open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [Kal 4 CSM] Kalrand's Eleven Point Plan
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

RAW23
Posted - 2011.03.03 11:07:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Krythas
Why is this thread not two pages yet ? everyone else seems to be at two pages except you. Please hurry things along.


I think it is because Kalrand had another 3 page thread in MD so posts have been divided.

But this post should push him onto a second page here.

Zathrasz
Posted - 2011.03.03 13:15:00 - [32]
 

good stuff, you get my vote

screw the bitter eve veteran trollers here!

Joce Prindu
Posted - 2011.03.03 17:49:00 - [33]
 

I wasn't sure if I would vote for Kalrand as he had not yet reached page two for this thread. I can now officially feel confident in voting as this has been remedied. Send Kalrand to Iceland! Also +1 for skills in making your avatar look exactly like you. It's uncanny.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:03:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Joce Prindu
I wasn't sure if I would vote for Kalrand as he had not yet reached page two for this thread. I can now officially feel confident in voting as this has been remedied. Send Kalrand to Iceland! Also +1 for skills in making your avatar look exactly like you. It's uncanny.


I swear to god I hit "Random" a few times and went "holy****ing****" and went with it.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:16:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: TheBear421

And so my question to you is this: Do you share my feelings about further PI reform being absolutely critical to the economic and industrial aspects of the game, and, if elected, will you lobby CCP on behalf of me and all the other planetary industrialists in New Eden?


I'm waiting to see how the PI reform related to the change in resource extraction shakes through the PI economy before proposing any new changes.

But beyond that, I'm a bit perplexed why your factory planets have so many launchpads. Factory planets tend to be CPU constrained, and not grid constrained, so try switching out some launchpads for silos. Part of your problem is that it sounds like you have your planets set for the highest effort setup possible.

You're really the first person I know who complains about the effort of factory planets, so I think you might be doing something wrong here.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:31:00 - [36]
 

Edited by: Kalrand on 03/03/2011 22:31:34
Originally by: Dro Nee
Would you please take the time to articulate why your intro line and 11 points need some sort of change/implamentation (actually you can leave out the points on bots and UI)? I am not interested in specific proposals of how to fix something, I am asking about the metrics and methedologies you employ in your evaluation that something is a problem.

Cheers


I'll go one by one and try to expound on the thinking behind each point, I'll pull the bot point.
Quote:

- Small bands of players should be able to afford, conquer, and hold parts of 0.0 space.


In all honesty, this is less of a direct economic point, and more of a secondary one. By providing more end game content to smaller bands of players, it will increase their demand on the market for ships and supplies. Consumption is the underlying engine which drives the eve economy, and Giving Players What They Want forces them to consume to get to that point. People want their small to mid size corporations to be able to notch out their little piece of the galaxy. Good.

Quote:

- Industrial Command Ships should be expanded to include a T2 Orca.


The Orca is a wildly popular ship for high sec logistics, but it currently has little applicable use in 0.0 or lowsec space. It also has a single-use skill attached to it, that could easily have the level V part of the skill unlock a T2 version of the ship.

We have a popular ship, a relatively unused skill, and a need for more mid-sized logistics ships. This seems like a no-brainer for something that can be added to the game and Give People What They Want.

Quote:

- A POS module to allow T3 subsystem changes in space should be implemented.


As anyone who has ever lived in a wormhole will tell you, not being able to switch out their T3 subsystems severely hampers the usefulness of these ships on extended trips through W-Space. I also don't see why a small corp that is living, mining, and otherwise spending their time on a long deployment to W-Space can't build and fit the very t3 ships that can only be made out there.

Quote:

- A redesign of Level 5 missions to focus on group play.


One common theme that I have is that there is a large jump from group play in high-sec to that of null sec. What is needed are steps that a group can journey up together to increase their coordination, ability to work in teams, and secondarily force them to consume more to move up in the game.

This particular point would be a good first step to take a band of other-wise mission runners and give them something to do together. If L5's became a mini-incursion that took the resources of a small corporation to complete, it would encourage players to band together for a new reason. This will, in turn, create a niche for smaller corps to fill, and give them the ability to grow their skills.

Quote:

- T2 Battleships should be reconfigured to have a better defined role in the game.


T2 battleships have extremely niche rolls,either in 0.0 logistics or in high end L4 mission running. They're some of the least piloted ships in the game, when they are also the end game of the T2 production and invention chain.

Giving them a better defined role would increase the demand for them, leading to an initial price spike, but an eventual leveling of prices as the supply curve rose to accommodate the demand. In blunt terms, we have something useless in the game now, why not fix it?


Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.03 22:49:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Kalrand on 03/03/2011 22:49:35
Quote:

- Salvage Drones should finally be implemented.


The noctis being implemented with such fanfare shows that players both like new content, and there is a niche to be filled by a salvaging ship. Taking that a step further by adding salvaging drones would add new content to the game and increase the ability of salvaging to be a profession.

Quote:

- Moon minerals, specifically Technetium, need to be rebalanced.


The supply of Technetium in the game is far below the demand for Technetium even at this point, and this has been going for months. Also, the fact that Tech is only found in one small region of 0.0 means that it has been controlled by a relatively few people for this entire time.

At a minimum the "in demand" moon mineral(s) should be spread out evenly through 0.0 space, beyond that, Technetium was a R32 level moon mineral, and the R64 ones were designed to be the "rare" moon minerals.

The moon product composition of T2 components needs to be refactored again. Hopefully this time someone Does The Math like several people in Market Discussions did, and prevents any one area, or any one mineral, from having such a dominant effect on the entire Eve economy.

Quote:

- Faction warfare should be more lucrative for it's participants, and the ramifications should have an economic effect on the systems captured.

- Mining and manufacturing should be significantly more rewarding in low sec space, due to it's danger. Also small corporations should be able to claim the resources of Low Sec systems, preparing them to move to 0.0.


As I stated before in my answer about the Level 5 missions and small corps in 0.0, these two points would be another example of a steps that a small to mid size corporation can take, as a group, as they move deeper into multiplayer PvP. These are early points where their actions could have consequences on their area in the game, but not be as severe as they would be in 0.0 space. This would hopefully push people deeper into the political and PvP aspects of the game, and would be too small for the current "superblocks" to care about.

Emperor Cheney
Celebrity Sex Tape
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:23:00 - [38]
 

I realize this isn't a totally serious attempt at candidacy, nonetheless this is a common and incorrect perception that I feel ought to be corrected:

Originally by: Kalrand

- Faction warfare should be more lucrative for it's participants


Faction warfare is ludicrously profitable.

Awesome Possum
Original Sin.
PURPLE HELMETED WARRIORS
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:30:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Kalrand
I think you're missing the point of the CSM. I'm not going to be able to tell CCP how, exactly, to implement game changes. What I can do on the CSM is highlight issues, and provide feedback on the things they are doing.


Someone who gets it Rolling Eyes That being said.

I'm willing to vote for Kalrand, but there's a 300 mill isk pre-vote security deposit, he'll get it back right after the election.

Please send 300mill per vote (up to 5) to this character, thanks.

Also, as I have pointed out in the past, there is a severe lack of range on drone rigs, and no drone implants at all. Just saying.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.04 05:05:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Emperor Cheney
I realize this isn't a totally serious attempt at candidacy

I can assure you this is totally serious.=

Originally by: Emperor Cheney

Faction warfare is ludicrously profitable.


I see you've never owned a tech moon.

Originally by: Awesome Possum

I'm willing to vote for Kalrand, but there's a 300 mill isk pre-vote security deposit, he'll get it back right after the election.

Please send 300mill per vote (up to 5) to this character, thanks.


In all seriousness, buy some KalBonds if you're looking for me to be paying you.

Originally by: Awesome Possum

Also, as I have pointed out in the past, there is a severe lack of range on drone rigs, and no drone implants at all. Just saying.


I think Drones have some more pressing fundamental problems than a lack of good rigs and implants.

Grimhowl
Heroes of NewEden
Posted - 2011.03.04 16:08:00 - [41]
 

I support this product and/or service.

Dro Nee
Posted - 2011.03.04 17:21:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Kalrand
- Mining and manufacturing should be significantly more rewarding in low sec space, due to it's danger. Also small corporations should be able to claim the resources of Low Sec systems, preparing them to move to 0.0.


As I stated before in my answer about the Level 5 missions and small corps in 0.0, these two points would be another example of a steps that a small to mid size corporation can take, as a group, as they move deeper into multiplayer PvP. These are early points where their actions could have consequences on their area in the game, but not be as severe as they would be in 0.0 space. This would hopefully push people deeper into the political and PvP aspects of the game, and would be too small for the current "superblocks" to care about.


Thanks for the reply. After an cursory read-thru, many points did not seem to be specifically viewed through an economic lens, but I admit I just skimmed and will be going back through more carefully :)

As for the section I quoted:
May I infer that you beleive lowsec should be designed around preperaring for Sov 0.0? If so, do you think there should be re-designs of other space (maybe non-sov 0.0 or highsec)so that there is less overlap in design philosophy and/or playstyle?

Hexor V
Galactic Terran Command
Posted - 2011.03.04 22:22:00 - [43]
 

Despite being a goon, I've seen Kalrand "troll" market forums in which he contributes good ideas, smacks new scams, and is actually constructive with his criticism on ideas and debates in that thread. From how and what you post in the market thread I'd say I support a vote for you.


Your thoughts on any redesign or change with moon mins, is this for the "everyman"/every alliance? Or just the repositioning and supply of tech moons?


Your ideas on small bands of players in 0.0, is this for those small bands being able to become renters, or actually independently holding space?

Cassina Lemour
Minmatar
Staner Industries
Posted - 2011.03.05 16:28:00 - [44]
 


Practically every change to EvE changes either the supply or demand of something, often this has resulted in unintended consequences that have been miss-handled by CCP and the narrow interests of most CSM delegates.

Technetium, NPC goods stockpiles, recyling POS modules, large module loot drops. The sooner these Economic black swans get noticed the better.

Eve is a War Game with a War Economy.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.05 19:03:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Cassina Lemour

Practically every change to EvE changes either the supply or demand of something, often this has resulted in unintended consequences that have been miss-handled by CCP and the narrow interests of most CSM delegates.

Technetium, NPC goods stockpiles, recyling POS modules, large module loot drops. The sooner these Economic black swans get noticed the better.

Eve is a War Game with a War Economy.



Bingo. You get a gold star.

Brock Nelson
Posted - 2011.03.06 01:02:00 - [46]
 

2 things I would like to see changed to the API

1. Distinguish between BPO and BPC.
2. Show if the blueprint is locked down or not.

Minerva Seraph
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.03.06 18:32:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: Minerva Seraph on 06/03/2011 18:45:21
Hello Kalrand,
I'm an insignificant player from a dead alliance murdered by Goonswarm in the distant past. How are you? I mention that because I think it's important to convey that the CSM is more about the every player and not one particular player or play style. I'm interested in your candidacy because I feel like you're one of few who understand all phases of the game for players, from new player in empire, to bitter retiree in empire, and I wanted to make a few points, perhaps some to your benefit, but also to ask a few questions.

Firstly, I like the idea of a POS module that enables subsystem changes, but I think this would be better implemented in a module that already exists. It's the sort of module that would make small gang t3 fights more flexible, and encourage their loss (er, sorry, "risk vs. reward"). I realize that's probably a semantic argument though - the point is that we both favor the option.

Second, I find that I agree with Salvage Drones. It reduces an unnecessary part of the cleanup routine that goes with missions and the like, and it might even encourage covert-ops capsuleers to have a bit of fun, tracking plex sites and eating up what goodies they find. It would also be handy for small gangs.

The sov systems of teh past and present favor alliance level politics. If you had the option, how would you affect change in this area? Would you enable corporate-level sovereignty?

You suggest a t2 Orca, but what does a t2 orca look like? Jump Drive?

How would you make lowsec mining more rewarding without devaluing nullsec? Higher density mid-ends than available highends in nullsec?

What do you find are the balance problems with level 5 missions? (I'm naive here; I've never attempted them, and I shy away from lowsec).

I tend to think that the botting bit is a bit over scope. Yeah, I disagree with botting in general, but I just don't think that the CSM is going to do more to fight them any harder than CCP is.

Overall, I think you've got the everyman in mind with the general scope of your changes. As far as I can tell, there is literally no reason for anyone who exists in any of eve's sec spaces not to seriously consider your simple proposals. But I'm interested in learning about the specifics that you'd bring forward.

Krythas
Posted - 2011.03.07 08:19:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Brock Nelson
2 things I would like to see changed to the API

1. Distinguish between BPO and BPC.
2. Show if the blueprint is locked down or not.


An audit trail/log for share exchanges would also be nice.

HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.07 14:38:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Kalrand
]
I think you're missing the point of the CSM. I'm not going to be able to tell CCP how, exactly, to implement game changes. What I can do on the CSM is highlight issues, and provide feedback on the things they are doing.



You mean you're not going to tell them how to restructure their coding processes or how exactly to balance supercaps?

What good are you to me then?

Okay, you're sounding like the best CSM candidate so far.

Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Origin.
Black Legion.
Posted - 2011.03.08 00:11:00 - [50]
 

I shall join this League of Internet Spaceship Nations.

Krythas
Posted - 2011.03.09 09:31:00 - [51]
 

I am a little sad that this left the first page, some important issues here that need to be adressu

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.03.09 15:12:00 - [52]
 

I agree mostly with Disgruntled Flying Monkey, and was thinking the same thing before he took the words out of my mouth. I see you have a pretty clear idea of how the CSM works to present ideas, and I'm sure you've done your research on each of these ideas you're supporting. But I think you're forgetting that multitudes of players will support bad ideas simply because they aren't able to see the long-term ramifications of said change. That being said, I want to flesh out a few of my concerns with each of your eleven points:

Originally by: Kalrand
- Small bands of players should be able to afford, conquer, and hold parts of 0.0 space.

This is too vague. What even counts as a small band? Sure, I'd like to see giant mega-alliances no longer controlling large chunks of nullsec, but I don't think it's a big issue. The game gets along fine as is, and don't forget that those mega-alliances have lots and lots of players in them. It's just players banding together. EVE makes that happen where other games don't. I don't think it's a big enough issue to fuss over when there are pressing economical issues at hand.

Originally by: Kalrand
- Industrial Command Ships should be expanded to include a T2 Orca.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how this is really needed. I like the idea of tech 2 capital ships, but I don't know if it's really a question IF the players want them; more of a question HOW to implement them. CCP can't just throw it out there, they have to test the design over and over again very carefully to make sure that a minor imbalance doesn't throw everything to heck.

Originally by: Kalrand
- A POS module to allow T3 subsystem changes in space should be implemented.

Once again seems vague, though I admit I haven't had much experience with T3s.

Originally by: Kalrand
- A redesign of Level 5 missions to focus on group play.

This is one point I agree with. Whether or not we have incursions, missions still need work; both to make them more fun and engaging for the players and to thwart mission bots.

Originally by: Kalrand
- T2 Battleships should be reconfigured to have a better defined role in the game.

I think you worded this poorly. Both T2 battleships have very clearly defined roles. Perhaps a better point would be that the Black Ops is highly restricted in its use and the Marauder is for missions; thus there are no T2 battleships for pvp in a pvp game. In any case I think this point also needs a lot of work.

Originally by: Kalrand
- Salvage Drones should finally be implemented.

I agree 100%. Small ships have too strong an advantage when it comes to ninja salvaging. But it's too small a point to put it up here. No matter how many players think this is a big issue, the fact remains that the disgruntled players who lost a salvage opportunity can either learn to fly a better salvage ship, work with friends, or accept that they aren't getting salvage because they aren't taking the steps to ensure that they do.

Originally by: Kalrand
- Moon minerals, specifically Technetium, need to be rebalanced.

More or less what I said with the above point, though once again I admit that I don't have experience with Technetium.

Originally by: Kalrand
- Further action should be taken to combat botting.

Action is always being taken, and it's impressive the dedication CCP puts into this area. What we need is the answers to solve the technical problems they are combating in this area; to give them ideas that can be implemented. It's a difficult issue and CCP needs solutions, not lists of concerns they are already aware of.

Originally by: Kalrand
- Faction warfare should be more lucrative for it's participants, and the ramifications should have an economic effect on the systems captured.

Faction warfare is VERY lucrative and its economic effect is debatably one one of the driving forces behind it. Nobody should expect you to know a lot about every issue, but you should be able to admit when you don't know enough about something.

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.03.09 15:25:00 - [53]
 

...cont.
Originally by: Kalrand
- The in-game market tools should be overhauled much like the contracts system.

Some people think these things need a change and some like it the way it is. You need to give both a good reason why it is bad the way it is, and a good idea how to change it and it would be better if changed.

Originally by: Kalrand
- Mining and manufacturing should be significantly more rewarding in low sec space, due to it's danger. Also small corporations should be able to claim the resources of Low Sec systems, preparing them to move to 0.0.

I agree, though keep in mind that part of the lack of lucrativeness of lowsec space is that it is inhabited by bot miners. Nocxium, the primary lowsec mineral, is quite valuable despite all the bot mining. But if bot mining activity were substantially reduced, the value of nocxium would likely shoot up quickly to the point that several players went to lowsec to mine Jaspet, Hemorphite, and Hedbergite. Still, I'd like to see Crokite give less nocxium, and I personally think Pyroxeres gives WAY too much nocxium: when you consider its unit volume, it gives about 40% as much nocxium as Hemorphite, the top nocxium yielding mineral. But I digress. I speak from fairly general experience in mining, and I believe I have enough experience in these areas to speak about them the way I do. But the point remains that the concern about lowsec isn't how lucrative it is, so much as who is taking the 'gold'. But you're right, lowsec NEEDS fixing. Are you hearing me CCP? Fix lowsec!!

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.09 17:34:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Minerva Seraph

The sov systems of teh past and present favor alliance level politics. If you had the option, how would you affect change in this area? Would you enable corporate-level sovereignty?


One of the issues with this, is that I don't see how any mechanic could favor a small to mid sized corporation attacking or defending space that wouldn't give an overwhelming advantage to a giant alliance attacking or defending that same space.

One thing I've said in the past about this, is that there could be regions of nullsec space that aren't connected to the giant null sec ring that surrounds high sec space currently. This could come as either null-sec pockets in the middle of empire, perhaps as small as a single system, that aren't jumpable to other low or null sec systems, or perhaps entire null sec constellations that are only reachable by going through wormhole space. These would be areas that a small to mid size band of players could defend and own, that the giant alliances would probably ignore.

Originally by: Minerva Seraph

You suggest a t2 Orca, but what does a t2 orca look like? Jump Drive?


Depending on game balance issues, it could have either a jump drive, a clone vat bay, or the ability to compress ore. I really don't think it needs a jump drive, I'd be leaning towards the ability to do ore compression, or greatly expanded cargo holds.


Originally by: Minerva Seraph

How would you make lowsec mining more rewarding without devaluing nullsec? Higher density mid-ends than available highends in nullsec?


Mining is a dead or dying profession in both low sec and null sec. People have talked in the past of adding a super-veldspar to null sec, and putting mercoxit in low sec. These sound like ideas I could get behind, but CCP could also add a low-sec-only mineral to complement mercoxit's null sec only status.


Originally by: Minerva Seraph

What do you find are the balance problems with level 5 missions? (I'm naive here; I've never attempted them, and I shy away from lowsec).


I see them as a series of instanced mini-incursions that corporations could run, that would be far too powerful for a single player or two in a carrier, and not needing quite as large of a force as the current incursions do.


Originally by: Minerva Seraph

I tend to think that the botting bit is a bit over scope. Yeah, I disagree with botting in general, but I just don't think that the CSM is going to do more to fight them any harder than CCP is.


Botting has a profound effect on the Eve economy, to the point where I feel some game mechanics are developed to diminish its overall effect by "baking in" an awareness that a certain percentage of minerals and isk will be bot-generated. I know the CSM can't change that, but I'm also not one of the people running for CSM that has allowed their alliance members to bot freely.


Originally by: Minerva Seraph

Overall, I think you've got the everyman in mind with the general scope of your changes. As far as I can tell, there is literally no reason for anyone who exists in any of eve's sec spaces not to seriously consider your simple proposals. But I'm interested in learning about the specifics that you'd bring forward.


Thanks. I hope this helps.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.09 17:50:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim
I see you have a pretty clear idea of how the CSM works to present ideas, and I'm sure you've done your research on each of these ideas you're supporting. But I think you're forgetting that multitudes of players will support bad ideas simply because they aren't able to see the long-term ramifications of said change.

I've described running for the CSM before like this:
Originally by: Kalrand
On another note, this CSM election feels like an election for president of some elementary school's fourth grade class where one kid is promising "Less homework and more recess!", and I'm standing here going "How about a bake sale once a month to buy new basketballs?".

Who are people going to vote for, and what's more likely to actually work?



Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Small bands of players should be able to afford, conquer, and hold parts of 0.0 space.

This is too vague. What even counts as a small band? Sure, I'd like to see giant mega-alliances no longer controlling large chunks of nullsec, but I don't think it's a big issue. The game gets along fine as is, and don't forget that those mega-alliances have lots and lots of players in them. It's just players banding together. EVE makes that happen where other games don't. I don't think it's a big enough issue to fuss over when there are pressing economical issues at hand.


It's actually an important economic issue that there is no end-game for a small alliance right now. I've posted above about null-sec pockets and W-space connected null sec that small alliances could use, but honestly, its vague because anything I propose would be a specific mechanic, and the CSM really doesn't propose specific mechanics successfully. The can highlight problems, like this is.


Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Industrial Command Ships should be expanded to include a T2 Orca.

Maybe it's just me but I don't see how this is really needed. I like the idea of tech 2 capital ships, but I don't know if it's really a question IF the players want them; more of a question HOW to implement them. CCP can't just throw it out there, they have to test the design over and over again very carefully to make sure that a minor imbalance doesn't throw everything to heck.


I would hope that once they come up with the specs of any ship that they were thinking of adding to the game, that they would come to the CSM for feedback. Beyond that, I really do feel that a T2 Orca is something people want. In a game, you do want to be giving players more of what they want.


Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- A POS module to allow T3 subsystem changes in space should be implemented.

Once again seems vague, though I admit I haven't had much experience with T3s.


In w-space, there is no way to refit a t3-cruiser. There are corps right now that move into w-space to make t3 components, but who can't refit their cruisers with the ferry modules they're creating. That just seems broken to me.


Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- A redesign of Level 5 missions to focus on group play.

This is one point I agree with. Whether or not we have incursions, missions still need work; both to make them more fun and engaging for the players and to thwart mission bots.


Nifty.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.09 17:52:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- T2 Battleships should be reconfigured to have a better defined role in the game.

I think you worded this poorly. Both T2 battleships have very clearly defined roles. Perhaps a better point would be that the Black Ops is highly restricted in its use and the Marauder is for missions; thus there are no T2 battleships for pvp in a pvp game. In any case I think this point also needs a lot of work.


Having a "very defined role" is much different than having a "better defined role". They both have a role right now, but its far to niche of a role for what should be the super-ultimate-battleship people should be flying.

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Salvage Drones should finally be implemented.

I agree 100%. Small ships have too strong an advantage when it comes to ninja salvaging. But it's too small a point to put it up here. No matter how many players think this is a big issue, the fact remains that the disgruntled players who lost a salvage opportunity can either learn to fly a better salvage ship, work with friends, or accept that they aren't getting salvage because they aren't taking the steps to ensure that they do.


I like to chunk this in as another example of Giving People What They Want.

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Moon minerals, specifically Technetium, need to be rebalanced.

More or less what I said with the above point, though once again I admit that I don't have experience with Technetium.


In a nutshell, Tech is used in a quantity that far exceeds what one would expect in a r32 moon mineral. Players noticed this weeks before the changeover to the new T2 component recipes, but CCP went ahead anyway.

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Further action should be taken to combat botting.

Action is always being taken, and it's impressive the dedication CCP puts into this area. What we need is the answers to solve the technical problems they are combating in this area; to give them ideas that can be implemented. It's a difficult issue and CCP needs solutions, not lists of concerns they are already aware of.


One of the things the CSM does is point and go "hey this problem is very important, and should moved out of your ever lengthening queue of stuff you'll never get to and get fixed now". This is me saying that.


Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Faction warfare should be more lucrative for it's participants, and the ramifications should have an economic effect on the systems captured.

Faction warfare is VERY lucrative and its economic effect is debatably one one of the driving forces behind it. Nobody should expect you to know a lot about every issue, but you should be able to admit when you don't know enough about


It may be very lucrative, but it's obviously not lucrative enough if more players aren't doing it.


Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- The in-game market tools should be overhauled much like the contracts system.

Some people think these things need a change and some like it the way it is. You need to give both a good reason why it is bad the way it is, and a good idea how to change it and it would be better if changed.


This is more of a UI issue, and while Eve has a number of UI issues, this one is pretty bad.

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim

Originally by: Kalrand
- Mining and manufacturing should be significantly more rewarding in low sec space, due to it's danger. Also small corporations should be able to claim the resources of Low Sec systems, preparing them to move to 0.0.

I agree,

<edited to fit this in a two post reply>




Neat.

Kalrand
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.03.09 17:54:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Brock Nelson
2 things I would like to see changed to the API

1. Distinguish between BPO and BPC.
2. Show if the blueprint is locked down or not.


Right.

I'm not sure how they could do #2, but adding how many runs are left on a blueprint could easily accomplish #1. Either putting in -1 or zero for a BPO and a positive number for a BPC.

Because they also don't differentiate between a 10 run bpc and a 1 run bpc.

Alphaphi
Posted - 2011.03.09 18:39:00 - [58]
 

Anyone who supports orca pilots gets my vote.
i dont know why but people tend to have some kind of hate directed to the industrial part of the game. especially against orcas.

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.03.10 03:15:00 - [59]
 

I think I understand the T3 issue better now. There should definitely be a way to refit a T3 in WH space. It doesn't make any sense to force players to take their T3 out of the WH system into potentially hostile space just to refit.

HeroInAHalfShell
Posted - 2011.03.10 03:34:00 - [60]
 

+5 votes. Good luck!


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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