open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM views on and CCP plans for hisec?
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Nessu's
Posted - 2011.07.22 21:20:00 - [31]
 

perhaps if high sec carebears bothered to vote, they would not be in this pickle.

Look there have been alot of stuff for carebears in the last few expansions so it's time null sec get's some attention.

Better luck next year.

Kerrisone
Posted - 2011.07.22 22:03:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: D'Leh Mannuck


In retrospect. Can you explain why high sec players should be forced to null sec?



I never said they should, however listening/reading CCP Soundwave in his interviews CCP's general attitude about High sec and reading the May CSM minutes I am concerned that is what will happen. CCP using their stick once again to direct players to where they think they should be and play as they think they should play.
Originally by: D'Leh Mannuck


Rofl, there are enough production slots in null sec if the PoS setups would also run manufacturing setups propperly.
But as it is most PoS in null sec are either for jumpbridges, stagingpoints, moonmining and SC and titan building.
It's not asif there aren't anymore moons left for other production setups.
People moving to null sec knew and know that stationless systems which aren't NPC space can have only 1 Outpost.
People moving to null sec knew and know that the infrastructure of Empirespace isn't in place there and most likely won't be in space there.

These are facts those moving to nullsec knew and know and yet they complain about it. Isn't that a result of a choice?
Just like it's a result that a high sec player can't find officer spawns, mine moongoo, mine ABC's or run sanctums.

Each side made their choices and now both sides complain about the lack of contents the other side does have.


I surmised as much but the other person made the point that null couldn't create their own goods and the capacity they had was inadequate so I asked why that was seeking to get them to tell me who exactly was stopping/forcing them to not have that ability to show it wasn't a design flaw or not possible. I don't complain when I am in a WH I can't use stargates or run to Jita right quick, or in empire that I can't find ABC to mine etc.



Originally by: D'Leh Mannuck

Hmmm, one of the most heard quotes in null sec is that you have to be able to defend what you have. If you can't defend it then you shouldn't have it.
It's space where the might of the strongest prevails. A fact every null sec resident is aware of or at the very least should be aware of.
In high sec it isn't much different with the contant wardecs. Corporations being decced by griefer or merc corporations and disrupting the usual gameplay. Don't you think such a corporation can survive for a longer period of time without the use of alts?

If you can't maintain your supplylines, be it in null sec or in high sec you are doomed to withdraw and rebuild elsewhere.


I asked because the other poster said they'd like to not 'need' their high sec alt to get what they need to make the point that they'd 'always' need their alt when things get dark. The only way to never need that alt is to sunder the one universe so the alt can't bring stuff in for them. Making it better/easier just does that it won't make it perfect and the idea that you'd never want/need to deal with other parts of the game is stupid as it destroys the point of EVE.

Originally by: D'Leh Mannuck

I don't think you give marketeers enough credits. Those who can't adapt are forced to other ways. Those who can't will perish.
Isn't that the normal way in EVE?


Again if buffs were made to nerf the relationship from high to null there would then be too many producers with too few consumers only if the null boosts were not 'good' enough that the goods from high would still be profitable to lug back there to sell would the trade from high to null continue. General trading would probably still work and be viable to compete with null industry but also with the now tougher production market. Producers would perish in this competition, most likely small time and new players w/o the means to survive the drought or haul their crap out to 00/find someone to do so for them.

You and I seem to agree on just about everything that was covered, though it seems you have the wrong idea as to where I am coming from

Aleena Doran
Posted - 2011.07.23 05:55:00 - [33]
 

The statistic that 80% of players are in hisec is provided by ccp so presumably has some basis. Personally I would expect the numbers are skewed not only by hisec alts of 0.0 players, but also hisec based daytrippers into lowsec or nulsec and scout alts of hisec based players. While there may be uncertainty in the exact fraction of players who a based in hisec I don't think there is any doubt they constitute the vast majority of the player base.

I want to see more attention paid to hisec, not to make hisec players richer, but to make the game more interesting for them.

I've been playing the game over 3 years now. Recently I've noticed that many of the players I grew up with in eve, ie who were newbs at the same time are leaving, playing less, or giving up their second account. Talking to them they say that they've been getting tired of the game. These are guys who have been around for a while, have been in 0.0 roams or ratting, setup wormhole ops, etc, but remained based in hisec and spent most of their time missionruning or mining. The issue seems to be that once you've mastered l4s they become stale pretty fast. And if you are not going to move to 0.0 because you are a casual player/have rl commitments or it doesn't suit your play style then there isn't all that much else to do (incursions are a good recent addition to the universe).

Providing more interesting hisec gameplay will benefit many players and should benefit ccp by giving them better player retention. I'm not wanting to see hisec boosted to the disadvantage of nulsec, just for a fair portion of ccps development effort going to enhance the game for the silent majority.

Groll McCabe
Posted - 2011.07.23 06:55:00 - [34]
 

Was just reading the assembly hall where the csm chairman has confirmed he only represents the interests of his 'constituents', presumably goonswarm, and has been generally bad mouthing those with a differnt playstyle.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1549785&page=6#158

Disappointing of the chariman of the body supposed to represent all players. Hope that the csm don't destroy the game.




Tuggboat
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.07.23 11:06:00 - [35]
 

NO, the chairman is supposed to direct the meeting. They have an extremely heavy hand in which topics meetings actually discuss. They also shape the flow and they are free to shape it for their own ends. I wouldn't say they are to represent all the people, that would be impossible.

The CSM's were elected on their platforms, IMO they should try to stick to their platforms if they want to represent the people that voted them in. With Mittens in charge, Goonswarm will play CCP from both ends.

WHat CCP doesn't see is that influences like goonswarm create a unique player base adapted to respond rather than create. Think of how new players perceive this. Just how evil and dark is the average science fiction buff. The loud noises are the vocal minority. A few babies bawling in a restaurant full of peopple ruin it for everybody.

I'm convinced null sec is filled with spoiled rich bawling children that are used to getting their way by throwing tantrums.

Turn it all into high sec.

Groll McCabe
Posted - 2011.07.23 11:29:00 - [36]
 

I beg to differ. According to the ccp document defining the function of the CSM it is to address issues in the context of 'the greatest good for the greater player base'. The various statements made my csm members would suggest that their objective is infact the opposite of their job description.

See page 2 of the linked document under 'scope of csm'.

http://www.eveonline.com/download/devblog/CSMSummary.pdf

I wouldn't think that this requires them to solely address hisec issues (the greater player base), but they should certainly be giving them some positive consideration.

D'Leh Mannuck
Posted - 2011.07.23 12:50:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Groll McCabe
I wouldn't think that this requires them to solely address hisec issues (the greater player base), but they should certainly be giving them some positive consideration.


The current CSM doesn't care about the foundation of the CSM. Because that would make them look at the "boring" stuff and we already read that this isn't really what they want to do.

Personal projects have a higher priority and the high sec playerbase is to blame for this. High sec has enough players in it, which aren't null sec alts, to blockvote in atleast 2 or 3 CSM members and even blockvote the chairman/woman.
Yet the lack of interrest in bothering to set up a propper campaign, cohersion and the ability to be vocal when it matters is what turned the whole CSM into a null sec Promdance.

Even if we would get some good high sec candidates the high sec population would be too lazy or unfocussed to vote because it's so much easier to complain afterwards. Be it on the forums or in their corpchats.
Also getting a few serious candidates without bickering between eachother is a harder task than meets the eye.

A pure High sec player would also not be the ideal representative. He or she should atleast have some experience in low/null sec to have a somewhat more balanced vieuw.

Lakitel
Posted - 2011.07.30 16:59:00 - [38]
 

Well again I see, from looking at other threads, that a lot of people are asking for a high sec organization that has some kind of solid and real political power. Well, what are we waiting for? Send me an ingame mail and we can start figuring this stuff out, maybe set up a channel for us and once the fundamental communication issue between us all has been dealt with, then we can start thinking about getting our candidates voted in.

I also agree that candidates shouldn't be PURE high secs, they should be PURE EvE players who really care about the game and for everybody to enjoy it, not a select few with loud voices. Again, send me an in game mail, and we can all start to figure this out.

Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.07.30 17:24:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Lakitel I also agree that candidates shouldn't be PURE high secs, they should be PURE EvE players who really care about the game and for everybody to enjoy it, not a select few with loud voices. Again, send me an in game mail, and we can all start to figure this out.[/quote


Disagree, Pure high secs would shift the balance the wrong direction again.

Please also explain this PURE EvE players.


Lakitel
Posted - 2011.07.30 17:29:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Killer Gandry
Originally by: Lakitel I also agree that candidates shouldn't be PURE high secs, they should be PURE EvE players who really care about the game and for everybody to enjoy it, not a select few with loud voices. Again, send me an in game mail, and we can all start to figure this out.[/quote


Disagree, Pure high secs would shift the balance the wrong direction again.

Please also explain this PURE EvE players.




That's why I said candidates shouldn't be pure high sec.

When I say pure EvE player, I mean somebody who is interested in the game over-all and not just specifically either high sec or null sec or anything in between.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.07.30 20:58:00 - [41]
 

I would wager that at least 1/3 to a half of highsec characters are nullsec alts. All paid for by the L4 mission runners of course. YARRRR!!

At the end of the day, CSM players run on a platform. Whether its highsec or nullsec or whatever, they are still their to represent their platform. Why you idiots need to whine about this for weeks on end is beyond me, but I'm really enjoying the tears so I can't complain.

Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.07.30 21:14:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Why you idiots need to whine about this for weeks on end is beyond me, but I'm really enjoying the tears so I can't complain.


Hmmm, if we are the idiots, then what does that make you for keep comming here to yap?

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.07.30 22:08:00 - [43]
 

Someone has to throw tomatoes at the poor clowns in the stocks.

Killer Gandry
Caldari
Shadow of the Pain
Posted - 2011.08.02 02:07:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Someone has to throw tomatoes at the poor clowns in the stocks.


Then stop throwing like a 13 year old girl, you might start hitting something for a change then.

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2011.08.03 04:24:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: DemetRYS
Originally by: D'Leh Mannuck
Fact is that High Sec players aren't as vocal as null sec players.
Whereas the null sec residents vote in large chunks the residents of high sec only dribble in here and there and are too spread out to have a real candidate to be pushed forward.

If High sec wants a better representation they have to look for a few credible candidates first and then vote en masse on them.

But since a lot of High Sec people don't bother to vote they resort to complaining.



This. Not a single highsec'er I know bothers with the CSM. Then again, most of them don't even visit the forums on a regular basis. If highsec wants representation, they need to abaondon isolationism and get a serious set of candidates in mind for the next round.

I am; however, confident that this will not happen.


Eve University.... Rolling Eyes

Magnus Orin
Minmatar
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.05 20:12:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Aleena Doran

Therefore approximately 80% of CCP customer accounts and 80% of the players the CSM represents are based in hisec.



This is where you are wrong.

Corina's Bodyguard
Posted - 2011.08.06 23:30:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Killer Gandry
Originally by: Zirse
Someone has to throw tomatoes at the poor clowns in the stocks.


Then stop throwing like a 13 year old girl, you might start hitting something for a change then.


I take offense at that. I can hit things once in a while.Very Happy

Cedille Mureau
Gallente
Institute of Archaeology
Posted - 2011.08.07 10:54:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Magnus Orin
Originally by: Aleena Doran

Therefore approximately 80% of CCP customer accounts and 80% of the players the CSM represents are based in hisec.



This is where you are wrong.


Please be specific and quote the stats. Thanks.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.07 17:23:00 - [49]
 

Its pretty common knowledge that many, if not most nullsec players have at least one alt in highsec, probably more than that on average. With the way the game is structured right now, its not feasible for an alliance to operate without trips to Jita and at the same time, not feasible for nullsec mains to make the trip to Jita. There's also invention, suicide ganking/griefing/scamming, and L4's that many players keep high sec alts for.

Can I ask players that identify as 'highsec' only players a question? Why are you so adamantly against 0.0? Have you ever tried it? The game is a lot richer of an experience once you become accustomed to the lifestyle. It's definitely not all blobs blobs blobs, despite what you may hear.

Cedille Mureau
Gallente
Institute of Archaeology
Posted - 2011.08.07 19:03:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: Cedille Mureau on 07/08/2011 19:10:44
Originally by: Zirse
Can I ask players that identify as 'highsec' only players a question? Why are you so adamantly against 0.0? Have you ever tried it? The game is a lot richer of an experience once you become accustomed to the lifestyle. It's definitely not all blobs blobs blobs, despite what you may hear.


I can only speak for myself of course. No, I'm not "adamantly against 0.0" What I am against is the perceived threat to hisec by elements of the CSM and others to give 0.0 advantages at the expense of other sections of the game. It may not be all blobs, blobs, blobs but it does seem to have a lifestyle different to hisec and one which does not appeal to me. I'm happy to use EVE as an occasional diversion from the pressures of real life and a slow tranquil playing style is what I enjoy. I run a few missions, explore, especially in COSMOS systems and take my time, for me, at my own pace.

I have never said that I want to make the life of 0.0 worse so that I can enjoy playing EVE. On the other hand I do object to any attempts to make me pay for the priviledges of others.

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.07 20:10:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Cedille Mureau
Edited by: Cedille Mureau on 07/08/2011 19:10:44
Originally by: Zirse
Can I ask players that identify as 'highsec' only players a question? Why are you so adamantly against 0.0? Have you ever tried it? The game is a lot richer of an experience once you become accustomed to the lifestyle. It's definitely not all blobs blobs blobs, despite what you may hear.


I can only speak for myself of course. No, I'm not "adamantly against 0.0" What I am against is the perceived threat to hisec by elements of the CSM and others to give 0.0 advantages at the expense of other sections of the game. It may not be all blobs, blobs, blobs but it does seem to have a lifestyle different to hisec and one which does not appeal to me. I'm happy to use EVE as an occasional diversion from the pressures of real life and a slow tranquil playing style is what I enjoy. I run a few missions, explore, especially in COSMOS systems and take my time, for me, at my own pace.

I have never said that I want to make the life of 0.0 worse so that I can enjoy playing EVE. On the other hand I do object to any attempts to make me pay for the priviledges of others.


What are these advantages you speak of? High-sec shouldn't be, (and won't be,) nullified to the point that no one wants to live there. However, EVE is based on a risk vs reward concept. Some of those ratios are being looked at as possibly needing tweaking; specifically in making industry more rewarding in nullsec because right now its infeasible despite the increased risk and :effort: required.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2011.08.07 22:14:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: Zirse

Can I ask players that identify as 'highsec' only players a question? Why are you so adamantly against 0.0? Have you ever tried it? The game is a lot richer of an experience once you become accustomed to the lifestyle. It's definitely not all blobs blobs blobs, despite what you may hear.


Yes, I have tried 0.0 and I have found it boring to the level of tears.

In the thread about the last Dev blog a guy has made a interesting comment to which no one has replied.
For some people the adrenaline rush is a pleasant sensation, for some people isn't.
Probably a good percentage of the people living in 0.0 found the adrenaline rush pleasant and so accept the negative parts of it to get what they like.
Others, like me, rarely get an adrenaline rush from a computer game and don't find it particularly pleasant, so they aren't interested in searching for it.

For us most of the restrictions, requests and regulations that 0.0 alliances impose to survive aren't worth the hassle as we get little of interest by being in 0.0.
All said and done, making 0.0 richer for the single player and/or for the alliances will not make it more interesting for us. Making the game more varied and compelling in all the sectors of space will keep our interest in the game and keep us hooked to EVE.





Shaemell Buttleson
Posted - 2011.08.08 00:52:00 - [53]
 

Agreed there are things that need sorting out in Hi-sec but surely the areas where the least ppl are need more work to get a more even distribution?




The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.08.08 14:43:00 - [54]
 

Eve-Uni will probably put someone up for CSM7 like they have for past CSMs, which is great. I love Unistas. vOv

That's about the only organized group in hisec. Trebor gets a lot of his votes from hisec as well, but he does that through steadfast vote-grinding. I support him for CSM7, as well.

Dusty Warrior
Posted - 2011.08.08 19:13:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Dusty Warrior on 08/08/2011 19:18:13

The best thing for the CSM would be for it to fade into history much like ship spinning.

Once the CSM is gone, implement a periodic 1-3 questionaire to be answered by the whole community during the login process.

The implementation would then allow everyone, from nub to the old vets a voice... not just the ones who have the time to troll forums.... like myself. Laughing

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.08 19:32:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Zirse on 08/08/2011 19:33:11
Originally by: Dusty Warrior
Edited by: Dusty Warrior on 08/08/2011 19:18:13

The best thing for the CSM would be for it to fade into history much like ship spinning.

Once the CSM is gone, implement a periodic 1-3 questionaire to be answered by the whole community during the login process.

The implementation would then allow everyone, from nub to the old vets a voice... not just the ones who have the time to troll forums.... like myself. Laughing


I would argue that it's better to have a highly interested and on average more informed group giving feedback rather than every loser with big dreams and vague notions of how EVE works.

Not to mention you need a small group to discuss and debate future proposals under the NDA.

Dusty Warrior
Posted - 2011.08.08 19:43:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Zirse
Edited by: Zirse on 08/08/2011 19:33:11
Originally by: Dusty Warrior
Edited by: Dusty Warrior on 08/08/2011 19:18:13

The best thing for the CSM would be for it to fade into history much like ship spinning.

Once the CSM is gone, implement a periodic 1-3 questionaire to be answered by the whole community during the login process.

The implementation would then allow everyone, from nub to the old vets a voice... not just the ones who have the time to troll forums.... like myself. Laughing


I would argue that it's better to have a highly interested and on average more informed group giving feedback rather than every loser with big dreams and vague notions of how EVE works.

Not to mention you need a small group to discuss and debate future proposals under the NDA.



You had me reading up to "on average more informed". Recent events is evidential that part isn't true for this CSM.

Besides, what makes a nub with unrealistic dreams any less important than someone who sits in 0.0? Especially if said person pays a sub like everyone else?

Zirse
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2011.08.08 20:01:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Zirse on 08/08/2011 20:01:58
Edited by: Zirse on 08/08/2011 20:01:13
Originally by: Dusty Warrior
Originally by: Zirse
Edited by: Zirse on 08/08/2011 19:33:11
Originally by: Dusty Warrior
Edited by: Dusty Warrior on 08/08/2011 19:18:13

The best thing for the CSM would be for it to fade into history much like ship spinning.

Once the CSM is gone, implement a periodic 1-3 questionaire to be answered by the whole community during the login process.

The implementation would then allow everyone, from nub to the old vets a voice... not just the ones who have the time to troll forums.... like myself. Laughing


I would argue that it's better to have a highly interested and on average more informed group giving feedback rather than every loser with big dreams and vague notions of how EVE works.

Not to mention you need a small group to discuss and debate future proposals under the NDA.



You had me reading up to "on average more informed". Recent events is evidential that part isn't true for this CSM.

Besides, what makes a nub with unrealistic dreams any less important than someone who sits in 0.0? Especially if said person pays a sub like everyone else?




This CSM knows far more about null sec than any CSM previous, an area of the game long due for an overhaul. Their input, which is by and large representiive of the residents of Nullsec, will be invaluable to CCP. How would high sec residents be able to provide meaningful feedback on this area of the game?

Surveys wouldn't be a bad thing for some things, but they're no replacement for the CSM.

Dusty Warrior
Posted - 2011.08.08 20:13:00 - [59]
 

Edited by: Dusty Warrior on 08/08/2011 20:46:30



I'm sorry sir but kindly disagree.

A survey would impact everyone the like. Everyone would have a say... not just a few.

What was the figure, 27K+ voted this time? Out of 300k accounts? You can hardly call that representation for the whole.

Not to mention that one or more of the CSM thinks they should only represent players who voted for them. Another blaring example of failure in how things supposed to work.

EDIT:

BTW, not every hi-sec dweller is unfamiliar with life in 0.0. I myself have had up to 6 accounts and presently have 2 supercarrier pilots. All of my toons are now in lo-sec or hi-sec. Lo-sec because of security issue. Twisted Evil So please understand that not all hi-sec dwellers are unfamiliar with null sec life.

It's just that Some choose not to be a part of blobbing gates and all the other carebear features that 0.0 sov holders enjoy. Those some and the rest of who choose to stay in hi-sec should not be penalized for those choices just as those in 0.0 carebear land should not be penalized.

I totally agree that null has been neglected...but I feel lo/hi/wh has suffered the same neglect as of late.

Peace Wink

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Posted - 2011.08.13 03:11:00 - [60]
 

Some friends and I are trying to put together "something" for CSM7. We're trying to figure out a platform for improving highsec, making Eve more noob-friendly without building walls in the sandbox, and creating better avenues for young, independent players to find their way OUT of highsec into low/null without getting their asses shot off every time.


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