EVE Search - Eurogamer CSM Article

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Eurogamer CSM Article

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Hardin Amarr Ordo Quaesitoris	Posted - 2008.05.13 13:32:00 - [1] Jim Rossignol - long term EVE player and writer for PC Gamer UK and various other gaming publications - has penned an article about the CSM on Eurogamer. You can view the article here: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=139700 As an aside I have updated my blog with a link to the article and also added a few more sigs to the site (you need to scroll down to view sigs) www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com Cheers ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hardin Amarr Ordo Quaesitoris	Posted - 2008.05.13 13:32:00 - [2] Jim Rossignol - long term EVE player and writer for PC Gamer UK and various other gaming publications - has penned an article about the CSM on Eurogamer. You can view the article here: http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=139700 As an aside I have updated my blog with a link to the article and also added a few more sigs to the site (you need to scroll down to view sigs) www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com Cheers ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Hamfast Gallente	Posted - 2008.05.13 13:43:00 - [3] good article... did I miss 30+ people dropping out of the race or is that just the ones that don't seem to be putting an effort into running...Oh, and I thought Goumindong was running on his own without the backing of the goons... they were voting for others... then again, it could all be a scam... --------*****-------- Learn and be informed, because a Politicians worst nightmare is an informed voter... So choose your CSM Candidates wisely
Xennith Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2008.05.13 14:06:00 - [4] from the comments section Quote: Canditates should really come from the larger guilds kill it with fire! We come for our people
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 14:26:00 - [5] Originally by: Hamfast I thought Goumindong was running on his own without the backing of the goons... they were voting for others I am running without the backing of the goons. The article got that point wrong. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Atolie Amarr Mechanicum Adeptus	Posted - 2008.05.13 14:30:00 - [6] Comments section: Quote: Now a few people with personal bias will have influence on what the rest of us do? No thanks. This!
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:05:00 - [7] Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Hamfast I thought Goumindong was running on his own without the backing of the goons... they were voting for others I am running without the backing of the goons. The article got that point wrong. Fact checking, who needs it?
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:35:00 - [8] Well I'm generally happy with my section of the article - were a few glaring factual inaccuracies in general though. Maybe it needs a bit of a corrective edit? CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:46:00 - [9] Quote: A vote for Jade is a vote for supporting the little guy. Is this one of the glaring factual inaccuracies you refer to? Quote: ... and a lot of the current space-alliances have become overused to safety and security and the knowledge that their holdings are effectively invulnerable and persistent. I think we've got to return to the notion that if you put something in open space, it's open to attack, and empire builders must be able to defend their empires... Or maybe this part? I must be playing a different version of Eve than you are... Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 15:54:00 - [10] Arithron, I've absolutely no interest in getting involved in a petty sniping match with you. I'd advise you to stick to the issues and positive campaigning and don't demean yourself in this way. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:01:00 - [11] My intention wasn't to snipe, sorry for any offence. You just said two things which I am wondering about... How do you represent the little guy? And.. In which ways do you think that currently, something in open space is not open to attack? Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
zoolkhan Minmatar Mirkur Draug'Tyr	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:10:00 - [12] Originally by: Hamfast good article... did I miss 30+ people dropping out of the race or is that just the ones that don't seem to be putting an effort into running... I thought i am putting effort into it. Heck, we life in times where not thoughts and actions decide, but "fame" Soon we will know what the voters think. They will get what they deserve - by definition I just hope that the game returns to a state where it is fun again as a consequence. recruiting -forum
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:15:00 - [13] Originally by: Arithron My intention wasn't to snipe, sorry for any offence. You just said two things which I am wondering about... Arithron, you have to understand something about Jade Constantine. Whenever anyone challenges her with actual reason she simply deflects the question. What you read was Jades way of saying "I don't have an argument so please don't challenge me on it" Vote Goumindong for CSM
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:31:00 - [14] Originally by: Arithron My intention wasn't to snipe, sorry for any offence. You just said two things which I am wondering about... Okay, apology accepted, but calling somebody's honest statement on campaign priorities a "factual inaccuracy" wasn't the best way to start a productive discussion you know. Quote: How do you represent the little guy? My experience and focus and general aspiration for the future of the game is based around small-unit combat and enhancing conflict opportunity and variety for the "little guy". I outline a number of areas of of interest to these themes in my CSM manifesto; ranging from refinements to 0.0 warfare emphasizing distributed objectives and engagement variety, in empire warfare with changes to the bounty system, objectives for war-decs, encouragement for player mini-professions and generally aiming at giving the average player more scope for involvement in fighting outside of the giant blobs and lag fests of traditional territorial warfare. Even my interest in solutions to the omnipotent local chat system and reducing "gods-eye" map info and making it more difficult to patrol space for interlopers - these are things aimed at making space "bigger" and reducing the ability for huge organizations to dominate space with a couple of spy alts in each system and open map view. Small scale corporations and individual pilots will find it easier to exist as stainless-steel rats in the wainscotting of imperialist powers. I could go on all day on the specifics of these things Arithron (and I do in the manifesto document believe me) - and you are quite welcome to come and have a read and ask specific questions in my thread. Quote: In which ways do you think that currently, something in open space is not open to attack? Because pretty much everything is based around POS, - attacking POS is an immense chore, and its not enough to reduce these things once, you have to do it again several days later at a time to suit the defenders in the knowledge you will be facing an uber-blob of the defenders + NAP partners a giant laggy battle of unpleasant proportions. In essence it means that every tower in 0.0 is going to be defended by a blob when it comes from reinforced mode and while yes - technically its "attackable" in the reinforcement battle its hardly "open to attack" from anything smaller than a much larger blob in a mechanic that actively disenfranchises anything but the largest powers and refers us neatly back to your first question. Anyway, hope that helps and any further questions feel free to ask in my CSM thread - (this one is about the Eurogamer article and shouldn't be further derailed.) All the best . CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:35:00 - [15] Arithron, just check out Jade's manifesto. Point #3 is a pretty great idea for the "little guy" - I love the mobile infrastructure concept to give small corps some tools to dive into 0.0.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:45:00 - [16] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 16:45:41 Originally by: Kelsin Arithron, just check out Jade's manifesto. Point #3 is a pretty great idea for the "little guy" - I love the mobile infrastructure concept to give small corps some tools to dive into 0.0. That was iirc the original intention of titans, if I'm interpreting "mobile infrastructure" correctly. I liked it when the devs had it. I think we'll find there needs to be a balance between work and payoff, which isn't to say I disagree per se. I loved the idea of the Titan as a mobile attack platform as opposed to an AOE instant death machine. I also think though that insinuating that "little guys" should be able to challenge the sov of vast swaths of space with an IMMENSE investment made in it is flawed. It's just as one-sided as if I were to say the opposite as it doesn't take into account the other guy's frame of reference. I mean, we have drama threads all over this forum about OH GOD SOMEONE KILLED MY MINING VESSEL IN LOWSEC YOU ARE A RACIST SATAN, but then "the little guys" want destructible outposts? I'm a bully just for suiciding a few hulks. I can't wait to see the fallout when I start popping outposts left and right. Suffice it to say that the current mechanics aren't going to be changed with the flip of a switch because too many people have invested too much in the current system. A phased approach would have to be the way to go and a my way or the highway attitude won't cut it. Simplifying or revisiting POS warfare itself would be a good start. Making it so you didn't need 1000 people simply to run the pos's for a region would increase the number of organizations who could hold space, which would increase the number of people who are attacking space, which would help to prevent the current, single alliance holding 20 outposts across 10 regions conundrum.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:53:00 - [17] Darius, I don't think proposals for changes to Sov warfare and Outposts are what the little guy comment in the article is referring to. I'm sure that comment stemmed from Jade's support for small-gang combat, etc. As for mobile infrastructure, check out Jade's manifesto, the part I was referring to is this: Quote: Where are the cloaked pirate bases? The mobile refineries? The guerrilla resistance movements operating from converted freighters in enemy space? Smugglers and blockade runners, spies and assassins, rogue traders and loners scraping an existence from the underbelly of these empires? There should be advantages for the fixed power, but there should be options and alternatives for the mobile force. A balance needs to be rediscovered and the high level content options for Eve need to be widened and made more diverse to maintain its appeal for existing and new players. Owning sovereignty 4 and an invulnerable outpost should not be the universal endgame for every organisation in Eve. Those sorts of ideas pay needed attention to the needs and playstyle of small corps, and are likely what the "little guy" assessment was derived from.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:57:00 - [18] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 17:00:51 Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 16:57:37 Originally by: Kelsin Darius, I don't think proposals for changes to Sov warfare and Outposts are what the little guy comment in the article is referring to. I'm sure that comment stemmed from Jade's support for small-gang combat, etc. As for mobile infrastructure, check out Jade's manifesto, the part I was referring to is this: Quote: Where are the cloaked pirate bases? The mobile refineries? The guerrilla resistance movements operating from converted freighters in enemy space? Smugglers and blockade runners, spies and assassins, rogue traders and loners scraping an existence from the underbelly of these empires? There should be advantages for the fixed power, but there should be options and alternatives for the mobile force. A balance needs to be rediscovered and the high level content options for Eve need to be widened and made more diverse to maintain its appeal for existing and new players. Owning sovereignty 4 and an invulnerable outpost should not be the universal endgame for every organisation in Eve. Those sorts of ideas pay needed attention to the needs and playstyle of small corps, and are likely what the "little guy" assessment was derived from. Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up. I've also only heard it mentioned in the context of Sov warfare, and to be frank won't be reading every candidates 500 page "manifesto".
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 16:59:00 - [19] Edited by: Goumindong on 13/05/2008 17:00:17 Originally by: Kelsin Darius, I don't think proposals for changes to Sov warfare and Outposts are what the little guy comment in the article is referring to. I'm sure that comment stemmed from Jade's support for small-gang combat, etc. These are one and the same thing. Originally by: "Darius" Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up. Yes, the original intent of titans was to be mobile stations. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:04:00 - [20] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up. No you are right, that was the original intention for the Titan. I remember the prototype discussions of moving station/ships like Motherships from Homeworld etc etc. Still the Titan we have today is something that people have trained for a long time to master, and many alliances have invested a huge amount of time and effort to secure. So I don't honestly think its fair or reasonable to alter the existing ship class in a radical way that makes a mockery of player training and deployment aspiration. What we need of course is other alternatives in the Titan (class) and some of these should certainly be the mobile station style options we once heard about at the beginning of the game. On gameplay diversity and mobile infrastructure glad we're on the same page there Darius. Its a very important topic in my opinion and we definitely need alternatives to fixed sovereignty level 4 capital system stuff as an end-game aspiration for current alliance and individual effort. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Serenity Steele Dynamic Data Distribution Ministry of Information	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:04:00 - [21] Hardin, Kudos for getting an interview with Jim and promoting EVE. Even if the article is a little, Jades idea of a collective edit should fix that. Wiki anyone? ≡v≡ Strategic Maps now in Eve-Online Store
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:08:00 - [22] Originally by: Jade Constantine Still the Titan we have today is something that people have trained for a long time to master, and many alliances have invested a huge amount of time and effort to secure. So I don't honestly think its fair or reasonable to alter the existing ship class in a radical way that makes a mockery of player training and deployment aspiration. CCP has never done this for any group of players doing any type of training. There is no reason they should start now when the effect on gameplay that is had more detrimental than anything we've seen before. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:20:00 - [23] Quote: Because pretty much everything is based around POS, - attacking POS is an immense chore, and its not enough to reduce these things once, you have to do it again several days later at a time to suit the defenders in the knowledge you will be facing an uber-blob of the defenders + NAP partners a giant laggy battle of unpleasant proportions. In essence it means that every tower in 0.0 is going to be defended by a blob when it comes from reinforced mode and while yes - technically its "attackable" in the reinforcement battle its hardly "open to attack" So you would like to see POS and other structures attackable and defeatable in one attack? How does this support small corps, who spend considerable time, effort and ISK putting the POS up in the first place? We all work in different timezones, and can't be on 24 hours a day to defend our structures in space- hence the reinforced mode. This gives a corp a chance to defend its property. I'm not interested in reading your manifesto, tbh. I personally don't think its our place nor job to come up with new directions and ideas for the game- the PLAYERS will do this. Our job is to decide which of these issues has the support of the players or is important to be brought to CCP's attention. Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:22:00 - [24] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 17:24:34 Originally by: Arithron I'm not interested in reading your manifesto, tbh. Bruce Hansen (Arithron) I guess thats where we leave this part of the discussion then. Not much point you asking me to enlarge on specifics when you are on record as believing that candidates shouldn't be talking about specifics. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:25:00 - [25] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up. No you are right, that was the original intention for the Titan. I remember the prototype discussions of moving station/ships like Motherships from Homeworld etc etc. Still the Titan we have today is something that people have trained for a long time to master, and many alliances have invested a huge amount of time and effort to secure. So I don't honestly think its fair or reasonable to alter the existing ship class in a radical way that makes a mockery of player training and deployment aspiration. What we need of course is other alternatives in the Titan (class) and some of these should certainly be the mobile station style options we once heard about at the beginning of the game. On gameplay diversity and mobile infrastructure glad we're on the same page there Darius. Its a very important topic in my opinion and we definitely need alternatives to fixed sovereignty level 4 capital system stuff as an end-game aspiration for current alliance and individual effort. The only item I'd like to comment on here is that the titan itself is a mockery of player training. The introduction of an AOE death machine was ridiculous and even post nerf it's a problem when combined with other mechanics such as the const sov system and mod upgrades. I believe in early failures and it takes a set of balls to admit you were wrong. Delaying it until I can build up enough of them to abuse the mechanic even more simply because a few guys trained for something completely unbalancing isn't the wisest course of action. Personally I'd be just as happy to see the sov 4 concept go away. I'll use it while it's there and wish it wasn't. Mobile stations are a p. cool concept but need to be treated carefully as they, much like the titan, have the ability to change the entire face of the game if they are ill thought out.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:26:00 - [26] Arithron, I've gotta say - if you're going to needle a candidate on their views, the least you can do is actually read their campaign material, even if it's just skimming it. After all, if the voters are taking the time to check out the candidates you might put in something approximating the same effort.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:30:00 - [27] Originally by: Kelsin Arithron, I've gotta say - if you're going to needle a candidate on their views, the least you can do is actually read their campaign material, even if it's just skimming it. After all, if the voters are taking the time to check out the candidates you might put in something approximating the same effort. Expecting people to read something that long is a bit much. There's a happy medium in there and when that medium is found and some brevity is used to express views I'm sure more people will take the time to do so. Until then don't be surprised when nobody wants to read a mile of :words:.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:37:00 - [28] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Expecting people to read something that long is a bit much. There's a happy medium in there and when that medium is found and some brevity is used to express views I'm sure more people will take the time to do so. Until then don't be surprised when nobody wants to read a mile of :words:. Well you know, I've actually read pretty much everything the other candidates have said and every response to my thread. Maybe I'm some kind of a reading-addicted mutant but I actually quite enjoy getting a sense of what people are saying and believing in the context of Eve gameplay development Brevity absolutely has its role in face to face debate and quick answers on specific points - but that doesn't rule out the purpose of a big fat manifesto as a foundation to let people who want an in-depth understanding of a Candidate's mindset and aspirations read that from the public words. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:41:00 - [29] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Expecting people to read something that long is a bit much. There's a happy medium in there and when that medium is found and some brevity is used to express views I'm sure more people will take the time to do so. Until then don't be surprised when nobody wants to read a mile of :words:. Well you know, I've actually read pretty much everything the other candidates have said and every response to my thread. Maybe I'm some kind of a reading-addicted mutant but I actually quite enjoy getting a sense of what people are saying and believing in the context of Eve gameplay development Brevity absolutely has its role in face to face debate and quick answers on specific points - but that doesn't rule out the purpose of a big fat manifesto as a foundation to let people who want an in-depth understanding of a Candidate's mindset and aspirations read that from the public words. Oh don't get me wrong. I'm sure a big fat manifesto has its place. My only point being that by being overly long winded you can run the risk of minimizing your audience. I haven't read everything everyone's written because to be frank, I'm not sure the CSM candidates job is to write manifestos and I don't find it to be a constructive use of my time. Personal preference. If you want to write a book it's certainly not my place to insinuate that you shouldn't. I'm merely expressing that I wouldn't do it, nor if I did would I take offense to people not reading it because it's long.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:41:00 - [30] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Personally I'd be just as happy to see the sov 4 concept go away. I'll use it while it's there and wish it wasn't. Mobile stations are a p. cool concept but need to be treated carefully as they, much like the titan, have the ability to change the entire face of the game if they are ill thought out. Isn't changing the entire face of the game the idea? The main problem with titans mobile stations is that as a player ship they need to be destroyable[especially as its movable infrastructure which is basically logistics]. And as a station they need to be persistent. These are two conflicting points which cannot easily be resolved, if they can be at all. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:44:00 - [31] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 17:44:31 Originally by: Goumindong Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Personally I'd be just as happy to see the sov 4 concept go away. I'll use it while it's there and wish it wasn't. Mobile stations are a p. cool concept but need to be treated carefully as they, much like the titan, have the ability to change the entire face of the game if they are ill thought out. Isn't changing the entire face of the game the idea? The main problem with titans mobile stations is that as a player ship they need to be destroyable[especially as its movable infrastructure which is basically logistics]. And as a station they need to be persistent. These are two conflicting points which cannot easily be resolved, if they can be at all. Changing the face of the game yes. Breaking it no. Context. I was referring specifically to changing it in a bad way due to lack of proper foresight. I think the idea may be that when in motion they're different than when they've been anchored. Think transformers. POS's are destroyable yet persistent. Where's the conflict?
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:46:00 - [32] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Oh don't get me wrong. I'm sure a big fat manifesto has its place. My only point being that by being overly long winded you can run the risk of minimizing your audience. I haven't read everything everyone's written because to be frank, I'm not sure the CSM candidates job is to write manifestos and I don't find it to be a constructive use of my time. Personal preference. If you want to write a book it's certainly not my place to insinuate that you shouldn't. I'm merely expressing that I wouldn't do it, nor if I did would I take offense to people not reading it because it's long. Yeah, its not about taking offense really, end of the day people can read or not as their preference. The brief Q/A stuff has a significant role definitely. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:47:00 - [33] Well, being more vulnerable to destruction (having less HPs, less defenses, etc) could be a valid tradeoff for being mobile. Hidden bases that can pull up stakes and move to another system, but that provide a staging ground for a small force (be it pirate, insurgent, claim-jumping miners, etc) would be extremely cool, and I'm pleased some of you candidates are interested in the idea.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:48:00 - [34] Originally by: Kelsin Well, being more vulnerable to destruction (having less HPs, less defenses, etc) could be a valid tradeoff for being mobile. Hidden bases that can pull up stakes and move to another system, but that provide a staging ground for a small force (be it pirate, insurgent, claim-jumping miners, etc) would be extremely cool, and I'm pleased some of you candidates are interested in the idea. Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS?
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:58:00 - [35] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Changing the face of the game yes. Breaking it no. Context. I was referring specifically to changing it in a bad way due to lack of proper foresight. Understandable. It just didn't come across as such Quote: I think the idea may be that when in motion they're different than when they've been anchored. Think transformers. POS's are destroyable yet persistent. Where's the conflict? POS's are a corp asset and not flown by a player. POS's have set times for defense which is an onus on a group of players and not a single player. I suppose you could make them different when anchored, but why then not just not have it as a corp/alliance asset that is movable by a specific ship? That has other problems too[like what happens when you kill a titan or kill a station]. But just looking at it at a glance i don't think the transformer model to work as well as other options. Vote Goumindong for CSM
Dionisius Gallente The Circle STYX.	Posted - 2008.05.13 17:59:00 - [36] In 13 replys we can already observe the "success" of the council of stellar puppets... Originally by: Nallen 3 year playing vet with multiple accounts here. I don't know anything about any of the candidates other than their forum personas and I wont be voting. I can't help feeling CCP have gone to far to pandering to the forum superstars tbh, they made the game, they know the issues and they should fix them. Now a few people with personal bias will have influence on what the rest of us do? No thanks. And another Originally by: ps3owner haven't played EVE actively, but some other less spectacular MMOG's http://www.ogame.org for example. I must agree with Nallen. Some forum trolls are more equal than others... and the once the post the most (even if it's utter **) get to represent the masses. not a good system. the producer of the game should fix the known issues (whatever they are in this case) and that's it. the community will always vote with their feet. Another Originally by:** Nallen I think if they are to do this sucessfully, the forums should not even be included and everything should be done through the ingame. Yes. Big Yes. I knew Hardin from when he was one of the founder members of PIE with me and a few others. Im tempted to reactivate just to vote for him. Hes a top bloke. I on the other hand don't know anything about him, and the alliance I'm in have been going on fleet ops with CVA for over a year and working with them from before we even were an alliance. Just goes to show that even the most 'famous' of eve players can be total unknowns for almost everyone. Same goes for Jade, fought wars against him for months, know almost nothing about him. Here's another thing to consider, these people are big in Eve because of what they've done in the dark underbelly of Eve, 0.0. If memory serves correctly the first QER stated only 9% of the Eve player base actually exists in 0.0, the rest are in empire (secure space). So now the loudest shouters of just 9% decide content changes for the other 91%? It doesn't work for me, very 95% of the wealth, 5% of the population. There was enough of that with T2 BPO's :) On the other hand it's those very same people that kick off after every change and it is a rare thing indeed that the screaming gets much done. Perhaps CCP's sole intent is to allow that screaming before changes go in, asses if that very slim change of a change being acted upon exists and then implementing things with the caveat that the screaming should have already been done. I think there is a place for player driven development in MMO games, it is after all basically a huge ongoing QA process on a regularly patched piece of software. However I think it should be limited to the hard facts, god knows Eve players can be somewhat hardcore with their stats and maths. If a balance issue can be proven then players have every right to shout and be heard. Developers should make a change. However when it comes to opinions of how things should be done I think you're going to far to take the opinion of one as the opinion of many and act on it. Oh a personall favourite... Originally by: DaemonB 3 year vet here also. Had enough of corrupt politics :P Very productive for CCP as this arcticle gives free publicity to the game. Usefull for CCP, yes, to the players? Not really. _____________________________________ I am the destroyer of worlds and the also the cokie thief.
Goumindong Amarr Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:00:00 - [37] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Originally by: Kelsin Well, being more vulnerable to destruction (having less HPs, less defenses, etc) could be a valid tradeoff for being mobile. Hidden bases that can pull up stakes and move to another system, but that provide a staging ground for a small force (be it pirate, insurgent, claim-jumping miners, etc) would be extremely cool, and I'm pleased some of you candidates are interested in the idea. Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS? Its not really, which is probably why the idea was scrapped in the first place. [Other than the part that stuff comes with the station and not as part of a separate anchorable module] Vote Goumindong for CSM
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:01:00 - [38] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS? In my imagination, not too different from a mobile, less defended POS. Something for the small corp that can't invest in fixed territory, but wants to be able to bring some level of logistic support with them as they roam.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:10:00 - [39] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS? In my imagination, not too different from a mobile, less defended POS. Something for the small corp that can't invest in fixed territory, but wants to be able to bring some level of logistic support with them as they roam. Ok, so how's that different from a small POS? You can bring it with you, anchor it to base from, then take it away after. Use motherships or carriers to carry ships... etc. I'm not necessarily disagreeing just trying to make sure I understand.
Hardin Amarr Ordo Quaesitoris	Posted - 2008.05.13 18:23:00 - [40] Edited by: Hardin on 13/05/2008 18:24:19 Quote: The election still has 6 days to run so please get out and vote and maybe just maybe we can stop the big alliance fat-cats dominating the show and voting more defensive powers for their Outposts and Towers! :) Just interested Jade - who exactly are these big alliance fat cats you refer to in your comment? As far as I am aware no one standing for CSM is campaigning for increased defensive powers for POSes. Indeed we are all calling for changes in relation to Sov warfare. Nor is there a likelihood of big alliance 'fat-cats' dominating the show when the VAST majority of candidates do not even represent big alliances. Hell we don't even have a BoB candidate! Keep spreading the myth though! I am sure using emotive language about 'fat cats' and trying to present big alliances as scary bogeymen will get you far. Just like RL politics ----- Alliance Creation/Corp Expansion Services Advert
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 19:12:00 - [41] Edited by: Arithron on 13/05/2008 19:12:47 Quote: Doesn't follow, I'm actually opposed to POS being used for Sovereignty warfare Actually, it does follow. What you really mean is you want to split POS and other anchorable structures into two different groups, specifically those that give Sovereignty (0.0) and those that donÆt (low sec and empire structures). As far as I can make out (since I have read your threads, as I have with all other candidates and players in the CSM forums), you are wanting to see changes in the way Sovereignty works? Can I ask you how big of a percentage of players you think this will affect? Additionally, what benefit to new players and younger players (ie, less than a year old) will these changes bring about? How will it affect Empire (apart from possibly disrupting the rarer moon mineral supplies, which will go down a treat with manufacturers)? IÆd ask these questions of any player that posted such ideas in the CSM forums. I like to hear constructive arguments, both the pros and cons, before making up my mind about such issues. Quote: I guess thatÆs where we leave this part of the discussion then. Not much point you asking me to explain my stance on specific items when you are on record as believing that candidates shouldn't be talking about specific items in the first place. Actually, since these ideas are in the public domain, you should expect comment and questioning about them. I never said you shouldnÆt be talking about specific issues. I said I donÆt believe it is a candidates place to be bringing issues to the CSM. I wonÆt be proposing any topics in the CSM topic threads, as previously stated elsewhere. This is because I believe firmly that an open-mind, without preconceived ideas or agendas, is going to be the best thing for being a CSM member. ThatÆs not to say I donÆt have opinions on things, just that I think I should put aside those opinions when deciding on PLAYER ideas. Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 19:27:00 - [42] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 19:36:54 (Posted reply for Arithron on my CSM Q/A thread again :) Follow-up to Arithron CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 19:44:00 - [43] Quote: how Sovereignty gets determined and what it should actually do in the future - thats another discussion and quite complicated in its own right. If you are pushing for POS to lose the determination of sovereignty role, then its actually a pretty relevant discussion to be having. Your æfixÆ present a bigger problemàhow to determine Sovereignty that reflects the expenditure of resources/time/effort/ISK to obtain it, and gives some stability to systems. Because, even if what you assert about cartels being in control of rare moon minerals is true, unstable POS existence to mine such minerals will have a major affect on their availability, and hence their price. Quote: A significant proportion of players involved with territorial warfare in 0.0 + and generally for the better, in that sovereignty disputes should be more entertaining, and involve far more actual player on player space combat rather than player vs structure grinding of POS shields. Okay, you avoid giving numbersà.what percentage of PLAYERS do you think are involved in this significant proportion of 0.0? Do you think that the current setup of the server, and the tendency of alliances to employ large numbers of capitals, will actually make sovereignty disputes more entertaining? I must have missed your reply to my question about how Empire dwellers (a big percentage of players) will benefit from your Sov changes? Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 19:59:00 - [44] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Ok, so how's that different from a small POS? You can bring it with you, anchor it to base from, then take it away after. Use motherships or carriers to carry ships... etc. Not terribly different - I could see it being like a small POS that is cyno-jump capable, or a Rorqual/Mothership with manufacturing and hangar bays, but less offensive capability. It's true that the tools are almost there, but they're undeveloped and unwieldy. Additionally, I think it's a perfectly valid point to say that players invested in territory holding alliances won't be as interested in asking CCP about options for small corp nomadic style gameplay as an alternative to fixed infrastructure. Everyone has their particular area of interest in the game and it would be nice if the CSM consisted of people with knowledge of and passion for different aspects of the game.
Jade Constantine Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 20:00:00 - [45] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 20:01:02 I think you know where to look for my reply by now Arithron ... Q/A sessions for the Q/A thread please. CSM Election Manifesto 2008
Arithron Gallente Gallente Trade Alliance	Posted - 2008.05.13 20:07:00 - [46] For the benefit of voters, who are started to get annoyed with the thread hopping to follow Jade's replies, I have posted my follow-ups on her thread... Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron)
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 20:58:00 - [47] Originally by: Arithron For the benefit of voters, who are started to get annoyed with the thread hopping to follow Jade's replies, I have posted my follow-ups on her thread... Take care, Bruce Hansen (Arithron) It's a way to bump the thread within the rules I imagine. I'm a fat cat though just tryin' to keep the little guys down.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 21:00:00 - [48] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Darius JOHNSON Ok, so how's that different from a small POS? You can bring it with you, anchor it to base from, then take it away after. Use motherships or carriers to carry ships... etc. Not terribly different - I could see it being like a small POS that is cyno-jump capable, or a Rorqual/Mothership with manufacturing and hangar bays, but less offensive capability. It's true that the tools are almost there, but they're undeveloped and unwieldy. Additionally, I think it's a perfectly valid point to say that players invested in territory holding alliances won't be as interested in asking CCP about options for small corp nomadic style gameplay as an alternative to fixed infrastructure. Everyone has their particular area of interest in the game and it would be nice if the CSM consisted of people with knowledge of and passion for different aspects of the game. I'm actually a territory holding alliance CEO and I'm extremely interested in alternatives to high volumes of fixed infrastructure. Your assumption is incorrect. Simply because large spaceholding alliances have the CAPABILITY to hold large sections of space, doesn't mean we want to. I've seen the end game, that doesn't mean I enjoy it.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.05.13 21:49:00 - [49] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm actually a territory holding alliance CEO and I'm extremely interested in alternatives to high volumes of fixed infrastructure. Your assumption is incorrect. Simply because large spaceholding alliances have the CAPABILITY to hold large sections of space, doesn't mean we want to. I've seen the end game, that doesn't mean I enjoy it. Fair enough, but that still doesn't make it unreasonable for a voter to identify with a candidate who shares their playstyle - or for that candidate to make his or her pitch to those same players. But I didn't mean to derail the derail - I'm happy to see candidates talking about these ideas, and hope that alternatives to fixed infrastructure make it onto the discussion table at the CSM.
Darius JOHNSON GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.05.13 21:57:00 - [50] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm actually a territory holding alliance CEO and I'm extremely interested in alternatives to high volumes of fixed infrastructure. Your assumption is incorrect. Simply because large spaceholding alliances have the CAPABILITY to hold large sections of space, doesn't mean we want to. I've seen the end game, that doesn't mean I enjoy it. Fair enough, but that still doesn't make it unreasonable for a voter to identify with a candidate who shares their playstyle - or for that candidate to make his or her pitch to those same players. But I didn't mean to derail the derail - I'm happy to see candidates talking about these ideas, and hope that alternatives to fixed infrastructure make it onto the discussion table at the CSM. I would simply like to add that I wouldn't assume that because a candidate belongs to a large alliance they play the way you think they do. Goonfleet at least has groups within the corporation who serve different needs and operate the way they prefer. Some of those groups exist specifically for small gang fights.

Pages: 1 2 :: [one 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.