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

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 19:45:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Talkuth Rel on 29/04/2008 19:46:36
Originally by: Goumindong
As well, i am not sure i would qualify Jihadswarm as "griefing". It may just be that the motives just aren't clear.


Motives for jihadswarm as stated by the GoonSwarm rep:

"Vile Rat emphasized that this was not a campaign against new pod pilots, but against those who by now should be making it in lawless space with all of its dangers." (source)

I.e., GoonSwarm has a definitive view on who should be playing where and doing what, and those who do not should be coerced through force. That sounds pretty clear to me.

Originally by: Goumindong
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.


How do you reconcile this with the public statements of members of GoonSwarm that they are not in fact "playing EVE," but instead playing their own game. This game is one which transcends EVE and in which "fun" is defined as causing trouble and distress for others, and for which the end goal is to make other players close their accounts and stop playing? (source)

Apparently, not all of your alliance agrees with the motives and objectivs you claim they have. Why should the playerbase trust your motives to be any different?

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 19:49:00 - [32]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
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.


In this case, they are. Either Kugutsmen's actions were right or they were wrong. Which is it?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 20:52:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 20:51:46
Originally by: lecrotta


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.


I never intend to move towards "one ship can combat all styles". And would say instead that i want to move away from that. I think you are referring to nano-ships at the moment so i will address this with regards to that.

With nano-ships it is the exact problem that the tech 2 cruisers when fit for speed are so strong that their abilities overshadow the abilities of all other ships and fits to the point where if you want to compete[And by compete, i mean 'kill these types of ships'] you need to have about as many of these ships in your fleet as your opponent.

It has come to the point where major alliances simply don't use frigates anymore[A good example is bob, which no longer flies interceptors and dictors in favor of recaons/hacs/hictors]. Simply because the frigates are superfluous in all types of combat.

The specific problem can be exemplified by looking at two specific ships. The first is the thorax, and the second is the brutix. When fit for speed, a brutix performs the same role that the thorax does, except better, it has more hit points, more dps, longer range[larger blasters], the same size drone bay, is faster and as agile[or more agile and as fast], it locks targets faster, and has a better active tank[when both are fit as such]. And this is not "it does any one of these things" but "it does all of these things better at the same time". Unless the thorax fits speed mods[something it should not have to do for various reasons] the brutix actually makes a better thorax than the thorax.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:13:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Goumindong


The specific problem can be exemplified by looking at two specific ships. The first is the thorax, and the second is the brutix. When fit for speed, a brutix performs the same role that the thorax does, except better, it has more hit points, more dps, longer range[larger blasters], the same size drone bay, is faster and as agile[or more agile and as fast], it locks targets faster, and has a better active tank[when both are fit as such]. And this is not "it does any one of these things" but "it does all of these things better at the same time". Unless the thorax fits speed mods[something it should not have to do for various reasons] the brutix actually makes a better thorax than the thorax.


Actually the brutix fits the same sized guns just two more of them than the thorax and yes its a better ship than the thorax in all regards cos its a battlecruiser instead of just a cruiser.

It seems to me that you want to stop ppl from upgrading as nobody who can fly a ceptor or a AF would fly a normal T1 frigate, nobody who could fly a interdictor or HIC would fly a ceptor and so on and so on. Your trying to devolve ppl, ships and modules/fitting styles who have spent a lot of isk and time training for ships that are improvements over lower sp ones they have outgrown.

Kaben
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:21:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Goumindong


The specific problem can be exemplified by looking at two specific ships. The first is the thorax, and the second is the brutix. When fit for speed, a brutix performs the same role that the thorax does, except better, it has more hit points, more dps, longer range[larger blasters], the same size drone bay, is faster and as agile[or more agile and as fast], it locks targets faster, and has a better active tank[when both are fit as such]. And this is not "it does any one of these things" but "it does all of these things better at the same time". Unless the thorax fits speed mods[something it should not have to do for various reasons] the brutix actually makes a better thorax than the thorax.


Actually the brutix fits the same sized guns just two more of them than the thorax and yes its a better ship than the thorax in all regards cos its a battlecruiser instead of just a cruiser.

It seems to me that you want to stop ppl from upgrading as nobody who can fly a ceptor or a AF would fly a normal T1 frigate, nobody who could fly a interdictor or HIC would fly a ceptor and so on and so on. Your trying to devolve ppl, ships and modules/fitting styles who have spent a lot of isk and time training for ships that are improvements over lower sp ones they have outgrown.


From reading what G is saying is that 1 set of ships isn't supposed to obsolete the other, in other words the brutix obsoletes the thorax making it pointless to use a thorax. A battlecruiser should have a role, not obsolete its smaller variation. I have a ? though for g, I understand your reasoning behind the brutix and thorax, what are your ideas behind thorax and diemos. Obviously the diemos obsoletes it. Do you believe the t2 ship should be penalized or left as is?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:23:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: lecrotta


Actually the brutix fits the same sized guns just two more of them than the thorax and yes its a better ship than the thorax in all regards cos its a battlecruiser instead of just a cruiser.


No, the brutix will be fitting higher tier blasters. Not larger as in large > Medium. Larger as in bigger. Unless the thorax is fitting neutron blasters[in which case the Brutix has just as much range].

Quote:

It seems to me that you want to stop ppl from upgrading as nobody who can fly a ceptor or a AF would fly a normal T1 frigate, nobody who could fly a interdictor or HIC would fly a ceptor and so on and so on. Your trying to devolve ppl, ships and modules/fitting styles who have spent a lot of isk and time training for ships that are improvements over lower sp ones they have outgrown.


No, its that the upgrade from these types of ships is much too severe. The value you gain too much. It is not that people should not be flying these ships but the advantage that they bring does not correlate with the risk. Currently the game is very nearly "Don't come unless you can fly a t2 cruiser or better". Because they pretty much obsolete everything below them.

It seems to me you are simply attempting to strawman me instead of addressing the actual argument.

Vladameir Harkenin
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:24:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: Vladameir Harkenin on 29/04/2008 21:26:20
Originally by: Kaben



From reading what G is saying is that 1 set of ships isn't supposed to obsolete the other, in other words the brutix obsoletes the thorax making it pointless to use a thorax. A battlecruiser should have a role, not obsolete its smaller variation. I have a ? though for g, I understand your reasoning behind the brutix and thorax, what are your ideas behind thorax and diemos. Obviously the diemos obsoletes it. Do you believe the t2 ship should be penalized or left as is?


Posted with an alt (Kaben), usually don't care who I post with but will post with main.


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:33:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Kaben
Do you believe the t2 ship should be penalized or left as is?


Most of the t2 ships should be left as they are so long as the means that they use to make themselves overpowered is reduced. That a Deimos is stronger than a Thorax is not a huge issue, since both are very "generalist" ships and don't benefit from the advantages of speed mods. The increased benefit of flying the Deimos comes at a significantly higher risk.[which is not really so with a brutix due to insurance, and also not so with the majority of t2 cruisers].

It would be nice if the Deimos had a specialist role like most other HACs, but i don't see that as something we could reasonably change today.

The key point is that there is a much smaller difference between the Deimos and Thorax than there are between the other HACs which mainly comes in their ability to be fast, agile, and do significant DPS outside of web range without sacrificing much of anything.

Such, instead of the Deimos being 25% better than a thorax at its primary role[DPS in the short range] with 25-30% more EHP, the HACs are 25% better at doing dps with survival rates with 50% more EHP, while going 100% faster, while being able to dps from 50% farther away. These factors combine to make them be able to disengage too easily. Disengaging too easily lowers risk below the value that will correlate with our increased risk/reward model that eve has going for it.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:38:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel

In this case, they are. Either Kugutsmen's actions were right or they were wrong. Which is it?


How is it? Whether his actions are O.K. are dependent on information that I do not know about and such cannot answer. Nor is it exclusive that you ought to protect whistle blowers but not protect illegal actions to obtain that information.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:40:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 21:50:05
Originally by: Goumindong


No, its that the upgrade from these types of ships is much too severe. The value you gain too much. It is not that people should not be flying these ships but the advantage that they bring does not correlate with the risk. Currently the game is very nearly "Don't come unless you can fly a t2 cruiser or better". Because they pretty much obsolete everything below them.

It seems to me you are simply attempting to strawman me instead of addressing the actual argument.


A t2 cruiser or better fitted t2 costs at least 200 mil with rigs how can you say that its wrong for a ship like this to far outclass all ships below it, cos as far as im concerned it should far out class them.

This is my issue with your ideas as they are reducing what ppl have ratted trained and paid monthly fees for a long time to achieve, yes in eve right now there is a lot of t2 ships about but also there are a lot of ppl training for them because they are great fun to fly, remember your "make eve lots of fun" number one rule.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:45:00 - [41]
 

Another question, which you will probably ignore as well, but I am asking it of several candidates who did the same thing, so in the interest of fairness I direct it to you as well:

Given the likelihood that many players may vote after doing nothing more than reading the candidate profiles (here), why is it that you felt it unimportant or unnecessary to exert a minimal amount of effort and post some key aspects of yourself or points of your campaign? As I see it, the candidate profile is the single most important place to get your point accross clearly and concisely, as it will be read by the most players, and many will never see anything else. If you can't put forth anything to catch voters' interest here, they're not going to bother following a URL with no description attached.

If you could not be bothered to do the work necessary to put out your information in your profile, why should we believe that you are up to the task of doing all the work that will be associated with a seat on the CSM?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:49:00 - [42]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 21:50:04
Originally by: Talkuth Rel


Motives for jihadswarm as stated by the GoonSwarm rep:




Vile Rat is no longer the Goonswarm Diplomat. Nor would his word be taken at face value. Goons like to have fun, and if people think that we have some grand-overarching theme and act on it, we will have fun. Its funny when people think that we are doing things for reasons other than to have fun, like we have some campaign against the people in empire. No, Jihad swarm started when one goon was like "i'm having fun suiciding hulks in empire, come suicide hulks in empire with me" and a bunch of goons screamed "Allahu Akbar" and bought some suicide ships.

Quote:

How do you reconcile this with the public statements of members of GoonSwarm that they are not in fact "playing EVE," but instead playing their own game. This game is one which transcends EVE and in which "fun" is defined as causing trouble and distress for others, and for which the end goal is to make other players close their accounts and stop playing?


You are misinterpreting the statements. He is mentioning how you can "win" at eve. Because in Eve you will not destroy a person unless they stop playing. Since the advent of Jump Clones you simply cannot ever permanently destroy a character.

Goons play "goons in space" they do not play eve. This means they are out for fun first and foremost. That they don't care if you have fun at the same time does not mean that they do not want the mechanics that the game is played via to be fun and fair it simply means that they are going to use those mechanics to have fun and if someone gets in their way then its not their fault.

Quote:
Another question, which you will probably ignore as well, but I am asking it of several candidates who did the same thing, so in the interest of fairness I direct it to you as well:


I am getting to them all, it just takes time.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:52:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Talkuth Rel

In this case, they are. Either Kugutsmen's actions were right or they were wrong. Which is it?


How is it? Whether his actions are O.K. are dependent on information that I do not know about and such cannot answer. Nor is it exclusive that you ought to protect whistle blowers but not protect illegal actions to obtain that information.


Then I guess the question would be which takes precedence? Protecting whistleblowers, or not protecting illegal actions?

Since you say you can't give an opinion for lack of information, then take it as a hypothetical. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Kugutsmen's actions which led to his whistleblowing were in line with his history of less then legal/appropriate means. If this was the case, should he be protected as a whistleblower or subject to the legal consequence of his actions? By the very definition, protecting and not protecting someone are mutually exclusive, they are opposites for crying out loud!

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:55:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: lecrotta
Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 21:50:05
Originally by: Goumindong


No, its that the upgrade from these types of ships is much too severe. The value you gain too much. It is not that people should not be flying these ships but the advantage that they bring does not correlate with the risk. Currently the game is very nearly "Don't come unless you can fly a t2 cruiser or better". Because they pretty much obsolete everything below them.

It seems to me you are simply attempting to strawman me instead of addressing the actual argument.


A t2 cruiser or better fitted t2 costs at least 200 mil with rigs how can you say that its wrong for a ship like this to far outclass all ships below it, cos as far as im concerned it should far out class them.

This is my issue with your ideas as they are reducing what ppl have ratted trained and paid monthly fees for a long time to achieve, yes in eve right now there is a lot of t2 ships about but also there are a lot of ppl training for them because they are great fun to fly, remember your "make eve lots of fun" number one rule.


A thorax with a Estamil's Modified Invulnerability Field costs over a billion isk. Clearly it should far outclass all ships below it.[Furthermore they are expensive because they are so good, and their loss rate, being much much much farther below others actually makes them much more isk efficient instead of less as dictated by the standard risk/reward model in eve.

People have ratted and trained and paid monthly fees for a long time to achieve a lot of things. And each and every time it was imbalanced it was nerfed, many times with good cause. Would you like to to run through the times the "omg, but i trained for it" argument has been used to justify unjustifiable positions? I can guarantee it will take me a long long time to come up with all of them.

Isk has never been a reason for ships to be imbalanced and never will be.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:57:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel


Then I guess the question would be which takes precedence? Protecting whistleblowers, or not protecting illegal actions?

Since you say you can't give an opinion for lack of information, then take it as a hypothetical. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Kugutsmen's actions which led to his whistleblowing were in line with his history of less then legal/appropriate means. If this was the case, should he be protected as a whistleblower or subject to the legal consequence of his actions? By the very definition, protecting and not protecting someone are mutually exclusive, they are opposites for crying out loud!


If he obtained the information illegally then his punishments are understandable as are criminal charges. If not, then no, it was unwarranted.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:59:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 22:20:10
Originally by: Talkuth Rel

Given the likelihood that many players may vote after doing nothing more than reading the candidate profiles (here), why is it that you felt it unimportant or unnecessary to exert a minimal amount of effort and post some key aspects of yourself or points of your campaign? As I see it, the candidate profile is the single most important place to get your point accross clearly and concisely, as it will be read by the most players, and many will never see anything else. If you can't put forth anything to catch voters' interest here, they're not going to bother following a URL with no description attached.

If you could not be bothered to do the work necessary to put out your information in your profile, why should we believe that you are up to the task of doing all the work that will be associated with a seat on the CSM?



If they aren't going to be bothered to follow a link they aren't going to be bothered to read a description. If you do not believe that what i wrote regarding that shows that I am up for the task then i don't know what to say.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:03:00 - [47]
 



But that is the issue bud, you think that the difference between t1 cruiser and below vs t2 cruiser is out of balance while a t1 cruiser costs 4-5 mil base unfitted and a t2 cruiser costs 100 mil base unfitted, this alone should make the t2 a massively (20x) better ship but if you fit both with t2 stuff and rigs the difference is slight compared to the cost in isk and training time.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:09:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: lecrotta


But that is the issue bud, you think that the difference between t1 cruiser and below vs t2 cruiser is out of balance while a t1 cruiser costs 4-5 mil base unfitted and a t2 cruiser costs 100 mil base unfitted, this alone should make the t2 a massively (20x) better ship but if you fit both with t2 stuff and rigs the difference is slight compared to the cost in isk and training time.


A Tech 2 Heavy Pulse Laser costs roughly 100 times as much as a Tech 1 Heavy Pulse Laser. Clearly then the Tech 2 Heavy Pulse Laser ought to be roughly 100 times better than the tech 1 Heavy Pulse laser...

Now that the idiocy of that argument has been exposed:

If t2 ships become less valuable because they are no longer ships that you can get in and, if you are smart and careful, never lose while still engaging then their price will fall.

It has always been the case that ships do not gain value linearly with their cost.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:15:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Edited by: Goumindong on 29/04/2008 21:50:04
Originally by: Talkuth Rel


Motives for jihadswarm as stated by the GoonSwarm rep:




Vile Rat is no longer the Goonswarm Diplomat. Nor would his word be taken at face value.

Was he the GoonSwarm diplomat at the time of this statement? If so, it is still a valid representation of Goon policy. If not, and it was an unauthorized statement contrary to the will of the leadership of GoonSwarm, then where is the public denounciation of such policy as the work of a rogue member and not representative of the alliance as a whole? If you don't keep control of your members' public statements, you are responsible for whatever perceptions those statements create.
Originally by: Goumindong


Quote:

How do you reconcile this with the public statements of members of GoonSwarm that they are not in fact "playing EVE," but instead playing their own game. This game is one which transcends EVE and in which "fun" is defined as causing trouble and distress for others, and for which the end goal is to make other players close their accounts and stop playing?


You are misinterpreting the statements. He is mentioning how you can "win" at eve. Because in Eve you will not destroy a person unless they stop playing. Since the advent of Jump Clones you simply cannot ever permanently destroy a character.

It worries me if the Goons think that the only way to win EVE is to make other players quit. Is it not enough if you simply drive other players from your space, force them to withdraw to where they are no longer a threat to you? Or is the only possible method of winning to harass such players to the point that they delete the game from their hard drive? This seems to be what he is saying, how is that "misinterpreted?" What part of it have I got wrong?

Also, how is it beneficial to the continuing health and growth of EVE if your goal is to drive players away? Chasing away players has the inevitable outcome of reducing subscriptions, less funding for CCP, and the eventual destruction of the game. In this light, shouldn't there be a different goal to your game?
Originally by: Goumindong


Goons play "goons in space" they do not play eve. This means they are out for fun first and foremost. That they don't care if you have fun at the same time does not mean that they do not want the mechanics that the game is played via to be fun and fair it simply means that they are going to use those mechanics to have fun and if someone gets in their way then its not their fault.

"You may be playing EVE Online, but be warned: We are playing Something Awful."

"The ability to inflict that huge amount of actual, real-life damage on someone is amazingly satisfying"

"The way that you win in EVE is you basically make life so miserable for someone else that they actually quit the game and don't come back."

(quotes taken from source linked earlier)

These statements speak volumes about what type of game the Goons are playing. EVE is a game about spaceship combat, about risk and reward, about gain and loss. When all done within the context of the game, it can be fun regardless of which side of a battle you are on. But there is a limit, this all stops at the keyboard. Except the Goons take it beyond that. Their game is to make players "miserable," to completely destroy their will and desire to play. That's really great for community building, and a great perspective for the CSM, isn't it?

Originally by: Goumindong


Quote:
Another question, which you will probably ignore as well, but I am asking it of several candidates who did the same thing, so in the interest of fairness I direct it to you as well:


I am getting to them all, it just takes time.
Fair enough. You seemed to be responding out of order, and so I jumped to a conclusion. My apology for the mistake and my thanks for taking the time to respond.

lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:16:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 22:17:32
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: lecrotta


But that is the issue bud, you think that the difference between t1 cruiser and below vs t2 cruiser is out of balance while a t1 cruiser costs 4-5 mil base unfitted and a t2 cruiser costs 100 mil base unfitted, this alone should make the t2 a massively (20x) better ship but if you fit both with t2 stuff and rigs the difference is slight compared to the cost in isk and training time.


A Tech 2 Heavy Pulse Laser costs roughly 100 times as much as a Tech 1 Heavy Pulse Laser. Clearly then the Tech 2 Heavy Pulse Laser ought to be roughly 100 times better than the tech 1 Heavy Pulse laser...

Now that the idiocy of that argument has been exposed:

If t2 ships become less valuable because they are no longer ships that you can get in and, if you are smart and careful, never lose while still engaging then their price will fall.

It has always been the case that ships do not gain value linearly with their cost.


Look who is the strawman now, im not saying that a t2 cruiser is 20x better nor am i saying it should be and i am not saying that pulse lazers should be 100x better in fact as you clearly point out the differences are very very slight compared to the cost in isk and training time for both ships and modules in regards to t1 and t2.

Also insuring t2 ships is pointless so when you lose one its a big loss instead of just a insurance cost when you lose a t1 ship.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:20:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Talkuth Rel

If you could not be bothered to do the work necessary to put out your information in your profile, why should we believe that you are up to the task of doing all the work that will be associated with a seat on the CSM?



If they aren't going to be bothered to follow a link they aren't going to be bothered to read a description. If you do not believe that what i wrote regarding that shows that I am up for the task then i don't know what to say.


When there are over 60 candidates, you want people to go and read 60 webpages? I think that's a ridiculous expectation. Your initial profile should give enough for a player to decide if they have enough interest in you as a candidate for it to be worth it for them to follow the link and read more. The profile statements provide a snapshot of who you are and what you stand for, and should be a means of narrowing down one's choices. Not putting up any information in the statement either shows you are lazy, too busy to do something important, or have no platform on which to run.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:28:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: lecrotta
im not saying that a t2 cruiser is 20x better nor am i saying it should be


Originally by: You quoted in the same freaking post you quoted
this alone should make the t2 a massively (20x) better ship


Quote:
Also insuring t2 ships is pointless so when you lose one its a big loss instead of just a insurance cost when you lose a t1 ship.


This depends entirely on how often you lose them. Insuring a HAC is pointless because you can reasonably expect to hold onto it for more than three months not because it would not offset your losses. No, if you can reasonably expect to lose any ship in 3 months then insurance is a great deal in all instances, no matter the ship.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:31:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel


When there are over 60 candidates, you want people to go and read 60 webpages? I think that's a ridiculous expectation. Your initial profile should give enough for a player to decide if they have enough interest in you as a candidate for it to be worth it for them to follow the link and read more. The profile statements provide a snapshot of who you are and what you stand for, and should be a means of narrowing down one's choices. Not putting up any information in the statement either shows you are lazy, too busy to do something important, or have no platform on which to run.


Or it means i mis-calculated the number of people that would be running and was optimistic that people would take the time to get to know candidates through various outlets. That it is not there is not an indication of lack of work. Maybe a little idealism that people will take a little time.

Kaben
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:31:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: lecrotta
Edited by: lecrotta on 29/04/2008 21:50:05
Originally by: Goumindong


No, its that the upgrade from these types of ships is much too severe. The value you gain too much. It is not that people should not be flying these ships but the advantage that they bring does not correlate with the risk. Currently the game is very nearly "Don't come unless you can fly a t2 cruiser or better". Because they pretty much obsolete everything below them.

It seems to me you are simply attempting to strawman me instead of addressing the actual argument.


A t2 cruiser or better fitted t2 costs at least 200 mil with rigs how can you say that its wrong for a ship like this to far outclass all ships below it, cos as far as im concerned it should far out class them.

This is my issue with your ideas as they are reducing what ppl have ratted trained and paid monthly fees for a long time to achieve, yes in eve right now there is a lot of t2 ships about but also there are a lot of ppl training for them because they are great fun to fly, remember your "make eve lots of fun" number one rule.


Personally I don't think g has a prob with t2 ships. I believe the problem stems from rock/paper/scissors in that there is a counter to things, but the problem stems when someone introduces dynamite. In this case dynamite needs a counter and from looking at what the devs do mostly is remove dynamite from the equation leaving us again with rock/paper/scissors until someone figures out how to make dynamite again.

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:44:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Talkuth Rel


When there are over 60 candidates, you want people to go and read 60 webpages? I think that's a ridiculous expectation. Your initial profile should give enough for a player to decide if they have enough interest in you as a candidate for it to be worth it for them to follow the link and read more. The profile statements provide a snapshot of who you are and what you stand for, and should be a means of narrowing down one's choices. Not putting up any information in the statement either shows you are lazy, too busy to do something important, or have no platform on which to run.


Or it means i mis-calculated the number of people that would be running and was optimistic that people would take the time to get to know candidates through various outlets. That it is not there is not an indication of lack of work. Maybe a little idealism that people will take a little time.


I can accept that explanation. Were there fewer candidates, I can see it being fairly reasonable to assume that more players would look at individual sites. However, regardless of the number of candidates, I think there will always be a certain portion of the population who will be just interested enough to look at initial statements, but no further. With this in mind, I think it would be in every candidate's best interest to take any opportunity to describe their platform, particularly in an official listing where you will be compared side-by-side with all the other candidates. I'm afraid that this may be a costly miscalculation for you and others. Oh well, at least you put up the URL, some didn't even bother to post a single word.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:46:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Talkuth Rel

Was he the GoonSwarm diplomat at the time of this statement? If so, it is still a valid representation of Goon policy. If not, and it was an unauthorized statement contrary to the will of the leadership of GoonSwarm, then where is the public denounciation of such policy as the work of a rogue member and not representative of the alliance as a whole? If you don't keep control of your members' public statements, you are responsible for whatever perceptions those statements create.

In JV1V when goons were "Fofo'ing" in local after a successful battle a GM asked Remdeial[the Goon CEO at the time] to make them stop. He responded "I am just the head of an internet spaceship guild. I can't make them stop"

Goons aren't a massive collective as we may seem. If you don't trust what I am saying and instead think that Jihad Swarm was some Machiavellian scheme against players in empire then i won't be able to convince you.

Quote:

It worries me if the Goons think that the only way to win EVE is to make other players quit. Is it not enough if you simply drive other players from your space, force them to withdraw to where they are no longer a threat to you? Or is the only possible method of winning to harass such players to the point that they delete the game from their hard drive? This seems to be what he is saying, how is that "misinterpreted?" What part of it have I got wrong?

Also, how is it beneficial to the continuing health and growth of EVE if your goal is to drive players away? Chasing away players has the inevitable outcome of reducing subscriptions, less funding for CCP, and the eventual destruction of the game. In this light, shouldn't there be a different goal to your game?



There really is no way to really beat a player. See RA for a good example[or Goonswarm]. Anyone can simply run to low-sec and build up to attack you again. This is fun and good for the game since it continues the dynamism. That we understand that you cannot truly beat someone without making them quit only means that we understand the nature of the game.

If we drove everyone out of the game we would not be able to have fun. This would be bad for the swarm.

Quote:

These statements speak volumes about what type of game the Goons are playing. EVE is a game about spaceship combat, about risk and reward, about gain and loss. When all done within the context of the game, it can be fun regardless of which side of a battle you are on. But there is a limit, this all stops at the keyboard. Except the Goons take it beyond that. Their game is to make players "miserable," to completely destroy their will and desire to play. That's really great for community building, and a great perspective for the CSM, isn't it?


You need to understand a bit about Goonswarm and its history to understand these comments[Specifically BoB saying they were going to grief GS out of the game, which is what started this whole mess in the south, and these 'proclamations']. There is a lot of group mentality in the swarm, but its entirely due to fun and not due to some malicious feelings for the game or its players.

We move to hit morale because that is how you win. Its how you win on the sov map and its how you win in the game and its how you have fun. Goons don't win when Goons don't log on. And this holds for every single alliance and organization in the game. We want a game we want to log into to play, its that simple.

Makhan
Posted - 2008.04.29 23:25:00 - [57]
 

Goumindong, what subforum of SA do you find yourself browsing the most?

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.29 23:46:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Talkuth Rel on 29/04/2008 23:49:44
Edited by: Talkuth Rel on 29/04/2008 23:47:32
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Talkuth Rel

Was he the GoonSwarm diplomat at the time of this statement? ...

In JV1V when goons were "Fofo'ing" in local after a successful battle a GM asked Remdeial[the Goon CEO at the time] to make them stop. He responded "I am just the head of an internet spaceship guild. I can't make them stop"

Goons aren't a massive collective as we may seem. If you don't trust what I am saying and instead think that Jihad Swarm was some Machiavellian scheme against players in empire then i won't be able to convince you.

That's nice, but it completely sidestepped the question. The statement was publicly made to CCP in the form of an ISD anouncement. It was made to sound as if it represented the alliance's objectives as a whole. If it did not, and was only the words of a single member, then your authorized reps should have been doing some damage control. Since they did not, I have to assume that the motives for jihadswarm were as publicly stated.

GoonSwarm is an alliance. An alliance can remove corps that don't adhere to policies. A corp can remove players that disobey orders. Failure to keep control of members is a matter of choice, not ability.
Originally by: Goumindong


Quote:

It worries me if the Goons think that the only way to win EVE is to make other players quit...

Also, how is it beneficial to the continuing health and growth of EVE if your goal is to drive players away? Chasing away players has the inevitable outcome of reducing subscriptions, less funding for CCP, and the eventual destruction of the game. In this light, shouldn't there be a different goal to your game?



There really is no way to really beat a player. See RA for a good example[or Goonswarm]. Anyone can simply run to low-sec and build up to attack you again. This is fun and good for the game since it continues the dynamism. That we understand that you cannot truly beat someone without making them quit only means that we understand the nature of the game.

If we drove everyone out of the game we would not be able to have fun. This would be bad for the swarm.



I agree it would be bad, for the game as a whole, for players to be driven to quit. Why then is this an oft-stated goal of the Goons, to make others miserable to the point of forcing them out of the game? If you truly believe that this is the nature of the game, and the only way to win, then I have to conclude that we are in fact playing two very different games. I play for my own fun and experience, not to destroy that of others. I'll blow up their ships, they'll blow up mine. I may try to make it difficult for them to operate in certain regions of space. I may try to wear down their wallets until they cannot afford to fight me for a time. But once I have forced them to back down, I do not pursue and harass them until I have made them "miserable." I do not make it impossible for them to do anything in the game until they are forced to quit. If they can build up and later come back, great, we can have some more fun. If they quit, then they no longer play and I no longer have a potential opponent, so we both lose. Making other players quit is by no means a way to "win" EVE. I'd have to say that with some rare exceptions, everyone loses each time a player quits, because then there is one less person contributing to a game that is built on player interaction.

Having said all that, I have to admit I have a bit more respect for you than certain others of your alliance. You have not attempted to deny the history or objectives of your group. You do not obscure or ignore what has happened in the past. I cannot agree with or endorse your rationalizations for such history, but I appreciate that you at least seem to be honest about it.

Waterfowl Democracy
The Ministry of Indigenous Affairs
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.04.30 00:45:00 - [59]
 

Why do you feel that you can speak on the behalf of goonswarm when in fact no one in goonswarm can stand you and 50% of our forums have you on ignore because of your horrible posts?
How can you claim to be a valid candidate when you couldn't even get 20 people to support your CSM candidancy out of a forum of thousands of people?

Labienus
Gallente
Nocturnal Romance
Ninja Unicorns with Huge Horns
Posted - 2008.04.30 00:47:00 - [60]
 

According to the Goonswarm killboard you have barely ever flown a t2 ship in a pvp situation. An Absolution 4 times, and never used a HAC. How can you say that the risk reward is broken on them if you have never flown/lost these t2 ships? Could your opinion in anyway be biased because you do not want to use these ships that outperform the usual t1 versions?


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