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


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Author Topic

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.28 20:41:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 02/05/2008 22:59:17
If anyone has any specific questions I will be happy to field them. Hopefully i will be able to keep this frist post updated with links to the questions and answers i have answered though i will make no guarantee that i will not run out of space.

Reading material that I feel might be important that is not included in my CSM document linked in my sig may also be linked.

On Remote Sensor Dampeners and Recent Changes

A conversation on Local and other issues with CCP Greyscale. Ends post #65

Questions and Answers:

Cailais: Jihadswarm? Continued in 39, 42, 45

Arithron: Allegiances?

Kazuo Ishiguro: What grounds Eve and your understanding of it?

Viper: **********, what are your views?

Please explain these answers Posted in post Ten. Continued in 28, 30, 34, 36, 38, 44, 38. Conversation evolves into discussion of risk and reward with specifics to t2 cruisers, then the old istab'd nano-phoons nearly down all of page 3.

Talkuth Rel: Why should i vote for you if you didn't put up a info block on the info page?

Makhan: Do you browse Something Awful?

Terianna Eri: Cap Bonus? Omen?

Wu Jiun: Low Sec? Full Question is post 96

Frygok: Moon Mining and Logistics Full Question is post 98

Equin: Does corp support matter?

Hamfest: His stock questions on industry

Out of space, more links here

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.28 20:44:00 - [2]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
If anyone has any specific questions I will be happy to field them. Hopefully i will be able to keep this fist post updated with links to the questions and answers i have answered though i will make no guarantee that i will not run out of space.



These sort of posts allowed then? I thought under 18's played?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.28 20:46:00 - [3]
 

Typo fixed. Do you have any questions?

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.04.28 21:03:00 - [4]
 

Yup I have one.

What's your view on the 'Jihad Swarm' conducted by the Alliance of which your a member? Do you believe the 'ends' justified the means in this instance, and how do you counter the charge that your a member of an Alliance that some have described alternately as 'Griefing' (ie destruction of players assets without any cause / justification) or as attmepting to 'break' EVE and bring down the game?

NOTE: I am simply asking you (Goumindong) your view on these accusations / criticisms and I am not expressing a personal view on these accusations.

C.


Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.28 21:13:00 - [5]
 

Actually, I have...

Goonswarm have an interesting history and reputation. Given this, can you explain how YOU would serve the interests of the wider community on the CSM council; what would YOU do in a situation where Alliance loyalties dictated one thing, but overwhelming support for an idea indicated another?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.04.28 22:17:00 - [6]
 

As briefly as possible, what are the core axioms and principles that lead you to your views on how EVE can be improved? No more than 10 please.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.28 23:55:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Yup I have one.

What's your view on the 'Jihad Swarm' conducted by the Alliance of which your a member? Do you believe the 'ends' justified the means in this instance, and how do you counter the charge that your a member of an Alliance that some have described alternately as 'Griefing' (ie destruction of players assets without any cause / justification) or as attmepting to 'break' EVE and bring down the game?

NOTE: I am simply asking you (Goumindong) your view on these accusations / criticisms and I am not expressing a personal view on these accusations.

C.




high-sec is "Safer, not safe". If some members of Goonswarm choose to ride bikes in empire and blow up haulers then that is there right so long as they do not exploit the systems in place to keep that working.

It is not hard to defend yourself from these types of attacks. A friendly logistics ship in the belt with a single rep will likely make attacks fail. As well there is always the option to "pre-load" concord in the belt via a suicide attack of your own.

If the playerbase has a problem with that they need to get together and do something about it and there is certainly things that they can do to stop these types of things from happening.

As well, i am not sure i would qualify Jihadswarm as "griefing". It may just be that the motives just aren't clear.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:02:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Arithron
Actually, I have...

Goonswarm have an interesting history and reputation. Given this, can you explain how YOU would serve the interests of the wider community on the CSM council; what would YOU do in a situation where Alliance loyalties dictated one thing, but overwhelming support for an idea indicated another?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen


Goons care first and foremost about making the game fun to play, because Goons play the game first and foremost to have fun. And this is where my loyalties lie. We aren't here to make partisan game changes that only benefit us, but benefit the game as a whole. Goons won't play the game if its not fun, they will go ride bikes instead. Such it is in the best interests of Goonswarm to make the game fun for as many people and play styles as possible and i cannot see that conflicting in any way with what is best for the community.

Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:02:00 - [9]
 

How do you feel about **********'s actions towards CCP, were they the wrong actions for the right reasons, or otherwise. Please explain in detail.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:18:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 00:20:17
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
As briefly as possible, what are the core axioms and principles that lead you to your views on how EVE can be improved? No more than 10 please.


Besides the very obvious "balance" there are a few key axioms in eve that bind it together.

1. Eve is game and should be fun
2. Specialization should produce decreasing marginal returns
3. Everyone and everything has a role.
4. There should be no hegemony of the rich or old[also, see point 2]
5. Risk should correlate positively with reward.

If you can hold to these then you can really make the game a better place for everyone involved. Currently a few are failing.

ed: If i mischaracterize your question please let me know and ill change it right up.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:35:00 - [11]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 01:29:47
Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
How do you feel about **********'s actions towards CCP, were they the wrong actions for the right reasons, or otherwise. Please explain in detail.


Whistleblowers are important and need to be protected, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know just what it was he did and what he did may not be kosher. If all he did was publish information he gained from willing sources, no big deal. If he used malicious means then its much more iffy[as he likely would have had no reason to take such actions].

**********has taken other actions against player groups and many times these have been malicious and illegal and these types of activities should not be tolerated.

I hope to get a feel for what IA is doing to police the developers[No developer should probably ever be coordinating an alliances capital ops and planning for instance], but i am not sure about what types of information we will have access too nor what we will be able to release.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:42:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
How do you feel about **********'s actions towards CCP, were they the wrong actions for the right reasons, or otherwise. Please explain in detail.


Whistleblowers are important and need to be protected, but I am not knowledgeable enough on the subject to know just what it was he did and what he did may not be kosher. If all he did was publish information he gained from willing sources, no big deal. If he used malicious means then its much more iffy[as he likely would have had no reason to take such actions].

**********'s has taken other actions against player groups and many times these have been malicious and illegal and these types of activities should not be tolerated.

I hope to get a feel for what IA is doing to police the developers[No developer should probably ever be coordinating an alliances capital ops and planning for instance], but i am not sure about what types of information we will have access too nor what we will be able to release.


quoting this

Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:42:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Viper ShizzIe on 29/04/2008 00:43:13
Originally by: Goumindong
[
Whistleblowers are important and need to be protected

**********'s has taken actions many times these have been malicious and illegal and these types of activities should not be tolerated.



So which is it?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 01:29:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Edited by: Viper ShizzIe on 29/04/2008 00:43:13
Originally by: Goumindong
[
Whistleblowers are important and need to be protected

**********'s has taken actions many times these have been malicious and illegal and these types of activities should not be tolerated.



So which is it?


What do you mean? The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Viper ShizzIe
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.29 01:41:00 - [15]
 

Also, do you have a campaign platform at all, as I haven't seen anything even hinting that you do.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 01:44:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Also, do you have a campaign platform at all, as I haven't seen anything even hinting that you do.


Originally by: The OP

Reading material that I feel might be important that is not included in my CSM document linked in my sig may also be linked.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.04.29 01:57:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Viper ShizzIe
Also, do you have a campaign platform at all, as I haven't seen anything even hinting that you do.


Originally by: The OP

Reading material that I feel might be important that is not included in my CSM document linked in my sig may also be linked.



it would help if you actually had a signature idk

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 02:02:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth

it would help if you actually had a signature idk


Try turning signatures on in your forum options.

Otherwise, click here

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.04.29 02:09:00 - [19]
 

This post has been cleared of inappropriate content.

Regards,
The EVE Online Moderation team

Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles
Posted - 2008.04.29 08:26:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Besides the very obvious "balance" there are a few key axioms in eve that bind it together.

1. Eve is game and should be fun
2. Specialization should produce decreasing marginal returns
3. Everyone and everything has a role.
4. There should be no hegemony of the rich or old[also, see point 2]
5. Risk should correlate positively with reward.

If you can hold to these then you can really make the game a better place for everyone involved. Currently a few are failing.


I'm curious; in a game that's so intensely capitalistic, why do you think that there should be no hegemony of the rich? Where are you going with this idea?


Big Bossu
Posted - 2008.04.29 09:56:00 - [21]
 

The logoff(ski) issue?

1) capital logoffs (15 minute timer)
2) BS logoff at jump in

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:44:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 11:45:33


Can you expand on these points pls.

Originally by: Goumindong



2. Specialization should produce decreasing marginal returns



They already do as far as i am aware its called stacking penalties can you be more specific pls.

Originally by: Goumindong


3. Everyone and everything has a role.


Is this in reference to the titan and the fact that a lot of your alliance seem to think a blob of friggies should be able to tackle and kill them, or are you referring to something else and if so what?.

Originally by: Goumindong

4. There should be no hegemony of the rich or old[also, see point 2].



This point seems to be saying that those who work hard are smart, successful and have been working at it for a long time should not benefit from it.

Originally by: Goumindong

5. Risk should correlate positively with reward.


Id like you to also explain this in detail as well pls.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:12:00 - [23]
 

Question: Please Explain the Answers in This Post

To start with, Lecrotta, I would appreciate it if you did not troll this thread. You have a main and can post with it, and if not, then your previous statements disqualify you from having a reasoned debate on this subject as can be seen by the ignorance and strawman you have already spewed forth in your short time here. E.G.

But to answer your questions, the list is a guide of how you ought to balance eve. Such the "i thought this happened" has no relevance. If its happening its good. There are areas where it is not happening[speed/agility and tech 2 cruisers specifically, and these break a few of the other axioms as well]. But that is really besides the point other than the issue that not conforming with the axioms they ought to be changed so that they do.

Regarding titans. Again, this is a point of balance. Everyone needs to be useful in order to keep everyone having fun. No one believes that we should be able to kill a titan with frigates, please refrain from strawman in the future.

Quote:
This point seems to be saying that those who work hard are smart, successful and have been working at it for a long time should not benefit from it.


You are confusing hegemony with benefit. They are two very different terms with two very different meanings. Eve has never been a game where the rich or old can dominate the poor. Not in design ideal, nor in execution. There have been points where this has failed[and fails now], but it is still a core design principle.

To give an example of this hegemony in another game, you could look at WoW. If you are not level 70 with epic gear[or very close], don't bother fighting others, keep grinding NPCs and run away from the others.

But Eve is, at its core, a pvp game, and hegemony destroys that. Especially hegemony of the rich and old for they offer no real way to breach.

Quote:

Id like you to also explain this in detail as well pls.

There is nothing to explain, maybe you should try a dictionary if you don't understand what is going on with such a simple statement as this one.

And now to address the non-troll

Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
I'm curious; in a game that's so intensely capitalistic, why do you think that there should be no hegemony of the rich? Where are you going with this idea?


Hegemony of the rich and old creates a perpetual subservience of the poor and young. This is explicitly bad for the game as fewer players will wish to continue past their trial. Why would they when they cannot have any effect until they are old and rich, where in those who are old and rich now will be even more powerful by the time they get there?

This point goes hand in hand with the specialization point and the risk/reward point. When there is a hegemony of the rich and old they are able to exploit low risk situations for higher reward and their specialization is rewarded in strength and not just versatility. Instead of having a higher risk for that higher reward and less value for that specialization.

This creates old guards that only die when their will to play the game ends. This is not fun for anyone really. It means less young people will continue to play the game and it means less change in politics and sovereignty. The game thrives on both of these things.


lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:20:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 16:23:48


I was not trolling i was asking for clarification on several of your points and i would post with my main but he is banned for posting cat pictures on caod.

Now i downloaded your documents and read through them and found them well presented if a little vague and now im asking for clarification on the bullet points you put on here, you did say you would answer them after all.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:24:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: lecrotta

I was not trolling i was asking for clarification on several of your points and i would post with my main but he is banned for posting pictures on caod.

Now i downloaded your documents and read through them and found them well presented if a little vague and now im asking for clarification.


Can you explain what you want clarified? Because most of what i posted is fairly self explanatory. Do you want to know why i think these axioms are central to how Eve should be balanced? Do you want to know what a specific balance created by these I think should be implemented?

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:41:00 - [26]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 16:45:00
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: lecrotta

I was not trolling i was asking for clarification on several of your points and i would post with my main but he is banned for posting pictures on caod.

Now i downloaded your documents and read through them and found them well presented if a little vague and now im asking for clarification.


Can you explain what you want clarified? Because most of what i posted is fairly self explanatory. Do you want to know why i think these axioms are central to how Eve should be balanced? Do you want to know what a specific balance created by these I think should be implemented?


You posted a list of ideals and not ideas, now ideals are great but you can use them to justify all manner of unnecessary changes after the fact.

So what i am asking for is a list of things that you consider are most in need of changing, with these ideals as the principal reason for the change:

2. Specialization should produce decreasing marginal returns
3. Everyone and everything has a role.
4. There should be no hegemony of the rich or old[also, see point 2]
5. Risk should correlate positively with reward.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:59:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: lecrotta

So what i am asking for is a list of things that you consider are most in need of changing, with these ideals as the principal reason for the change:

2. Specialization should produce decreasing marginal returns
3. Everyone and everything has a role.
4. There should be no hegemony of the rich or old[also, see point 2]
5. Risk should correlate positively with reward.



The same thing i said in the top issues thread

Originally by: Goumindong

The current state of starbase and sovereignty warfare. Specifically how it pushes smaller alliances out of the game, or to put it more simply, "attacking stuff is too hard".

The second most pressing issue would probably be speed, its current implementation and how it marginalizes lower skilled players and many ship types which ought to be valuable in all types of warfare.

And the third would probably be increasing U.I. functionality in all systems, especially the scanner, activation and reload of modules, and the fleet command tools.


Specifically i want to make it much easier to attack strategic and economic POS modules[though i would add a reinforcement timer on them. I want to reduce the strength and effectiveness of AOEs. There was an idea of making a DD into an ewar module which seemed like it would be really nice to keep it useful but not overpowered and game breaking.

I want to possibly move dreads off grid from their targets[while only making them effective against POS's and Capitals.

Regarding speed, i think there needs to be more and stronger counters. I think that smaller ships should have more inherent advantage via sig radius and speed and I think speed mods need looking at. This touches on hegemony, role, specialization and risk. [Specifically probably my web idea, though final numbers would need to be tweaked, and i would either revert speed mods back to pre-revelations status, or i would separate them into +speed, + agility, and - signature radius with no overlap]

U.I. just pertains to the usability of the game in general which touches on point one and the rest of the points if it increases functionality in a way that takes a lot of the disadvantage out of not knowing the U.I.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 17:33:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 17:41:43


Without wanting to be accused of being a strawman it seems to me that all you have done is rephrase your pet gripes about the DDD, Nano and Cloaking/scanning into a more positive sounding format. Id hoped it was not true and that you would have put together considerably more and varied content but it seems im going to be disapointed.

This is what i feel a candidate should offer:

Originally by: Xennith

AFAIK the purpose of the CSM is to act as a layer between CCP and the players, to communicate the concerns of the playerbase to the developers, to identify good proposals and suggestions and advise CCP from the point of view of a player.


But all you seem to be doing is pushing your own agenda and personal issues from your own limited perspective of the game.





Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 17:53:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 17:59:28
Originally by: lecrotta
Without wanting to be accused of being a strawman it seems to me that all you have done is rephrase your pet gripes about the DDD, Nano and Cloaking/scanning into a more positive sounding format. Id hoped it was not true and that you would have put together considerably more and varied content but it seems im going to be disapointed.



I am not sure why you would consider these "pet gripes". If i have ever had a "pet gripe" it would have clearly been the Amarran problems[And i disagreed with many of the solutions they implemented]. These problems shown in DDD, nano, and cloaking/scanning are problems which are very significant and integral to the game[i also note how you conveniently ignore the issues with POS's], they are not pet issues of mine but issues which affect all players in the game in negative ways. They are the largest issues of the moment and since that is what you asked about, that is what i talked about.

There are certainly others, Remote Sensor Damps and Tracking Disruptor stacking, the inability of small ships to be valuable due to webs, The problems with leadership skills, The problem of tiering(You will need to scroll down to post 11, the direct link does not seem to be working), The problems of overlapping ship design which currently effects the Maller, Prophecy, Abaddon, Tempest, punisher, as well as a variety of other ships, and How we can quickly and easily make good changes to POS warfare.

There will certainly be more[U.I. usability, bad target calling mechanics, problems with deaggressing timers not scaling well, problems with specific ships, lack of market based economic warfare, lack of structure to form proper isk based loans and other contract overhauls(while good they can easily be improved)]. But if i had the time to deal with all of those i would be a game developer and not a CSM candidate.

Quote:

But all you seem to be doing is pushing your own agenda and personal issues from your own limited perspective of the game.


Do not be confused with the issues i bring up and my own agenda, most of the time i will bring up an issue because i feel that changing it will benefit the game as a whole. Also do not be confused with my ability to recognize good ideas and expand and bring them forth.

The simply POS spam solution, and the movement of dreads off grid were both not my solutions. I was not the one who originally proposed increasing the drone bay on the tempest. I was not the one who originally proposed increasing clip size of artillery. I have not been the first to want market based economic warfare, i was not the first to propose simply scanning down cloaked ships nor was i to propose rat aggression timers[i think]. I am absolutely certain that i was not the first to come up with some AFs being moved to the leadership line. I am not under the illusion that my ideas are necessarily the best, though naturally i feel they have strong merit or i would not have proposed them. But i do feel that the ideas i propose and bring to the table, whether or not they are mine, are all strong ideas and the problems that they hope to solve are all important.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 19:11:00 - [30]
 



I will not deny that some of your ideas have merit although a lot of them seem to reduce the overall effectiveness of single ship types/styles of fit and lean towards a one ship can combat all style of eve. And while this may seem like a good idea to less skilled and newer players it also takes away the ability for ppl to put together a gang or fleet of varied specialized ships and pilots in favor of conformity and universal fitting/ship types.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

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