open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM6] Ripard Teg for CSM
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4

Author Topic

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.12 20:21:00 - [1]
 

I am Ripard Teg, running for CSM6.
This CSM needs serious candidates to keep the momentum from CSM5 going. I am a three-year EVE player with broad experience in game, but I also have a strong RL business and communications background. CCP will take me seriously, and I'll take my responsibility to bring them your concerns seriously. I ask for your vote.

Why do I want to serve on the sixth CSM?
Because I love EVE Online and I don't want CCP to break the game we love trying to expand its audience with Incarna. I am excited about Incarna, but it needs to be introduced in a way that respects us: CCP's current customers. Why now? Because CSM5 did a fantastic job opening the door for communications with CCP, and I want to keep that momentum going.

Who do I represent?
I've been playing EVE for three years plus. In that time, I've been a miner and a mission-runner. I understand and do industry and invention. I was in faction warfare for six months (so I know how badly it's broken). I've lived in a WH. I teach PvP classes and I FC. I'm in the thick of 0.0 sov warfare. I understand a lot of different EVE players, because I've been where you are. Ultimately, I represent all EVE players, not just the ones that play the way I do.

What do I bring to the party?
Make no mistake: being on the CSM is a job! I will take that job seriously and will commit to doing it well. I have a very strong real-world business and communications background in the IT industry. In essence, I'm a professional negotiator. But I've also been a gamer for more than 20 years, and have represented player concerns before, as a consultant and a play-tester for RPG/miniature war game companies. I'm not going to Iceland for LOLs. CCP will take me seriously.

What changes or issues will I champion?
My first duty is to bring CCP your concerns and suggestions. There are already a ton of these, and I will hold CCP accountable to see this list is worked on, and their agreements with previous CSMs are honored. However, some personal goals that I will push for:
  • Iterative development! CCP currently has a dev team called "Team Best Friends Forever" fixing easy bugs, issues, and suggestions. It's a good first step, and they've made a few important fixes. But there are so many issues that this team could be fixing, both now and in the future. I will work with CCP to encourage them to make this team permanent and expand its scope. CCP needs to keep their past promises to us. Like treaties. Like fixes to faction warfare. Like bounty-hunting. Like some love for freakin' low-sec. It's time!

  • Let players have more control! We're an enthusiastic bunch. Given the chance, I think many of the problems in EVE could be solved by the players. More contests to design (and redesign!) ships. Contests to design clothes or environments for Incarna. More functionality and openness for the API, for industry, market, corps, and couriers. The designers of Capsuleer should not have to beg CCP for a year just to get the tools they need to help other EVE Online players.

  • Smite anything that is not fun! Ratting and plexing and mining and wormholing is one thing. We all need ISK, and that's how we get it. But so many things in EVE are simply not fun. Like anchoring and on-lining POSs. Like swapping bookmarks. Like having to move 30 jumps with 15 ships and 20 cans just because you want to join a new corp. EVE is a game! It should be fun. Anything that is not fun should be mercilessly crushed.

I ask for your vote!
I will use a position on CSM6 to bring CCP your concerns. I want to make EVE Online the best game it can be. Please give me your vote.

More information:
Jester's Trek, my blog, wherein I ramble about EVE Online and my run for CSM6.
Follow me on Twitter as I document my run.

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.12 20:24:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Ripard Teg on 13/03/2011 05:59:22
Edited by: Ripard Teg on 10/03/2011 08:54:55

I am one of three candidates endorsed by Mynxee, Chair of CSM5. Thank you, Mynxee!

I am the only candidate endorsed by Marcel Devereux, the developer of Aura for Android phones. Thank you, Marcel!

I am part of the slate of nine candidates endorsed by EVE Tribune. Thanks, guys!


Questions, below:
  • How do I feel about bots? I am not a bot-user, and I feel that bots are a cancer upon EVE that needs to be crushed. However, I am very open to player suggestions as to how to do it. I've made one suggestion, below, that might be a good way to address chaining bots. I don't currently buy the theory that CCP could destroy all the bots if they wanted to, and they just don't want to (though if someone has evidence to the contrary, show me Wink).

  • What are my ideas for low-sec? I've written a long post about it below, but in general, of the ideas bandied around for low-sec, I really like the idea of low-sec being a smuggling and pirate mission haven. If I had my way, all the pirate mission agents would be moved to low-sec.

  • What is my position on micro-transactions? I own the toon named "No Microtransactions". That's my default position on the issue. However, if CCP must include MTs in EVE, then I would insist that they be for vanity items only. No (more) in-game advantages just because you can buy them.

Hawk TT
Caldari
Bulgarian Experienced Crackers
Posted - 2011.02.14 16:54:00 - [3]
 

+1 - decent and balanced "platform", well structured presentation.

The whole campaign should be highlighted, on a separate page or something or at least with sticky forum topics...

Good Luck!

Eden Love
Posted - 2011.02.14 20:44:00 - [4]
 

How is your view on macros and bots?

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.15 10:35:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Eden Love
How is your view on macros and bots?


I doubt he has any beyond "Bots are bad" or he would have mentioned it. Laughing

Roc Wieler
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2011.02.15 14:58:00 - [6]
 

Good luck in your campaign.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.15 15:09:00 - [7]
 

Good luck in your quest for a seat on CSM6. From our discussions, I think you have the right mindset and would be a productive CSM member.

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.16 01:40:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Hawk TT
+1 - decent and balanced "platform", well structured presentation.

Thanks. Smile If you have any questions for me, throw them out there.

Originally by: Mynxee
Good luck in your quest for a seat on CSM6. From our discussions, I think you have the right mindset and would be a productive CSM member.

Thanks, Mynxee. Your support and endorsement mean the world to me.

Originally by: Eden Love
How is your view on macros and bots?

tl;dr version: Bots are a cancer on EVE and need to be wiped out.

Longer version: campaign promises aside, I don't believe that the CSM can actually do anything about bots and botting. The current CSM has been presented with CCP's bot-fighting strategies, and those discussions are under NDA. But if I'm selected for CSM6 and I hear those strategies, I will listen to them with an ear toward both killing bots and protecting actual players. A lot of bot-fighting strategies hurt honest players just trying to make ISK.

An idea that occured to me that I'd love to get feedback on, though: the really scary player pirates don't hunt in lonely 0.0 systems in the middle of nowhere. They hunt in systems with a lot of traffic in them. So, rather than have officer spawns appear according to sec status, I think it'd be interesting to have them appear in crowded 0.0 systems instead. Base it on the number of people that pass through that system during the previous 48 hours. That'd make it a lot more likely that officers would appear in PF-346 (sec status -0.35) than they would in PXF-RF (sec status -1.0).

With no officers in those deep uninhabited systems, the reason for some of the botting there would go away. What do you think?

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.16 18:53:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Ripard Teg


With no officers in those deep uninhabited systems, the reason for some of the botting there would go away. What do you think?
I think you have no idea how ludacrisly profitable botting is. If there aren't any officers, they will do normal battleships, if there aren't any normal battleships they will do battlecruisers, if there aren't any rats at all, they will run mining bots, if there aren't any roids, they will use market bots.

The point is: there is so little effort in botting since it is almost a completely automated thing, that they will be used even if you slash the income of botter to 10% of what it is now in some way. Even at 10%, your one bot (most pro botters run multiple though I reckon, I know I would if I was one) will most likely earn WAY more than a really active player. And even if it was only half the income of an active player, they would still run the bots cuz the effort/reward ratio would still be insanely good.

You are not going to get rid of botters by trying to take away the incentive. As long as botting will just net you a t1 cruiser a week, botting will be done.

Nofi, but your view on bots seems to be nothing more than I already stated in this thread earlier: it does not really go beyond "Bots are bad, m'kay."....

Bots need to be dealt with in two ways:
1) agressivly hunt them down, CCP has the monitoring capabillities to do so or the resources to MAKE those.
2) Through their own software, it should be less bot friendly. Many other games have anti-botting/cheating software that is highly effective.


Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2011.02.16 20:07:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Ripard Teg

tl;dr version: Bots are a cancer on EVE and need to be wiped out.

Longer version: campaign promises aside, I don't believe that the CSM can actually do anything about bots and botting. The current CSM has been presented with CCP's bot-fighting strategies, and those discussions are under NDA. But if I'm selected for CSM6 and I hear those strategies, I will listen to them with an ear toward both killing bots and protecting actual players. A lot of bot-fighting strategies hurt honest players just trying to make ISK.

An idea that occured to me that I'd love to get feedback on, though: the really scary player pirates don't hunt in lonely 0.0 systems in the middle of nowhere. They hunt in systems with a lot of traffic in them. So, rather than have officer spawns appear according to sec status, I think it'd be interesting to have them appear in crowded 0.0 systems instead. Base it on the number of people that pass through that system during the previous 48 hours. That'd make it a lot more likely that officers would appear in PF-346 (sec status -0.35) than they would in PXF-RF (sec status -1.0).

With no officers in those deep uninhabited systems, the reason for some of the botting there would go away. What do you think?


Ripard. You seem to be a decent chap with a lot of drive, vision and knowledge of the game. But you're pretty clueless about The Bot.

The CSM can't do much about The Bot, in much the same way that it can't do much about anything. It can apply pressure and raise an all mighty ****storm if need be on any subject if CCP refuse to budge, but I digress.

Officers appearing in more 'crowded' systems may well see a fairer share of real people getting to enjoy those phat loots. Given the (as yet undocumented) improvements to officers it could be that these almighty pirate lords become something of an NPC anti bot device, although no doubt the software will evolve to the point where they are avoided. A conservative estimate would put botted income at around 30 mil per hour just for normal rats and not including loot or salvage. 12 hours a day and you have enough for a PLEX, anything over and above that is pure profit. Even if you can lower this amount as long as The Bot can provide a reasonable return given the investment it will still function.

There's also the issue of the drone regions. By all accounts one of the most heavily botted areas of the game where there are no officers and commander spawns are hardly worth the extra ammunition investment in terms of loot.

I agree with the chap above me. If CCP have the means to detect The Bot then they should be pressured into employing them more rather than just targeting obvious RMTers (although day by day the RMT trade is becoming smarter, and, I fear staying one step ahead of the GMs. The RMT trade has been running Micro Transactions long before CCP even considered them), given the lack of updates I can only assume that the steam has run out of the Unholy Rage initiative. If they don't have the means then they should be pressured into investing some time and money into creating them.

The Bot is not just limited to the depths of 0.0. It infests all facets of Eve, right to the heart of the Jita market. It hurts all of us, from the industrialist to the PVPer. Rooting it out in a controlled manner which doesn't damage the economy will be no easy task but it is one that I hope you will take up if you're elected.

I'd also like to know which anti bot strategies you think have been seriously suggested and considered which hurt normal players?

Apologies for length.

Redempt
Sturmgrenadier Inc
Sturmgrenadier Syndicate
Posted - 2011.02.17 00:54:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Redempt on 17/02/2011 00:58:00
Having flown with him in the past, I believe that he has the charisma and education to make a difference on the CSM.

In regards to the bots currently plaguing eve, I believe that in order to combat the sickness effectively, you must alter the dynamics of how a bots successfully function. Such as changing the static nature of asteroid belts to be more akin to gravimetric sites, or adding a heat element which turns the mining lasers off at random intervals. Things that would add degrees of variability, whilst not causing much more inconvenience to the active player. While these are not the complete answers, paving the way for much needed discussions, and not trolling, on the topic of bot prevention, will help lead to an answer in the future.

My contemplations aside, vote Ripard Teg for CSM6!!

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.17 08:16:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Ripard. You seem to be a decent chap with a lot of drive, vision and knowledge of the game. But you're pretty clueless about The Bot.

Other than the people who run them, who isn't? Wink j/k Seriously, if the bot problem were easy, it would have been solved long ago.

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
I agree with the chap above me. If CCP have the means to detect The Bot then they should be pressured into employing them more rather than just targeting obvious RMTers...

I agree with you, and I'd love to hear suggestions on both, how to deal with bots, or how the CSM could bring additional pressure on CCP on this issue. I'm glad to hear you think the one suggestion I have in this area has some merit. That's one way I think bots can be combated: by addressing the motivation. I know that chaining bots are one of the most popular types. I agree with both you and Dirk that it doesn't address basic ratting bots or mining bots or any other type of bot, but you have to start somewhere! One of your own suggestions was to evolve the PvE content to make it harder to automate, and I think that's also a good idea, though a lot more complicated from a dev stand-point.

I'm not sure I believe that CCP has a magic wand that would eliminate bots that they can use, but they just choose not to. I'd want to see some evidence of that, but try me: I'm willing to be convinced.

Originally by: Larkonis Trassler
Rooting it out in a controlled manner which doesn't damage the economy will be no easy task but it is one that I hope you will take up if you're elected.

I'd love to hear player suggestions on how to address it. I think that's the key role the CSM can play on this one, is collecting player ideas and putting them before CCP.

Originally by: Redempt
Having flown with him in the past, I believe that he has the charisma and education to make a difference on the CSM.

Thanks, Redempt, LTNS. Your support means a lot to me. Smile

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:32:00 - [13]
 

You don't solve the bot problem by just 'starting somewhere'. They will just move away to another part of the game. If you can crack mining bots, they will move to ratting or market bots or invent some other way to make money with bots.

You need to crack down HARD on ALL forms of botting and cheating. A full blown assault, nothing else is going to dimminish the bot problem.

CCP banning ppl for 23 hours for instance is not a full blown assault.... I've been researching the bot issue a bit lately and it seems that that is your basic punishment for running a bot, if you get punished in the first place. Yup, that's really gonna stop the major 0.0 alliances and RM-traders running their bots....


Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.17 09:48:00 - [14]
 

Ho, and Ripard, I just wan't to say I'm not here to pick on you specifically or something. I'm just an average joe who is miffed about all the botting while I'm trying to play the game fairly.

It's just that the average CSM-member/candidate is either clueless about botting, doesn't care or is completely fine with it.

Of course, nobody will admit to that last part but tons of ppl are fine with it cuz they do it themselves or profit from them indirectly cuz it funds their alliances for instance. Alliances don't even have to run them themselves, renting out space to botters and turning a blind eye "I had NO idea! Honestly!" is also profiting from them.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.17 14:28:00 - [15]
 

Just so you know, this issue is not being ignored by the CSM or CCP. At this moment, there is ongoing discussion in the internal CSM forums about the problem of botting.

As always, we are encouraging CCP to communicate with the community on the matter. It is clear they plan to do so. While it may be comforting for some to see "we've got it covered" messages in dev blogs, CCP clearly wants to provide more meaningful information than that to reassure the community about actions it is taking. Messages of that type require a certain amount of progress on various fronts to happen first.

So...just know, the issue of botting is not being ignored, and CSM6 will hopefully be able to continue the discussions productively.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.17 15:30:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Just so you know, this issue is not being ignored by the CSM or CCP. At this moment, there is ongoing discussion in the internal CSM forums about the problem of botting.

As always, we are encouraging CCP to communicate with the community on the matter. It is clear they plan to do so. While it may be comforting for some to see "we've got it covered" messages in dev blogs, CCP clearly wants to provide more meaningful information than that to reassure the community about actions it is taking. Messages of that type require a certain amount of progress on various fronts to happen first.

So...just know, the issue of botting is not being ignored, and CSM6 will hopefully be able to continue the discussions productively.


Well, I still want to know the vision of CSM members on how to combat botting and how much of an effort they want CCP to make. There is a big difference between a GM sometimes banning bots for 1 day when they get petioned by players and CCP actively hunting them down and making software changes on a regular basis to twart botting.

When I hear alliance members admitting they use bots and shrug off petitions cuz "you only get a 24 hour ban at worse anyway and they won't touch your other accounts" that sure as hell does not sound like CCP 'has things covered'. They've got **** covered and to the general public it even looks like they more or less condone botting. Hell I'd be surprised if not at least SOME CCP-employees are turning a blind eye on purpose and/or are linked to botting/RMT themselves. They are only human and emotions like greed and envy live in all of us.

And the lack of communication on the issue is disturbing too. I imagine if CCP released numbers on the impact bots are having on the economy public outcry would be tremendous. Still we deserve to know stuff like that.

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.19 07:57:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Ripard Teg on 19/02/2011 07:57:34
Originally by: Dirk Decibel
Ho, and Ripard, I just wan't to say I'm not here to pick on you specifically or something. I'm just an average joe who is miffed about all the botting while I'm trying to play the game fairly.

It's just that the average CSM-member/candidate is either clueless about botting, doesn't care or is completely fine with it.

Don't worry about that. I don't feel picked on. Wink I'm right there in the boat with you. With my market alt, I'm fighting a market bot every day, so I totally get your frustrations and share them. I bring up a way to deal with one type of bot because that's how I solve insanely complex problems IRL: one step at a time.

What do you think would be a good solution to the botting problem?

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.21 11:10:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Ripard Teg
Edited by: Ripard Teg on 19/02/2011 07:57:34
Originally by: Dirk Decibel
Ho, and Ripard, I just wan't to say I'm not here to pick on you specifically or something. I'm just an average joe who is miffed about all the botting while I'm trying to play the game fairly.

It's just that the average CSM-member/candidate is either clueless about botting, doesn't care or is completely fine with it.

Don't worry about that. I don't feel picked on. Wink I'm right there in the boat with you. With my market alt, I'm fighting a market bot every day, so I totally get your frustrations and share them. I bring up a way to deal with one type of bot because that's how I solve insanely complex problems IRL: one step at a time.

What do you think would be a good solution to the botting problem?


Well, like I said b4: all-out offensive. But that requires resources. And we're only going to get those resources if we put enough pressure on CCP. Via the CSM of course Cool

For instance, CSM could advocate immediate account deletion after proof of botting, in stead of a 1 day ban after which the owners start botting again. I've seen several ppl admit to this happening. They say as long as they don't go into RMT they are pretty much safe from perm bans.... That is quite shocking to me personally....

debbie harrio
Posted - 2011.02.21 18:22:00 - [19]
 



What are your suggestions to increase small gang warfare in 0.0?


Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:39:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Dirk Decibel
For instance, CSM could advocate immediate account deletion after proof of botting, in stead of a 1 day ban after which the owners start botting again.

I get what you're saying here, but botters almost never admit to botting, and absent the ability to scan someone's computer, botting is a nearly impossible charge to prove. People can claim to be drunk, half-asleep, really bad at the game, etc. All CCP can really do is the one-day ban for the first offense and wait to see if that player is reported again.

As I said, it's really tough to get a botter to admit to botting. Wink

And interestingly, it's just as tough to get players to actually report bots, because there's a perception that CCP won't do anything about the bot anyway.

Chicken, meet egg. ugh

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:43:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: debbie harrio
What are your suggestions to increase small gang warfare in 0.0?

OK, fair warning: this is a long response. Just remember: you asked that really open-ended question. Laughing

That's an excellent question. Small-gang PvP was and is my first love in EVE, and it's being slowly murdered by the blob.

First, this isn't a problem that one person is going to solve. Something I'm going to do even before the elections is hold player round-tables on three issues: PvP blobs, jump logistics, and Empire war-decs. I'll be posting in the relevant EVE-O threads asking for interested parties to join me in a discussion on those three issues. I'll record those round-tables and put them on-line on my website. That will happen in ten days or so, once the official candidates list is out. Even if I'm not selected, I hope the recordings will be useful to whomever is selected to CSM6. Obviously, if I'm one of the people selected, I'm going to formally write up the best proposals and ideas out of those round-tables and put them out on the Assembly Hall.

And if the CSM votes down those initial ideas, then I'll hold additional round-tables with more players after the elections until we come up with some proposals that the CSM does like and feels comfortable submitting to CCP.

So that's the first idea I have: get more players involved in the solution.

Now, with that said, I have a few ideas on all three of these topics. Most of these ideas are probably complete junk. That's where players come in, to help me separate what's junk from what isn't. ;)

The first problem is getting small gangs to engage. A couple of weeks ago, I was FC'ing a small inty/cruiser gang (about seven total) when we came upon a bait Hurricane on our out-gate. He aggressed my scout, and I obligingly ordered my scout to return the favor. The rest of us jumped in and warped. We had no logi. Our heaviest ship by far was my ship, a Vaga. We had one other T1 cruiser and some T2 frigs. "Uh oh," says my scout. Turns out the Cane was bait for a six ship gang that included two more BCs, two T2 frigs, and an Oneiros (six total). Way more than we could handle. Still, we hadn't gotten a kill because every other gang we'd come across had run from us. So I gritted my teeth, called the Oneiros primary... and the other fleet fled from us through the gate as soon as the Cane could lose aggro.

How do we get small gangs to engage? That'll be the first question for the round-table. I personally favor either longer aggro timers, enforced wait times on gates depending on traffic (similar to current traffic control, but much shorter wait times but much easier to trigger), or both. Where's the carrot on getting small gangs to engage? Not sure. Need some help with that one.

More in my next post.

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:49:00 - [22]
 

Continued from last post.

One idea that I've seen bandied about that I don't personally agree with is somehow trying to force sov-holders to "come out and play" by allowing small gangs to attack sov structures. This puts too much of a disadvantage on smaller alliances that can't maintain all-around TZ coverage. If your prime-time is EUTZ and mine isn't, you shouldn't be allowed to knock out station services just because you can put a small gang up at that time and I can't. I would like to see smaller alliances hold sov. Allowing a larger entity to bully a smaller entity just encourages that smaller entity to join a blob -- the opposite of what I want.

Next thing. Blobs are out of control because they can be. That's another root cause to the death of small-gang PvP, and it's almost zen in its simplicity. If you put a fleet into fleet finder, and open it up to blue standings, your fleet will grow. If you have a lot of blues, it will grow until the FC is satisfied with the size and make-up. I think it was Trebor that said a fleet will grow to the size of available lag, or something to that effect. Wink

How to address this one would be the second question for the round-table. I have a goofy idea here that is probably stupid, but might... might... work. Artificially limit the number of blues an alliance can set. You can have three (or so) +10s. You can have five (or so) +5s. And that's it. Choose wisely. Might be an incredibly dumb idea. Probably some major downside that I'm not seeing.

Another, related, idea would be to bite the bullet and reconfigure the Corporation Management skills to cut the number of players that can be added to a corp. With the Sovereignty skill, you're adding a thousand players per level. That's just nuts.

For the carrot on this one, I think it'd also be nice if EVE had some kind of mechanic for "FC rep." This would need an addition to the API. Some kind of functionality that would allow each kill with more than five people and fewer than 40 people on it to be assigned not only to the pilots on that kill, but to the FC for that engagement (which would be the fleet boss at the moment of the killmail). To encourage new FCs to keep trying, you also get rep for loss mails suffered while you're fleet boss. Want to lead a 20-pilot fleet? Build up rep points leading smaller fleets first. This is very pie-in-the-sky, but I think FC rep would quickly become a status symbol.

Anyway, that's enough to start. I've got a few ideas on this topic and have thought about it a bit, as you can see. Laughing But idea one is to get player round-tables set up to discuss this issue with players.

Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.23 01:38:00 - [23]
 

While I do indeed endorse your candidacy, and we have talked some about it already, would you mind sharing your thoughts on Low Sec here? There is always a lot of interest among us pirates and other Low Sec dwellers about CSM candidate ideas/positions on our preferred part of New Eden.


Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.23 04:09:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Ripard Teg on 25/02/2011 07:21:01
Originally by: Mynxee
While I do indeed endorse your candidacy, and we have talked some about it already, would you mind sharing your thoughts on Low Sec here? There is always a lot of interest among us pirates and other Low Sec dwellers about CSM candidate ideas/positions on our preferred part of New Eden.


Hee, another tough question, and this one's my own fault. I was mentioning that I thought I was getting really tough questions here, so Mynxee throws me another tough one. Thanks. Razz Wink

OK, first, I'm smart enough about low-sec to know that I'm probably a complete idiot about low-sec. I lived there for about 6-7 months doing faction warfare (you can read about the careers I've had in EVE), but that's the limit of my experience. That said, I have some thoughts.

If it were up to me, first thing I'd do is push the super-caps back to 0.0. Low-sec should be, as much as is possible, newbie PvP-friendly, and super-carriers promote an environment that is anything but that. FW was most at its most fun when it was destroyer and cruiser battles. You got popped, you collected the insurance, you docked up, you came right back out again. Nobody's gonna want to do that with Nyxes roaming low-sec.

Second thing low-sec needs is a reason to exist. Of the many ideas I've read for this, the one that speaks to me the most is smuggling. Low-sec residents should be smuggling masters. Bring back the inactive smuggling skills -- they're in the database, just shut off -- but make the skills available only to people with high standing with the pirate factions. With high smuggling skills, you can manufacture illegal boosters in low-sec and then truck them to Jita. Profit. If your pirate faction standing goes down, though, the smuggling skills go inactive until you correct that situation. You lose your smuggling contacts.

Next step: remove every pirate agent from 0.0. They can keep the rats. But take me for an example. I live in NC space, which means on the rare occasions that I rat, I shoot Guristas. But I also have easy access to H-PA in Venal, which means I have also have easy access to Guristas pirate missions. This is D-U-M-B dumb. Clear those agents back into low-sec where they belong. While this is going on, reduce the scope of pirate 0.0 in general. Some pirate 0.0 is fine. It provides good staging points for low-sec residents to attack into 0.0. But the pirate areas in 0.0 are too big.

EDIT: Edited to clarify that I mean pirate 0.0 areas are too big (Stain, Venal, etc.), not NPC 0.0 in general. See post #28 below.

Next, I also like the idea of pulling all booster gas mining into low-sec. Give the miners something unique to go after, and give 0.0 one fewer thing they have total ownership of. It'd also be worth looking at reducing the volume of low-sec ores. Spud is the same volume as Bistot, which is silly. If you reduce the volume of some low-sec ores, the value goes up because mining happens in volume/minute. It's an easy database change to make. Low-sec ores should all be worth around 18M ISK/hour for a perfectly skilled Hulk, IMO. Right now, most of them are half that (though noc prices are helping Hemor and Hed a great deal right now).

Finally, fix faction warfare! This is something that Team Best Friends Forever needs to get on, right now. It's not something I'll have time to do before the election, but if I'm elected, I'll hold a FW round-table on a TS server and collect ideas for fixing FW from people currently doing it and get those posted to the Assembly Hall.

Whew. I've spent a ton of time reading on this topic, and some of these ideas are probably dumb for reasons I can't think of. But those are the WIBNIs I have for low-sec.

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.23 04:18:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Ripard Teg
Next step: remove every pirate agent from 0.0. They can keep the rats.

Oh, and so this is totally clear: I don't mean remove the pirate stations. The stations can stay, the sov for a constellation or two can stay. But move the agents out. The stations would be agent-less.

Brunaburh
Posted - 2011.02.24 19:55:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: Brunaburh on 24/02/2011 19:58:17
Originally by: Ripard Teg
Originally by: Ripard Teg
Next step: remove every pirate agent from 0.0. They can keep the rats.

Oh, and so this is totally clear: I don't mean remove the pirate stations. The stations can stay, the sov for a constellation or two can stay. But move the agents out. The stations would be agent-less.


So I'm assuming the Epic Arcs don't actually use agents in stations, and you are ignoring the NPC agents in places like Outer Ring (ORE agents), and you don't care about LP for faction gear from those factions.

Don't get me wrong - I would be shocked if most folks in NPC 0.0 systems did missions. But I know folks who did, and they did it for LP, for specific items.

How does removing agents from NPC 0.0 stations make any impact on the game positively?


Edit/Follow up:
Reducing the size of NPC 0.0 eliminates the room for smaller alliances that cannot stand alone against the supercap onslaught to grow in. Places like Syndicate and Outer Ring foster alliance growth, allow them to learn the ropes of 0.0, and earn a decent amount of ISK when ratting/plexing/mining. You totally lost any chance of my support at all with the stupidity that only allows carebear nation and sovereign sprawling slumlords.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.24 20:11:00 - [27]
 

Quote:
Iterative development! CCP currently has a dev team called "Team Best Friends Forever" fixing easy bugs, issues, and suggestions. It's a good first step, and they've made a few important fixes. But there are so many issues that this team could be fixing, both now and in the future. I will work with CCP to encourage them to make this team permanent and expand its scope. CCP needs to keep their past promises to us. Like treaties. Like fixes to faction warfare. Like bounty-hunting. Like some love for freakin' low-sec. It's time


I'll be watching you on this point precisely where I expect from CCP once and for all to take a serious look in to Gallente/hybrids stuff but not only, all other races need here and there some adjustements and I haven't seen any serious action from actual CSM in this matter nor CCP's coments to some threads existing now since 2 years

I support you because I'm convinced you will do your job seriously but make no mistake, i'll be back to get answers.

Ripard Teg
Whitestone Enterprises
Posted - 2011.02.25 07:19:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: Ripard Teg on 25/02/2011 15:04:08
Originally by: Swynet
I support you because I'm convinced you will do your job seriously but make no mistake, i'll be back to get answers.

Thank you for your support. Smile I have no problem whatsoever being held accountable. I encourage it, in fact.

Originally by: Brunaburh
So I'm assuming the Epic Arcs don't actually use agents in stations, and you are ignoring the NPC agents in places like Outer Ring (ORE agents), and you don't care about LP for faction gear from those factions.

I am indeed ignoring NPCs corps that could logically own sov, such as SOE, ORE, and the like. I'm also not looking at Syndicate, Great Wildlands, or like regions with this. Those regions are populated by NPC corps, not pirates. I'm only interested in the pirate factions. Those should be pushed to low-sec. In particular, I love Syndicate just how it is. Very Happy

Originally by: Brunaburh
Don't get me wrong - I would be shocked if most folks in NPC 0.0 systems did missions. But I know folks who did, and they did it for LP, for specific items. How does removing agents from NPC 0.0 stations make any impact on the game positively?

Be shocked. There are indeed people that focus on 0.0 pirate mission-running. But I think it should be pushed back into low-sec, not 0.0. As I said, it's just not logical. If I live in Delve, I have both the option of shooting Blood Raiders and (because of easily controlled access) the ability to do Blood Raiders missions. That doesn't make any sense to me. With these very lucrative pirate agents and their LP items moved to low-sec, that's one possible way to improve the low-sec experience.

Originally by: Brunaburh
Reducing the size of NPC 0.0 eliminates the room for smaller alliances that cannot stand alone against the supercap onslaught to grow in.

Yep, you're completely right. I mis-spoke: I meant pirate NPC space should be shrunk a bit in 0.0. Again, Syndicate, Outer Ring, and Great Wildlands would be unaffected. Delve and Pure Blind would also be unaffected: I think the size of the pirate-held areas in these regions are about right. I'm thinking of regions like Venal, Curse, and Stain, which are totally ruled by the pirate factions there. The pirate sov in these regions should be shrunk to open more of that 0.0 to player conquest.

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 19:17:00 - [29]
 

Ripard Teg:

Explicitly and literally, can you walk me through the means by which—in other words, by what exact mechanic or specific process—you intend to get your pet topics pushed through to CCP? Bear in mind that it has been expressly stated by CCP, ever since the advent of the CSM, that the CSM does not exist to serve as amateur game developers. I am genuinely curious how you intend to bypass the stated position of CCP so that you can deliver on your promise to do things or get things done.

Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:47:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Swynet on 25/02/2011 21:48:56
Originally by: Two Shots
Bear in mind that it has been expressly stated by CCP, ever since the advent of the CSM, that the CSM does not exist to serve as amateur game developers.


I'm not answering for him but your this statment is the same for all candidates including yours.
If CCP doesn't cares about a single point like they do since 2years now for hybrids you can call youself Rip or Claudia Sheiffer they will just do "nothing".


Pages: [1] 2 3 4

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only