EVE Search - [Issue] Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Assembly Hall

[Issue] Specific Proposal for 0.0 Sovereignty Revamp

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.18 02:06:00 - [31] Originally by: Lieutenant Isis Originally by: Kelsin For more discussion There has already been talk of the interaction of the Cynojammer and the Jump Bridge - should they be mutually exclusive? Only mutually exclusive in regards to capships? Perhaps allow a non-cap ship sized jump bridge, then make cynojammers and "Capital" Jump bridges exclusive. This allows defending gangs to roam easier and prevents one side from having a capital blob while another is forced to use conventional ships If you're going to do it that way, just have "Jump Bridge" = subcapital, and use a cyno generator module for capital movement. They can jump already, just need to give them a target. And of course, cynogens and cynojams would be mutually exclusive. ------------------ Fix the forums!
BlondieBC 7th Tribal Legion	Posted - 2008.07.18 08:42:00 - [32] I like this idea. I think that doing exploration sites should also fit into sovereignty benefits. I find the plexes in Faction warfare very enjoyable, and would like to see this in 0.0. The big thing is to reduce POS sieges. Sieging a POS is like watching paint dry.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.18 16:02:00 - [33] I would also like to potentially flesh this out with some improvements to POS logistics to compensate for the reduced importance of POS in the overall territory warfare picture. Please toss some ideas my way about what might tie into this system that would make fueling etc. less of a grind.
Toman Jerich Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.18 22:39:00 - [34] Deploying a POS in a system should require the deploying organization to have captured 100% of the stargates in that system. This will reduce the number of POS that people will feel the need to deploy to hold sov. Less POS deployed means less of a logistic burden. Basically, every POS should have a productive purpose: mining, research, or production. Not to be a big sov-holding gunned-out deathstar that does nothing but stake a claim and eat fuel.
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.19 03:34:00 - [35] Originally by: Kelsin I would also like to potentially flesh this out with some improvements to POS logistics to compensate for the reduced importance of POS in the overall territory warfare picture. Please toss some ideas my way about what might tie into this system that would make fueling etc. less of a grind. Two things come to mind. One, this proposal largely eliminates the need for death stars, meaning that said death stars don't need to be fueled. Two, fuel pellets. I don't fuel POSes, so I can't say much more definitively, but it seems like those two would reduce a lot of the burden. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.21 12:01:00 - [36] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto Two things come to mind. One, this proposal largely eliminates the need for death stars, meaning that said death stars don't need to be fueled. Two, fuel pellets. I don't fuel POSes, so I can't say much more definitively, but it seems like those two would reduce a lot of the burden. Someone posted an idea in the minutes for this topic about a structure that would take care of or help with POS fueling. We could add a Supply Depot structure to this - maybe that would allow you to keep a large supply of fuel in a central location in system, and drones could ferry it out to all your POS in system as needed? Then the drones and the Supply Depot could be a target for raiders to attack, but if your territory is secure it dramatically lessens your need to refuel. Anyone more familiar with POS logistics that can tell me if that would be helpful?
NanDe YaNen The Funkalistic	Posted - 2008.07.21 14:37:00 - [37] The idea looks to be headed in the right direction. I like more objectives with more volatility for individual objectives. The relationship that needs to change to make the sov changes really have impact is that whatever minor goals are put into place need to have diminishing returns for both the attacker and defender. That's how you make it where ten pilots in ten gangs are more advantageous than a hundred guys in one fleet. What comes to mind in 5s when I think of this kind of thing is a more DoD type scenario. Gates operate like flags. Getting there in a Domi and pounding on the objective for an hour with drones will get the job done. A few pilots can do it faster. A lot of pilots can't do it better, especially when they could be hitting other objectives. Not suggesting specific mechanics, just that whatever objectives are in place need to be more numerous and more volatile, while still remaining tied to a low volatility buffer that prevents timezone issues. The current system is for a few POS's (which should be serving starbase roles, not sov roles) to be in low numbers and have low volatility. They also serve as skirmish points and timezone buffers. Thus all activity is centered around the POS's, which also serve as death stars, and so only blobs with capships are really important in sovereignty contests.
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.22 15:08:00 - [38] Originally by: Toman Jerich Deploying a POS in a system should require the deploying organization to have captured 100% of the stargates in that system. This will reduce the number of POS that people will feel the need to deploy to hold sov. Less POS deployed means less of a logistic burden. Basically, every POS should have a productive purpose: mining, research, or production. Not to be a big sov-holding gunned-out deathstar that does nothing but stake a claim and eat fuel. Exactly, I expect that under this system the POS will be used for practical purposes rather than for territory control itself, so they'll only be set up for industry and base of operations purposes instead of as sov-holders.
Hilder G.E.A.R.	Posted - 2008.07.22 16:47:00 - [39] Nice proposal that moves broadly in the right direction. I share some of the concerns over certain details, but with a bit more balancing this should work
Kazuma Saruwatari	Posted - 2008.07.27 10:22:00 - [40] Edited by: Kazuma Saruwatari on 27/07/2008 10:24:45 The idea of committing forces to try and contest a stargate is indeed required. The idea of disabling warp drives of the gang/s involved in stargate capture is very very good. It is both commitment-inducing and a great way to get some small-gang PvP, something I believe everyone wants. The idea of having the timer based on ship sizes is not as attractive. Also, having 10 ships as a number to induce stargate capture is a bit on the high side. Smaller gangs are faster, and can hit many more gates all at once, and less numbers scattered across more nodes = less lag. Perhaps the timer could be based not on ship sizes, but the amounts of ships in the gang that interfaces with the stargate to induce the Contested status. 5 Ships could take as long as 1 hour to induce Contested status, whilst 10 ships could cause contested status in as little as 30 mins. Any more and you could have penalties like the timer taking far longer than 1 hour... This would indeed give both the Attacker and Defender incentive not to field too many units, but just enough so that the timer penalties for having too many ships would be reduced. It is also a good limiter on blobbing, thus, less lag, more pewpew. Also, I've just thought of the resource required to capture stargates: Soldiers! We have them in the market, they're available from NPC's, and they're currently used for fluff. Why not put those grunts to work? This would also go hand-in-hand well with any other plans CCP has for Ambulation, being able to watch your soldiers, and/or command them in an RTS format aboard a capturable ship/station. 2mil isk in. -

Sykes Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.27 11:14:00 - [41] Supported.
Jeirth Republic Military School	Posted - 2008.07.27 14:05:00 - [42] Supported if it could be done in such a way as to be timezone neutral.
MirrorGod Heretic Militia	Posted - 2008.07.27 15:59:00 - [43] I'm interested in any mechanic alike to factional warfare which discourages blobbing through the general idea that different zones or even just tasks can be completed only by certain shiptypes, which in FW is Minor: T1 frigs, Destroyers Medium: T2 frigs, T1 cruisers, below Major: T1 BC, T2 cruiser, below Unrestricted: Everything I can't tell you how excellent this works to divide blobs, both my own and hostile, to fight in more of a skirmish/small gang manner which of course results in less lag. Oft my gangs will be among 3 or sometimes more plex's and will net a good ammount of kills in the process. Ofcourse, NPC plex's aren't needed in low-sec, and implentation in a serious manner requires mor detail than I care to investigate here. But the simple idea that large gangs are given incentive to divide and be more mobile is brilliant. Save Small Gang Warfare
Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.07.28 14:58:00 - [44] As this is up for discussion by the CSM in their next meeting on Sunday, please chime in with any feedback or ideas.
Fahtim Meidires GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:55:00 - [45] Originally by: MirrorGod I'm interested in any mechanic alike to factional warfare which discourages blobbing through the general idea that different zones or even just tasks can be completed only by certain shiptypes, which in FW is Minor: T1 frigs, Destroyers Medium: T2 frigs, T1 cruisers, below Major: T1 BC, T2 cruiser, below Unrestricted: Everything I can't tell you how excellent this works to divide blobs, both my own and hostile, to fight in more of a skirmish/small gang manner which of course results in less lag. Oft my gangs will be among 3 or sometimes more plex's and will net a good ammount of kills in the process. Ofcourse, NPC plex's aren't needed in low-sec, and implentation in a serious manner requires mor detail than I care to investigate here. But the simple idea that large gangs are given incentive to divide and be more mobile is brilliant. Tactical Arrays could be restricted by ship class. Alliances would be given (some) freedom over which size they want to build. Minor TA has no requirements. Medium TA requires 1 Minor in system. Major TA requires 2 Minor or 1 Medium. Unrestricted requires 1 Major, 2 Medium, 1 Med 1 Minor, or Three Minors. This system forces smaller complexes. The defending alliance would have access to them, attackers would need to scan them out. The defending alliance can make all 5 TA small sized to force a frigate assault, but would only be able to defend with frigs. The larger the TA, the more resources required but also more defenses can be added. Construction would take place by first dropping off the acceleration gate, then moving construction materials through that gate (industrials can use all gates). Freightors can only go in unrestricted, making those TA the most heavily defended but also the most vulnerable. I have a feeling the occupancy system was a trial run for 0.0 mechanics, so it makes sense to look at how the current FW mechanics can be transferred. Also, great work OP!
Darius JOHNSON	Posted - 2008.08.01 19:37:00 - [46] Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 01/08/2008 19:37:56 I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space. I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit. Originally by: Jade Constantine You might be a big man on the internets Darius but prepare to be laughed at quite a lot in Europe. -- Illaria's CSM
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:10:00 - [47] Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts?
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:12:00 - [48] Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? because the chair of the CSM like to abuse his power?
Zareph Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:14:00 - [49] where's the thumbs down. This is a horrible idea. While all answers are replies, not all replies are answers.
facialimpediment Amarr GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:14:00 - [50] Edited by: facialimpediment on 01/08/2008 20:14:42 Chances are that the people demanding a 0.0 revamp are the people that would never survive 5 minutes in 0.0, much less have actually been in 0.0. Shocking development. If you're going to demand a thorough revamp of 0.0, ask the people that live in 0.0 about how it currently functions, rather than a group of people that have absolutely no idea how it actually functions. I stopped playing Counterstrike for a reason and if this capture the flag in space nonsense goes through, the sound you'll be hearing is the massive amount of 0.0-player subscriptions being canceled because empire people didn't know what they were talking about and broke the 0.0 game.

Kelsin Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:16:00 - [51] Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space. I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit. I don't disagree. But I think there's an important difference between "win this mini-game and you own this space" and "exert control over important locations to reap a benefit from them". I also think the counterstrike-in-space or capture-the-flag analogies are weak in general and certainly don't apply here. The principal concept at work with the Stargate Capture portion of the proposal is that one of the building blocks of sovereignty is exerting control over borders and routes of travel within your space. In the absence of that control, the assertion of sovereignty is harder to make. In game terms what it really comes down to is - if you have enemy gangs infiltrating your territory undisputed, can that territory really be said to be yours? To specifically address the "1000 stargates a day" question: Keep in mind that recapturing is only necessary when a gate has been contested. So the amount of recapturing a defender would have to do would be directly related to the number of enemy gangs they allow to roam through their space. In addition, the specific times involved can be adjusted to tweak how long it takes to disrupt a defender's control - maybe Stargates need to have a 48 hour Contested period instead of 24 hours, to give Defenders more time to respond, etc. I do think the strength of the overall proposal is that sovereignty becomes a more modular affair that includes POS warfare as well as establishing military infrastructure outside of POSes and general patrols and gate control, so it more realistically models all the things a territorial power needs to do to hold on to their space rather than making it about just one thing.
Dramaticus GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:18:00 - [52] of all the mindless shit in 0.0 we're forced to deal with, you want to play capture the flag now with stargates. Please don't use RL pictuers of players in Sig without permission. - WeatherMan
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:19:00 - [53] Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:21:00 - [54] Originally by: Kelsin Originally by: Darius JOHNSON I'm against any form of "capture the flag in space". This is Eve not Counterstrike. While I welcome the discussion of any ideas regarding improvements to 0.0 they should be creative and within reason. Nobody is going to want to play capture the flag on 1000 gates every single day. If you want to play capture the flag join factional warfare. While there aren't many in 0.0 completely happy with the status quo I don't see anyone racing to play capture the flag in FW either and abandoning their space. I'll read the proposal again and give it significantly more thought, but here's a counterthought for you in the meantime. 0.0 is hard. Building a corp that is capable of holding it is hard. It's supposed to be that way. It's not going to be everybody's bag and MANY of you are going to fail at it or be incapable. It's a reward not a birthright. There's nothing about Eve that entitles you to 0.0. Perhaps I could offer some more suggestions regarding gate control which are more reasonable once I've digested it a bit. I don't disagree. But I think there's an important difference between "win this mini-game and you own this space" and "exert control over important locations to reap a benefit from them". I also think the counterstrike-in-space or capture-the-flag analogies are weak in general and certainly don't apply here. The principal concept at work with the Stargate Capture portion of the proposal is that one of the building blocks of sovereignty is exerting control over borders and routes of travel within your space. In the absence of that control, the assertion of sovereignty is harder to make. In game terms what it really comes down to is - if you have enemy gangs infiltrating your territory undisputed, can that territory really be said to be yours? To specifically address the "1000 stargates a day" question: Keep in mind that recapturing is only necessary when a gate has been contested. So the amount of recapturing a defender would have to do would be directly related to the number of enemy gangs they allow to roam through their space. In addition, the specific times involved can be adjusted to tweak how long it takes to disrupt a defender's control - maybe Stargates need to have a 48 hour Contested period instead of 24 hours, to give Defenders more time to respond, etc. I do think the strength of the overall proposal is that sovereignty becomes a more modular affair that includes POS warfare as well as establishing military infrastructure outside of POSes and general patrols and gate control, so it more realistically models all the things a territorial power needs to do to hold on to their space rather than making it about just one thing. Why do you want this change to go through? As we all know star fraction isn't a 0.0 entity and you've sunk down to mercenaries by wardeccing goonswarm. Your CEO Jade constantine and our CEO darius johnson are both CSM delegates. Do you think this is something a guy his JC's position should be doing?
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:21:00 - [55] Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare.
Jade Constantine	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:23:00 - [56] Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? Star Fraction \| Dare to Dream!
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:23:00 - [57] Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. But guys, guys I wardecced you I count for something
Nevada Tan	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:26:00 - [58] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT WALL OF TEXT PS: Schild says hi. ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ I have done a bad thing.
HCIChicken	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:26:00 - [59] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? How about you explain why you thought wardeccing another CSM's alliance was a good idea? I don't usually read this shit forum, so I don't know if you've tried to justify your decision.
Aprudena Gist GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.08.01 20:27:00 - [60] Originally by: Jade Constantine Originally by: Aprudena Gist Originally by: Jade Constantine Edited by: Jade Constantine on 01/08/2008 20:19:25 Originally by: HCIChicken Point this out if I missed it by why is this getting priority over other discussions when it's from the corp one of the CSM's and he has less than 30 supports most of them from his own corp and his own alts? CCP asked us for vision, this is vision. And remember there is no obligation for CSM delegates to ensure that X levels of support are present in the threads they advocate whatsoever. All it needs is that the issue thread must have stood for public debate for 7 days and that a delegate is prepared to document the issue and present it the rest of the CSM for a formal vote. I think you'll find this weekend a couple of other issues with similar levels of support on the "vision" tag - such as Bane's titan concept/carrier discussion. Neither of them have overwhelming public support but they are vision issues and Bane has a perfect right to bring them up for vote to see if they go on the agenda. End of the day Darius and I will probably be disagreeing on the sovereignty revamp proposal but thats cool, its why we have delegates from all sides of the community and it'll come down to voting on sunday to see if the CSM is prepared to collectively endorse or not. So lets quit it with questioning the "right" for CSM delegates to advocate issues as they see fit please. Ultimately its what we were elected to do (promote issues from our parts of the community and specialist experience) and the safety valve is that we need to convince 5/9 fellow CSMs to get this stuff further. I'm personally very happy with the discussion that has gone on in this thread so far and consider the proposal represents a positive direction for sovereignty warfare in Eve and I'd love to present it to the development team in its current form for further discussion and detailed balancing. How about you leave 0.0 warfare to those who actually participate in 0.0 warfare. How about you leave this thread to discuss the topic in the op? I already said its crap what more do you want to me say? "His" vision is way to specific to mean anything it should be a very general statement something along these kinds of lines. The Current Sovereignty Mechanics with pos warfare are antiquated and should be changed. The only reason to hold space to get access to moon's there should be more benefits to owning space.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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