st - What do you think of Highsec Content? Is it fun, is it accessible? Is it enough?
2nd- Would you like to have more content accessible in High Sec and if yes, what would be your suggestions to do it?
3rd - Would you be for an expansion of High Sec to include low sec? Meaning expanding the CONCORD rule set to include all the way to 0.2. With only 0.1 systems being bereft of CONCORD presence. How do you think this would sound current to High Sec Citizens?
4th- You speak of
Quote:The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem...
Do you think this to be a result of lack of trust? Maybe even some level of fear? Are Empire citizens apathetic to one another because they fear and do not trust one another no knowing who will turn around to back stab them or Player Kill them in an ambush or Declare War on them? Is this maybe what prevents Empire citizens form developing a "WE"?
5th- What do you think of Factional Warfare?
6th- While many In EVE seem to confuse the difference between Player Killing and PvP, I would like to know if you see a difference and what would be your thoughts separately towards PvP in general and Player Killing.
To be clear here, PvP means a contest between two people capable of fighting, while Player killing is the more cowardly violent action of a Player towards other who is weaker and unable to fight. This also includes Ganking in Low sec between a hunter and a victim.
7th- Do you think that Justice and Punishment Systems are adequate currently in Empire space? And if not any ideas on how to improve them?
8th- Why do you play EVE?
All the best in your Campaign! |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
302
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:38:54 -
[32] - Quote
Hi! Thanks for taking the time to write. I saw your independent thread on the forums: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=514372&find=unread which I took time to answer.
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:Hello Lorelei, Hello.
At this point I would like to state/ask the following things:
a) Are you asking/posting just for yourself.... or do you represent a larger block of votes that will be cast? It is very late in the campaign season.. the voting ends soon. Is answering your post going to bring me votes, and be worth it? Or is answering your post going to maybe annoy / dissatisfy the people that have already voted for me... if they read something they do not like?
What do you think?
b) Did you know, you can only quote 5 times in a forum post? I did not know until I tried more. But trying to answer 8 questions with only 5 quotes is blowing my mind. (yes my English teacher would have shot me for starting a sentence with "But"... but he is not here.... or is he??)
c) Have you maybe, really read this forum thread? Maybe even my blog? Maybe even my other forum threads??? Honestly... after years of bad experience at work... I cannot stand repeating myself too often. I apologise if I get aggressive (well I am not sorry if I get aggressive if you ask me something I already answered... like CONCORD or BUMPING or some such stuff... your own fault!).
That being said... the answer to your post might take several posts.... exactly because of the quoting restrictions. Here we go!
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:8th- Why do you play EVE? Taking the easiest question first! I like EVE. I (more or less.... read previous posts / listen to interviews) started being interested in Space Sims with Elite... and spent really too much time with Elite II / Frontier (instead of studying). I was a kick-ass trader flying my panther between Barnard's Star and Sol! I got soooo rich! EVE lets me do the same things... only my actions actually *gasp* affect other people. That makes me important (or at least feel important). Stuff like that is why I play EVE. If I wanted to play a game where I would not get ganked / scammed / lost then I would play another game. I joined EVE knowing what it was. What I absolutely really think is that it is quite [AUTO CENSOR SUCKS] to want to change EVE into something that it is definitely not.
More answers coming later... maybe also on my blog... because you asked a lot!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
304
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:53:21 -
[33] - Quote
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote: 3rd - Would you be for an expansion of High Sec to include low sec?
Nope. Why would anyone be for that? There are lots of high sec systems with hardly any life... why make more of them? That will not address any problems... I have mined / existed in High Sec. I have mined / existed in LowSec and I have mined / existed in nullSec. Despite my Killboard I felt safest in Null Sec. NullSec for Mining Safety... and I would urge my Carebear cousins to try it.
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:Meaning expanding the CONCORD rule set to include all the way to 0.2. With only 0.1 systems being bereft of CONCORD presence. CONCORD do and mean nothing. Literally nothing. Gankers have optimised themselves so much... that expanding CONCORD response space will make (IMHO) large swathes of EVE much LESS attractive for anyone who uses them. What do the different SEC statuses really mean, anyway? Different ores available? One can do quite well just mining Veldspar (just ask Chribba).
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote:How do you think this would sound current to High Sec Citizens? The overwhelming majority of High Sec citizens wouldn't hear it if you said it. That is the sad truth. And what would they do with it? Like I said, there are already enough High Sec systems... or do you think everyone should have their own.
Now a question from me: Have you tried, for example, ganking? Do you know what you are talking about?
Sivar Ahishatsu wrote: 4th- You speak of
[quote]The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem...
Do you think this to be a result of lack of trust? Maybe even some level of fear? Are Empire citizens apathetic to one another because they fear and do not trust one another no knowing who will turn around to back stab them or Player Kill them in an ambush or Declare War on them? Is this maybe what prevents Empire citizens form developing a "WE"?/quote] No, I do not think it is a lack of trust, in general. I do not think it has anything to do with fear. I do not think the average High Sec carebear of which I speak knows enough about the game or game mechanics to develop either a lack of trust... or fear. Seriously... have you tried speaking to High Sec carebears about things. In your question I think you credit the basic carebear with too much insight. There have already been great changes in the game (eg the End of Awoxing, the End of War Decs with Character Log-On/Off info...) that have done a lot to benefit High Sec Carebears.... but most of us do not know it. Sad but true.... oh so true. As it stands, war decs are easy to avoid.... simply CORPS reform...
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
304
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 19:54:43 -
[34] - Quote
As an aside, I got booted from the minerbumping channel when I tried to invite them to the discussion. I will probably post the chatlogs (such as they are) on my blog later.
I guess when I run next year they will also be getting all uptight about how I don't consider their playstyle or appreciate their content or whatever... Well suckers... you had your chances. I don't wanna hear any more of your complaints.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
LeConte Boudreaux
Dread Fleet Sanctus Silentium
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 20:59:07 -
[35] - Quote
http://i.imgur.com/ITWO8m7.png
Photographic evidence for authenticity.
hi-sec needs a governing body that is not swayed by any player-group. To this day, I have not seen a finer job of this than CONCORD. |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
306
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:06:29 -
[36] - Quote
LeConte Boudreaux wrote:http://i.imgur.com/ITWO8m7.png
Photographic evidence for authenticity.
hi-sec needs a governing body that is not swayed by any player-group. To this day, I have not seen a finer job of this than CONCORD.
Oh. And there was me thinking that a minerbumper would say something about their Saviour (who once was in the running for CSM until he withdrew... ever heard the interview? https://crossingzebras.com/csm8james315/ )
I am talking about the CSM, which does not necessarily have something to do with governing High Sec. Please, if you are going to post on my CSM thread, try and keep on subject.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
LeConte Boudreaux
Dread Fleet Sanctus Silentium
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 21:50:38 -
[37] - Quote
I will Withdraw my prior post on your count of relevancy.
I also object to your reference of James 315 and his interview on the ground of relevance. I find it unrelated this threat on the grounds that it is being used to discourage the merit of my post on behalf of the new order of hi-sec on account that I am acting as my own individual and request that you withdraw it as well.
http://i.imgur.com/Nwhy6qZ.png
(Photographed for authenticity)
CSM representatives are elected for the people by the people.
Perhaps there is no hi-sec representative because there was never meant to be one? The concept that any one body could sway the happenings of hi-sec devalues it's experience as an amorphic entity in the hands of the NPCs, not the players? |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
306
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:00:27 -
[38] - Quote
LeConte Boudreaux wrote:CSM representatives are elected for the people by the people.
Perhaps there is no hi-sec representative because there was never meant to be one? The concept that any one body could sway the happenings of hi-sec devalues it's experience as an amorphic entity in the hands of the NPCs, not the players?
Is High Sec an amorphic entity in the hands of NPCs and not the players?
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
LeConte Boudreaux
Dread Fleet Sanctus Silentium
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:05:47 -
[39] - Quote
Yes. |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
306
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:13:24 -
[40] - Quote
LeConte Boudreaux wrote:Yes.
Thank you. I shall be sure to quote you (as above).
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
|
LeConte Boudreaux
Dread Fleet Sanctus Silentium
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:20:30 -
[41] - Quote
Do you also agree? |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
306
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 22:37:56 -
[42] - Quote
LeConte Boudreaux wrote:Do you also agree?
The answer to that question is contained in the above thread. I hate answering the same question over and over again. If you took time to read what I wrote you would not need to ask this question. Thank you for coming.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Brian Paone
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 16:48:50 -
[43] - Quote
Hi! It's nice to see a candidate with a focus on high-sec. I've a couple of questions for you, if you've the time:
* What are your thoughts concerning the 3/10 DED site called "Rogue Drone Asteroid Infestation"? Do you often run this specific site? Why or why not?
* What is your position on the subject of reputation grinding via missions? Do you believe it is fine the way it is or would you propose changes, and why?
* What are your thoughts on NPC corporations?
* What are your thoughts concerning the overall size of high-sec space? Too big? Too small? Just right? And, of course, why?
Thanks in advance for your replies, and best of luck with your candidacy. o7 |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
306
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 19:31:10 -
[44] - Quote
Thanks for stopping by!
Brian Paone wrote:* What are your thoughts concerning the 3/10 DED site called "Rogue Drone Asteroid Infestation"? Do you often run this specific site? Why or why not?
I have no specific thoughts about that particular site. I can't remember specifically ever having run it. In general I found those sites either too easy or terribly hard with little in the way of "just right". I can make more ISK doing other stuff.
Brian Paone wrote:* What is your position on the subject of reputation grinding via missions? Do you believe it is fine the way it is or would you propose changes, and why?
I had a question about Standings/Reputation already in this thread, from someone trying to promote their own ideas. Maybe you should check that out? Standings/Reputaton have become increasingly irrelevant over time. I regret the time I wasted grinding standings... I notice no effect from them, and if I could earn better ISK with better standings / reputation then it is not enough ISK more to motivate me to grind. With the changes regarding Jump clones and the arrival of citadels... standings etc are completely irrelevant for me now.
Brian Paone wrote:* What are your thoughts on NPC corporations?
I think it would be fun for Capsuleers to be allocated to more NPC corporations than currently. Maybe even influenced by standings. Otherwise the NPC corporations are also pretty much invisible and irrelevant for me and my gameplay.
Brian Paone wrote:* What are your thoughts concerning the overall size of high-sec space? Too big? Too small? Just right? And, of course, why?
If anything it is too big. I don't know why CONCORD would waste resources policing systems that have no activity. And there are very many systems that are just lifeless... honestly I was thinking it might be fun to have the SEC of a system fluctuate a tiny bit depending on activity... but I expect I will write more on that after the elections.
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Bobi Ahrire
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 17:09:45 -
[45] - Quote
Since:
- noone wanted to buy my votes listed HERE - there are only 2 days left for voting - your thread was at the top of csm candidates forum and I couldnt bother to read all 60+ other threads (well I didn't really read yours either, only the title) - it will be funny to see some nullsec carebears/code guys crying if you get to CSM - currently highsec is more dangerous than sov nullsec but much less rewarding - highsec needs to be improved so we get more new, casual players
I'm happy to inform you that you got 9 votes from me. 2nd one on my list will be the Fuzzworks guy since I use his API
Enjoy! |
Lorelei Ierendi
Lorelei for C S M
306
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 05:43:30 -
[46] - Quote
Thank you for taking the trouble to vote in the elections!
Bobi Ahrire wrote:Since: - noone wanted to buy my votes listed HERE- there are only 2 days left for voting - your thread was at the top of csm candidates forum and I couldnt bother to read all 60+ other threads (well I didn't really read yours either, only the title) - it will be funny to see some nullsec carebears/code guys crying if you get to CSM - currently highsec is more dangerous than sov nullsec but much less rewarding - highsec needs to be improved so we get more new, casual players I'm happy to inform you that you got 9 votes from me. 2nd one on my list will be the Fuzzworks guy since I use his API Enjoy!
http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
|
Sivar Ahishatsu
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 20:16:11 -
[47] - Quote
Hello Lorelei,
It is not over until it is over.
Late in the campaign according to whom? If there are still days remaining for voters to vote you shoudl use them.
Yes there were votes involved in you answering the questions of course.
So first let me say thank you for answering, and taking the time to do so, the questions to the best of your ability. I was hoping for more transparency and It feels like I am touching on to some topics that are very politicized in nature. But its fine.
Now, you asked me some questions it is only fair that I answer back.
You asked why to expand High Sec, but you did nto answer questions 1 and 2.
Quote:1st - What do you think of Highsec Content? Is it fun, is it accessible? Is it enough?
2nd- Would you like to have more content accessible in High Sec and if yes, what would be your suggestions to do it?
The answer is more content more fun for the peopel who are not interested in playing the Empire Building Game of Nulsec or the aggression game of otehr areas of EVE.
This is what Characterizes Highsec in reality. You said yourself that you tried the ganking. And? Did you like it? Did you enjoy it? Is it you? Are you a person who takes enjoyment in ruining someone elses day just to prove to yourself that you are better and have some illusory power over others?
My guess is no, becaue otherwise you would have become a Player Killer yourself. Atr least you know what it is all about.
So it is about more content and fun for the niche of players who also play EVE and are not interested in fighting with other players as part of their daily routine of fun in game.. See I do understand I am standing in front of a mounten of a mindset here.
And in reality I am not hoping that anything will change for EVE.
At least not before another similar game releases (there are a couple alreay in the making) So the chances are that a Better game than EVE will release in the comming years before EVE decides to change. The irony is that the advocates of the status quo will also change game because all their victims will move.
Seen it in so many other games in the 20 Years I have been playing MMORPGs and especially of the Oldshool Sandbox type, with full PvP and full Loot. I am nto new to this setting.
But I am intent on letting my opinion and thoughts known. Because many act like if these diverging opinions do not texist and that everyone should file in to follow blindly the narative and mindset that is vehiculated.
Suffice it to say my answer to your question, I have.
Quote:Now a question from me: Have you tried, for example, ganking? Do you know what you are talking about?
I have. But it is not me, I did not enjoy it. Player Killing for pleasure, for mindset for profit even, is to me a parctice of low lives. Human beings without ethics or honor. Murderers and Criminals that is all theya re and have no resepct from me no matter their kill counts or anything else they think make sthem somehow great. The act to kill innocent unsuspecting weaker vioctims is the act of a coward.
And it looks like EVE is full of them. Thena again this might be by design right? This is the Dystopian part of EVE, where all the low lives gather.
And the funny thing is, the Dystopia extends outside of the game itself in these very forums in the meta game too, people who want to imporve the gaming experience and gameplay are shunned and blamed for it as well. LOL.
Not for long though, to EVE's loss.
In any case, not here to make my case, just here to reply to you :)
All the best to you in the elections. And wishing you fun within the vastness of Space! |
Sivar Ahishatsu
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 22:09:44 -
[48] - Quote
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Um... just a couple of questions...
1) Can you think of a way to turn war decs into a meaningful, consistent and playable experience for everyone involved?
There has not been a reply to this so let me volunteer one.
A way to make Wars more meaningfull is to make it Consentual, when Wars in Empire space.
First of all the system would make a distinction between Corps based in Empire space or not.
So here is how it could work in Empire space:
- War is Declared by Corp A vs Corp B. Corp A pays nominal fee of 50 Mill.
- War Declarations must be mutual in order to be war. So Corp B must accept the war.
- Once acepted by both corps, all membership changes are locked for a perriod of 4 weeks, no one is permited to quit the corp and no new recruits can be accepted. The war is on for 4 week cycles.
- After four weeks there is a 24 hour "Negotiations Window", this is the time when Corps can recruit new members, or members quit the corp. This is the time also for corps to negotiate mutual peace agreement and put an end to the war. If not War is renewed for another 4 week cycle.
- At any time a War can end via a Corp Surrendering. Now Victories and Surrenders would be recorded in War History.
In my experience such war mechanics are much more meaningfull. As people are in for War plan accordingly have a reputation to defend. And wars are not used to simply serve as a money sink (design wise) or a way to bully other corps. Wars are, like this, a much more engaging activity for both sides and not something to flee from.
But most importantly, much more meaningful. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |