| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter
Suddenly Content
87
   |
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:20:38 -
[1] - Quote
Hello,
I'm now first time running for CSM (XII). Check out my candidate page too.
While I'm relatively new to the game I excel of finding the small details and understanding how things and systems work. I often know more details of some topics than older players and of course times I don't. Luckily I have experienced pilots from all areas of the space to talk to. Basically whole Finnish community that has lot of experienced pilots as some of you know.
I'm not sure why different candidates really want to be in CSM, but for me it's the possibility to help to make the game better for everyone. I personally see that I'm in good position to gather feedback and ideas from players in different areas of the game and my interest of finding the real problems under what people perceive makes me good candidate for CSM.
I don't try to run for CSM to change some single aspects of the game or I don't have any real changes I would be running for. What I offer is the way I think about problems and how I can see what effect small changes could have in bigger picture. I always prefer to find best solution as possible. That said, remember to check next comment about some example areas and thoughts I have.
I have understood that I'm easy to talk to and I like to listen. I like to talk about EVE, it's mechanics and how things could be done differently.
I think CCPs development for past few years has been in correct direction. While there has been changes that might seem bad or were really scary before release, I think all of them are relative ok. I can understand why aegis sov doesn't seem good (and it isn't as is), but I still think it was good try and was change in the correct direction. That area of course requires more development and more ideas.
You can ask more here in this thread or via social medias:
/u/raphendyr on Reddit
@raphendyr on tweetfleet.slack.com
@raphendyr#2538 on Discord
EVE mail
[email protected] if above are not possible
Please try to keep eve related stuff to these as you might find me from other medias too. |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter
Suddenly Content
87
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:20:49 -
[2] - Quote
Finding your place and working to gether
The single most important thing in EVE for new player is to find group to play with. One area is of course new player experience where CCP has done lot of good work and is continuing to do so. Huge importance here would be stumbling into other players when doing the tutorials and following missions.
In many fantasy MMOs you have tasks that require more than one player to complete or some mission takes you to single location on a map to do something (e.g. kill X monsters) or a town. These problems that require multiple players or locations where you stumble on to others are really good ways to meet other players. EVE basically doesn't have similar aspects. You could go to Jita, but you don't really meet others.
So we need to find alternative ways for players to find each others or we need to find ways to create similar behavior into eve mechanic.
Some currently existing aspects that try to be in this direction is wormhole sites and incursions. Both are best done in groups while of course they cand be done with single player with alts. I personally would like to see more problems that would be best solved with 3-5 players (requining focus from all). Of course we need things that can be done solo, but we allready have lot of those. For example null sec ratting doesn't really praise working as a group.
Easy to understand hard to master
When it comes to game mechanics, missions or complexity I prefer this simple rule: Being good shouldn't come just from knowing how things work, but from mastery of applying that knowledge to practice.
For example missions and sites in EVE are known before (and all stats are in wikis/guides), thus they have nothing hard as long as you know how to google. In this area I love the development around mining operations and the AI.
In wormholes there is lot of known and many not so known small details that when known can help you a lot. Some of these things might be bugs and some are just how this game is implemented. For example one can keep his wormhole system disconnected from rest of the cluster as long as he likes, presuming no incoming connections appear with someone coming in from those. While I benefit a lot of these I don't think hidden things are good for EVE in long run nor are they interesting.
Of course knowledge is required for one to master it and I for sure like that EVE is one of the hardest games I have ever played. Good example of mastering knowledge is good fleet commanding. Best null sec FCs can place their own fleet in correct position against the enemy and force the enemy to make mistakes. That is absolutely beautiful when executed well. Basic knowledge of why these fleets work as they do isn't really complicated, but using that knowledge to predict what the enemy will do is the mastery part.
So I think all game mechanics should be simple to understand and the information should be enough clear from the game, but to apply that knowledge should require skill.
Real problems are rarely simple
After some years working in IT support I have learned that people often come to ask for solution they have. Often after delving into the problem it can be seen that the solution the person had wasn't really the good one for his real problem. I think people tend to simplify problems and then choosing the first solution that comes to mind.
Using interesting topic of cloaky campers that comes up in reddit time to time as an example. Commonly the solution presented is to turn off the cloak module in some way e.g. using service in structures, consuming fuel or capacitor. Of course these kind of changes would be huge especially for the wormholes and exploration.
For this solution there is at least two underlaying problems it tries to solve. In null you are in huge danger from the cynos. If some cloaked ship can light a cyno next to you, you would be most likely dead. Also as far as I know the neutral ships affect the sov indexes in some way (at least indirectly).
So is the real problem the cloak module or combination of cloak and cyno? Or even interceptor with cyno? So simply the cyno?
The point here is that even if I would best represent wormhole space, I try my best to thing all areas of space when find solutions. I also try to think problems from different perspectives and players point of view. Problems aren't simple and so aren't the solutions. |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter
Suddenly Content
87
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:21:38 -
[3] - Quote
Reserved |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
59666
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:35:29 -
[4] - 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
|
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter
Suddenly Content
87
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:47:28 -
[5] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote: 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 ?
Currently those have basically no point and the time I heard CCP Affinity had great plans for corp/faction standing I liked it.
I personally would prefer they would have meaningful aspect in the game. Of course this is really hard problem. If one would have high standing towards Gallente they would have low standing (or negative) towards Caldari. And as we know Jita is the biggest trade hub it would make for those characters impossible to go there. Of course they could use alts, but I don't think that is nice out come.
Sure the purpose for them needs to be meaningful, but not restrictive. The choice to have high standing for some needs to give such a reward that you choose to do so with the penalty of losing standing towards to other faction.
In other aspect. wormholers often use hisec to travel between wormhole chains. Those that have low faction standings make it sometimes difficult as their presence in some systems is problematic and they for example can't wait on a gate before entering the k-space system leading towards to wormhole.
On the other hand e.g. low sec area could introduce more interesting things. Presuming one could have positive standing towards pirate faction too, then one roaming in low sec could have pirate ships repairing him when fighting empire faction ships for example.
So I would first look what we can make with those Mining Operations and future NPC that come after those. I think the most interesting mechanics are there in short term.
|
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
59666
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 10:35:14 -
[6] - Quote
Thanks for the reply but you didn't really give an answer to my question, other than you think they currently have no meaningful point in-game and are rather restrictive.
This game was founded with the premise of having a balance on 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences'. It takes time for players to ruin their Faction standings and as such it should also take time for players to repair those standings. In the past Characters were accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd.
Now I agree there was a time long ago when having negative Faction standings prohibited players from enjoying all aspects of the game. That myth was due to players just accepting that consequence as fact instead of actually searching for a remedy to correct that situation. Course the process of standings repair should have been implemented to be more intuitive within the game instead of being so obscure.
Unfortunately CCP doesn't like to present things in Black & White. They prefer various shades of Gray and enjoy seeing the player base figure things out on their own. CCP distributes the content throughout the game for players to find and put the pieces together. Players then share that info with the community. That's what makes this game great.
I know because I use to be one of those players who felt victimized by negative Faction standings until I decided to do something about it. After 3 months of research in 2010, I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' ('The Plan') with the Eve Online community. Time and time again it proved itself to the playerbase that it not only easily and quickly repaired negative Faction standings, it also helped boost positive Faction standings as well.
One of the main points for having high Faction standings was the ability to anchor POS in High Security systems. Granted that aspect of Faction standing game mechanic was removed by CCP which in my opinion was a huge mistake. Another point for having high Faction standing is reduced Broker fees as well as reduced Refining fees in NPC stations.
Anyway, I'm sure we can all agree there's a few game mechanics that definitely need to be revised, including the one pertaining to Faction standings. I just wanted to know what your stance is for that topic.
Thanks again for the reply.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter
Suddenly Content
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 11:00:02 -
[7] - Quote
DeMichael Crimson wrote:Thanks for the reply but you didn't really give an answer to my question, other than you think they currently have no meaningful point in-game and are rather restrictive.
We'll, I don't have simple solutions for the problem. I only have the overall picture I can use to commend CCP about the ideas they have and to filter and continue ideas the player base has.
So in simple terms I support faction standings and there should be meaningful purpose for them instead of removing them fully.
DeMichael Crimson wrote:One of the main points for having high Faction standings was the ability to anchor POS in High Security systems. Granted that aspect of Faction standing game mechanic was removed by CCP which in my opinion was a huge mistake. Another point for having high Faction standing is reduced Broker fees as well as reduced Refining fees in NPC stations.
Those were both quite logical reasons, but in the end how meaningful they were? Corporation that anchors a POS normally has at least one person that has enough standings for some faction or they would use another corporations service for it. For sure it created player to player service, but did that make game more rich or not?
As I tried to explain above, problems are rarely so simple there would be clear or simple solutions. In this area I'm personally OK that we focus on those features that could in the long run use and benefit from the faction standings (e.g. Mining Operations and AI).
One area where faction standings could also play role is smuggling. I would love to see more reason and methods for smuggling. One example is items that would be contraband in some areas of space. E.g. Amarr could band autocannons. |
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
59671
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 11:09:20 -
[8] - Quote
Raphendyr Nardieu wrote:So in simple terms I support faction standings and there should be meaningful purpose for them instead of removing them fully.
Thank you for the reply.
Once again may you have good luck in the upcoming CSM election.
DMC
'The Plan' | California Eve Players | Proposal - The Endless Battle
|
Wiski
Fistful of Finns
WE FORM V0LTA
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 15:02:39 -
[9] - Quote
Raphendyr is a solid dude with very good attitude towards game and its future.
I believe he is a good candidate for CSM.
I have had many conversations with him about the current state of the game and hes ideas are really good.
On the other hand he is also quite realistic in his goals which he wants to achieve if he reaches place in CSM. |
Cochise Chiricahua
The Scope
Gallente Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:17:48 -
[10] - 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. |
|
|
Draacan Ferox
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 21:12:41 -
[11] - Quote
I have collaborated with this guy several years and i must say there is no better candinate for same idealogy what he has.
He has ideas what is possible to chance in this game and he has right perspective.
And all of that he like good wiskey, if nothing else there is good reason to vote this guy ;) |
Raphendyr Nardieu
Unpublished Chapter
Suddenly Content
91
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 21:21:26 -
[12] - Quote
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?
This is actually really interesting topic. And as usual, there is really strong opinions towards both directions. As basis, I think no place in EVE should be truly safe (docked in station is acceptable). There should always be change that you are killed in a pod next to Jita to some random guy.
That said, I think the experience in high sec could be enhanced a lot. Looking it from outlaws point of view, I think you should have trill to work as out law. You would be denied from stations, but you could use outlaw citadels (like pirate npcs have in missions) to trade and do your operations. I would like to find better ways and reasons to smuggle some outlawed goods (maybe using wormholes or pirate gates). And all stuff like that.
On the other side I think there should be interesting and working ways to protect your self from a gang or pirate ships. Where that concord, faction police or other players. For example one thing that was strange to me is that ship can bump you as long as it likes and there is no way to mark him as criminal (and manual marking wouldn't work) so your friends could kill or just web him.
I presume the point of Thomas idea is that you can't loot the wreck with one ship and then move it to another ship so it's safe from suspect timers? For that purpose I think that idea could work and be implementable via assembled item attributes. One would get rid of the suspect flag from the items once they are repackaged in station.
So, for sure I could bring it up when talking about hi sec and/or ganging. Of course keeping in mind how much CSM can affect this. At least, this is area that requires more talking about and I think there is a lot we could do to make hi sec more interesting for both sides. |
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |