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


 
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

Author Topic

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.28 20:58:00 - [1]
 


Hello all,

In Summary:

I love EVE and I want the CSM to work. I want it to be made up of 9 people who do actually represent the varied playstyles in EVE. I want a group that will look at ideas, debate them seriously and then come to informed decisions for the overall benefit of this game and not a CSM dominated by vocal individuals dedicated to promoting their own playstyle at the expense of everyone else's.

I do not believe, as some people seem to do, that the CSM is going to be successful purely on the basis of having good communicators. Sure good communicators are necessary, but at the end of the day IF the CSM is going to work (and is not simply be a PR stunt for CCP) then it will be the content and thought behind our suggestions which will be more important than the volume and tenacity with which we promote them.

Otherwise we may as well just leave it to the forums!

I want to be one of those nine members. I want to try and contribute to the process of improving EVE. Whether or not the CSM will work only time will tell, but I certainly will be doing what I can to try and ensure that it does!


If you want to find out more about me then please visit:

http://hardinfaq.blogspot.com

In addition, that site also links a number of other places where I have answered questions relating to the CSM.

If you have gone through all of that and still have a question you want to ask then please feel free to do so here Razz

Cheers

Hardin


Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2008.04.28 21:22:00 - [2]
 

I was going to ask you a detailed and insightful question, so I scoured your Blog and the EVE Mag article you wrote.

I now realise that I was almost certainly at Uni with you (Im 33) so now I have an even better question!

What did you think of the security staff at the Stumble Inn?

Think carefully before you answer......

Wink

C.


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.28 23:31:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 28/04/2008 23:31:17


Originally by: Cailais
I was going to ask you a detailed and insightful question, so I scoured your Blog and the EVE Mag article you wrote.

I now realise that I was almost certainly at Uni with you (Im 33) so now I have an even better question!

What did you think of the security staff at the Stumble Inn?

Think carefully before you answer......

Wink

C.


Lol - what a coincidence. (you know I stood for elections at RHUL too. Had the most unfun weekend of my life as an NUS delegate in Blackpool in the middle of winter Razz)

Regarding Stumble Inn security staff, from what I can remember I had no problems with them - although by the second third year I had graduated from Stumble Inn to The Happy Man - much better looking lasses there Wink


Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.04.28 23:40:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 28/04/2008 23:39:49
Here's a question:

Are you going to say "OOC, " every time you speak on council just so there isn't any confusion?

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.28 23:42:00 - [5]
 

If you want me too Smile




Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2008.04.29 00:28:00 - [6]
 

I will vote for you if you refer to yourself in all offical CSM material as Hardon.

Adrian Steel
Caldari
Kabukimono Exploration Syndicate
Greater Realms
Posted - 2008.04.29 03:03:00 - [7]
 

Edited by: Adrian Steel on 29/04/2008 03:50:19
This quote is taken from Hardin's CSM site:

Originally by: Hardin
I believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option for anyone worried about the CSM being dominated by members of the mega-blocks.



I have a question for Hardin:

After stating the above on your site, how do you plan on down-playing the fact that you have been heavily influential in the leadership of a large alliance that has controlled an entire 0.0 region for 4 years. The CVA has many influential allies in the surrounding regions, the core of whom are referred to by outsiders as "The Amarrian Block." If this is not a mega-block, would the term "huge" describe it properly?

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.29 07:47:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 29/04/2008 09:53:46

Originally by: Adrian Steel

This quote is taken from Hardin's CSM site:

Originally by: Hardin
I believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option for anyone worried about the CSM being dominated by members of the mega-blocks.



I have a question for Hardin:

After stating the above on your site, how do you plan on down-playing the fact that you have been heavily influential in the leadership of a large alliance that has controlled an entire 0.0 region for 4 years. The CVA has many influential allies in the surrounding regions, the core of whom are referred to by outsiders as "The Amarrian Block." If this is not a mega-block, would the term "huge" describe it properly?


Always nice to answer questions from my friends in Star Fraction Smile

Firstly, we have only fully controlled Providence for less than a year - not four. Yes our influence over Providence is something which has grown slowly but steadly since the launch of 'Operation Deliverance' but by no means could we claim to have controlled the region until relatively recently.

Secondly, I would hardly call myself heavily influential within that 'bloc' (if that is what you want to call it). I am not the leader of the CVA, although many assume that I am simply because I am the most public face of the alliance.

Third, the CVA itself only comprises 789 pilots currently and that is after a year of growth! A look at this - http://www.eve-maps.com/outpostalert/alliancerank.asp?Sov=OFF clearly demonstrates our relative lack of numbers in comparision to other space holding alliances around us.

Organisations such as LFA, Sylph, Paxton and sev3rance are not part of some mythical 'Bloc' but independent entities who make their own decisions.

Fortunately for us they support the CVA's principles of NRDS and the development of Providence. But we do not assume their blind obedience. Hell they could all backstab CVA tomorrow for all we know Razz

If they do support us its because they know its in their own interests for us 'little guys' to work together to provide mutual protection against the 'megablocks'. I would also point out that CVA and our friends have never taken offensive action outside of Providence.

Now assuming that CVA's allies were infact all puppets or pets (which seems to be implied in your post) and we were acting as a 'bloc' (which we are not - certainly not offensively) the fact is that the major megablocks (albeit at least one of them has fractured somewhat since I first wrote that piece) still outnumber combined Providence forces substantially. Hell Goonswarm alone outnumbers all the Providence based alliances.

So no - I don't see us as a 'mega' or even 'huge' bloc.

A large independent political entity yes, but one that would still be severely outnumbered in the face of an attack by either the 'Alliance' or the 'Coalition'.

Summing up the CVA is not huge, takes little to no interest in offensive affairs beyond the borders of Providence (apart from in the RP arena) and shoots both of the megablocks pretty much equally.

So yes from that perspective I do believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option.

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.04.29 07:53:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Hardin

So yes from that perspective I do believe I offer a strong 'neutral' option.



how neutral against changes in game mechanics like the proposed destructionable outposts
or rebalancing of bridges jammers etc?


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.29 09:46:00 - [10]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 29/04/2008 09:58:00

I have already said elsewhere that I am open to suggestions in these areas provided they maintain some balance.

Even regarding the issue of 'destructible' Outposts I am not without compromise. As I said on the OOC forums:

"I am not necessarily opposed to Outposts going pop... provided that:

- CCP reduces the effort required to build and maintain them

- comes up with a workable solution to the issue of people's assets stored in those stations

- that there is a reasonable time lag 'destruct countdown' involved so that the people who want Outposts to pop have to maintain control and 'defend' the station for a reasonable period."


And there are other options than the black and white suggestion that Outposts simply exist or don't exist. Others have suggested the idea of 'Derelict' & 'Disabled' stations which also have promise.

Personally I don't think Outposts should be destructible (although I will look at both sides of the case) because I believe they are a key part of the process of developing 0.0 and attracting people to come and live there - something which will enhance PvP opportunities not hinder them.

Yes they do mean people can play dock monkey... but hell its not hard to avoid PvP in 0.0 even if there isn't a station in local if people want to - so Stations are not the problem.

But in addition to that I also like them from a roleplay perspective. They add a permanence and a history to the game that no other structure does. I am looking forward to the day that EVE Front in game wiki goes live so that I can write a history of 'Unity/Deliverance Reclaimed' in 9UY detailing the various sieges - so that when a pilot jumps into the system they can get a feel of the epic battles that have been fought over the station. (and I invite you to do the same Zoolkhan Wink)

While Ushra'khan no longer have the station it is still a legacy and reminder that they were there - that they existed. I hope players of EVE in 10 years time can jump into 9UY and look up the ownership history of the station and get an idea of the ebb and flow of EVE politics and warfare (whether or not CVA still controls it Wink)

I also believe that some of the proponents of 'destructible' Outposts are not seeing the larger picture. They seemingly wish to turn the clock back to 2004 when a small number of mega alliances 'owned' huge tracts of space - simply because there was no way for smaller alliances to get established and defend their claims.

If Outposts were destructible then the megablocks would simply play a scorched earth game and there would be no real motivation for smaller alliances to populate 0.0 when everything they build could be torched at the whim of megablock enemy.

This could be rectified by making Outposts cheaper to build and maintain so that they are not so much of an investment risk but I have my doubts about how realistic that is.

I believe the opportunity to build Outposts and then effectively defend them against 'the blob' is one of the reason 0.0 is becoming increasingly crowded and increasingly fractious, divided and warlike - which in my opinion is a positive trend in EVE because it inevitably leads to more conflict!

Saying that I also believe smaller 'guerilla' forces should be given more options to 'annoy' a sov holder without the need to engage in full scale POS warfare. For example the ability to completely shut down a station (no services - including no docking) for a specific period (i.e. two weeks). Obviously something like this offers huge potential for pure griefing so again the mechanics would need to be closely examined before being implemented..

So in summary, yes it is my personal belief is that Outpost should NOT be destructible. However if someone can come up with a good compromise or suggestion that addresses some of my reservations then I am not going to rule it out simply because I am a member of the CVA.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:01:00 - [11]
 

Hi Hardin,

I've noticed you haven't weighed in on many (any?) of the "What's the most important issue" questions - can we get a definitive answer on what you feel is the most important issue that you would bring to CCP as a member of Council?

Specifically, your response to this question in the EveMag interview is very vague - you say you are:

Quote:
...interested in changes to POS Warfare/Sovereignty. I am slightly concerned that some of the candidates seem to be pushing an agenda on this agenda with no real recognition of game balance - nor recognition of the efforts that existing sov holders have put into obtaining and then maintaining sov.


I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case?

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:04:00 - [12]
 

my question was simple hardin. i was not asking for your opionion, but if you can ensure
neutrality on that topic even though your alliance has , what? 8 OPS now and potentially a lot to loose if the current game mechanics would receive a change in favor to the attackers.

This comes down to the ability to divide INGAME from OOG - someone who can divide it
would spot the inbalance(?) and perhaps initiate a change ALTHOUGH it would not make the ingame
friends and allies too happy. A unpopular decision so to speak, can you handle that?

Perhaps in fewer lines?


Renosha Argaron
Caldari
IronPig
Sev3rance
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:30:00 - [13]
 

Well you have my vote Hardin, Good luck Wink

Regards

RenoshaVery Happy

Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Naqam
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:38:00 - [14]
 

Sorry if this has been asked before, but:

What is your opinion of the Local chat channel, and it's powerful function to allow people to completely avoid PvP?

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:46:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: Kelsin


I hesitate to interpret this as saying you will champion the rights of Sovereignty holders without a clear confirmation from you - is that the case?


I am not going on to CSM to 'champion' anything for anyone.

Unlike Jade, (for whom, incidentally, you seem to be doing such a great cheerleading job) I do not believe that at this stage the candidates for the CSM should be sticking flags in the ground and drawing lines in the sand.

I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.

Yes we are all to some extent biased, based upon our experiences in this game (as indicated by my post above) and yes I expect some hearty, healthy debate.

However, if the CSM is to be effective its members have to be open minded and make decisions based upon what they think is best for the interests of the game and not just for the benefit of their own alliances or playstyles and I am afraid Jade just hasn't convinced me on that score.

I really don't want to spend a week in Iceland with a bunch of people who have already decided how everyone else should play the game and who are not willing to compromise because they have already sold their souls to a variety of forum bandwagons.

Fortunately, I am confident that the majority of candidates don't want that either!

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:56:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: zoolkhan
my question was simple hardin. i was not asking for your opionion, but if you can ensure
neutrality on that topic even though your alliance has , what? 8 OPS now and potentially a lot to loose if the current game mechanics would receive a change in favor to the attackers.

This comes down to the ability to divide INGAME from OOG - someone who can divide it
would spot the inbalance(?) and perhaps initiate a change ALTHOUGH it would not make the ingame
friends and allies too happy. A unpopular decision so to speak, can you handle that?

Perhaps in fewer lines?




Well I did already answer this kinda in my blog www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com

Is Hardin biaised?

Yes. I think anyone who says they are not biaised should be shot as a liar right now. There are things in my EVE history and how I play the game which have influenced my perspective on certain things. These perceptions could be regarded as 'bias' but similarly can simply be seen as my point of view. While I do believe I am open-minded and open to new ideas (as every Amarrian should :p) I will be honest and say that I am not a blank page and that I will not automatically endorse every idea suggested to me in an effort to win this election. That said I am in general an amiable chap and will judge every idea on its merits - not on the basis of which person or alliance proposed it.

Yes I can separate ingame from out of game and as I have said before I will not support CVA interests simply because they are CVA interests - although of course my experience will colour my perspective on certain issues and it will be up to other CSM members to change my mind (or vice versa Smile).

At the end of the day I am an EVE player who loves this game and wants this game to improve. Maybe it is a naive hope that CSM will be successful tool in that improvement process but I certainly want us to make an effort!


Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:57:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Hardin
I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.


But surely, if the CSM's role is to raise issues before CCP, at some point you have to choose what issues to raise. Will you shed some light on what sorts of issues you personally would bring up for the council to vote on and then present to CCP? Or would you not bring up any issues and only vote on others' proposals?

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.29 13:16:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Hardin
I believe that approach is counterproductive, close minded and certainly not the approach I would expect from someone who is try to convince us that they are willing to work as part of a team because that is what the CSM should be.


But surely, if the CSM's role is to raise issues before CCP, at some point you have to choose what issues to raise. Will you shed some light on what sorts of issues you personally would bring up for the council to vote on and then present to CCP? Or would you not bring up any issues and only vote on others' proposals?


I really don't think raising issues is going to be a problem - as this forum already demonstrates! Smile

I mean exactly how many issues can we get honestly expect to get through?

If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is

Macroers (reducing)
BACON (banning)
Roleplay (enhancing)
POS Warfare (improving)
POS maintenance (simplifying)
Lag (destroying)
Newbies (encouraging)
0.0 (developing)
Markets (improving)
Dev Transparency (illuminating)
Destroyers (boosting)

Somehow I think others may beat me to it Razz







Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.29 13:24:00 - [19]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 29/04/2008 13:29:10


Originally by: Rawr Cristina
Sorry if this has been asked before, but:

What is your opinion of the Local chat channel, and it's powerful function to allow people to completely avoid PvP?


Posting my opinion from another thread:

Similarly, on the issue of local, I can see why some people are such advocates for its removal. However, I also see very good reasons why the removal of local would actually diminish (rather than increase) the likelihood of enjoyable PvP.

Obviously we will have to agree to disagree sometimes but we also have to be able to compromise and adapt our standpoints based upon the input we receive from all the players of EVE and not just those that reflect the interests of our own particular corps.

Specifically and quickly on local removal:

1) Uncertainty - Uncertainty increases the desire for safety. Safety is obtained by either not travelling to risky areas or seeking saftey in numbers - its human nature. The removal of local increases uncertainty gigantically and unless an effective alternative is put in place it is, in my opinion, more likely to reduce PvP action than increase it.

2) Tedium - Making things harder is not in itself wrong. I am sure there are many vets who long for a really hardcore EVE. The problem is there is a fine line between challenging and tedious. Make life too difficult and you run the risk of driving people out of the game. And while we are at it lets just make EVE that little bit more unpleasant and daunting for people joining the game, after all its not like they have enough to get to grips with already.

3) Solo play - The removal of local will pretty much eliminate solo play in 0.0. That's fine if you believe that 0.0 should be a mercilessly hostile unforgiving place but not so fine if you believe in developing economies and creating empires in 0.0. It's not like we should be doing anything that would encourage people to leave Empire space anyway!

While those are my major concerns there are also big issues around login traps. Jump scout in, scan gate, one enemy in local, move scout on, jump fleet in, **** there's now 50 people on the gate - no warning whatsoever!

Also undocking. No local - no idea who is in the system as you can't scan. Okay let's put windows on the station - erm what if they are all in cloakers? Okay lets introduce in station scanners - erm what if they are all in cloakers?

As it stands it just seems way too imbalanced and impractical to me and if it was going to be introduced should have been introduced 4 years ago! Maybe there are ways around some of the issues I have outlined. Maybe I am just being too 'carebear' for my own good but I honestly think that the removal of local without an adeqaute alternative would severely damage the playing experience for the vast majority of players!


I also forgot to add 'sociability' to that. While many players do not interact outside their own corps many others do. Removing local could make EVE even more unfriendly (particularly for new players) place than it is now.

There options about how you could reduce the impact of removing local - for instance the channel still exists but only people who talk are shown and instead of a complete list of everyone in the system it instead shows a break down of:

Blues XX
Neutrals XX
Reds XX
War Targets XX

Not sure how practicable that is though!

In summary, I believe the removal of local without some adequate form of replacement will actually REDUCE PvP opportunities (based on my understanding of human nature). It will lead to a reduction in quality PvP and increased blobbage and gankage - particularly of individuals and small groups. It will not infact make targets easier to find and kill because those targets will have either moved to Empire or some other less risky profession!




Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.04.29 14:03:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Hardin
I mean exactly how many issues can we get honestly expect to get through?

If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is

Macroers (reducing)
BACON (banning)
Roleplay (enhancing)
POS Warfare (improving)
POS maintenance (simplifying)
Lag (destroying)
Newbies (encouraging)
0.0 (developing)
Markets (improving)
Dev Transparency (illuminating)
Destroyers (boosting)



Thanks, that's the sort of thing I was asking after.

I'd like to hear some specifics on:

Roleplay (enhancing)
POS Warfare (improving)
POS maintenance (simplifying)
0.0 (developing)

as your ideas on exactly how these areas can be enhanced, improved, simplified and developed are central to what you would support/push for on the council and thus important for us to know.

Verone
Gallente
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.04.30 15:50:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Hardin

If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is

Macroers (reducing)
BACON (banning)
Roleplay (enhancing)
POS Warfare (improving)
POS maintenance (simplifying)
Lag (destroying)
Newbies (encouraging)
0.0 (developing)
Markets (improving)
Dev Transparency (illuminating)
Destroyers (boosting)



\o/ My votes are in for Hardin tbh CoolCoolCool


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.30 23:24:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Verone
Originally by: Hardin

If no one else decides to raise them then amongst the first issues I would raise is

Macroers (reducing)
BACON (banning)
Roleplay (enhancing)
POS Warfare (improving)
POS maintenance (simplifying)
Lag (destroying)
Newbies (encouraging)
0.0 (developing)
Markets (improving)
Dev Transparency (illuminating)
Destroyers (boosting)



\o/ My votes are in for Hardin tbh CoolCoolCool




Thanks Verone - your endorsement is appreciated. Smile

Regarding Kelsin's questions I find it quite amusing that you need to know all this information when its quite clear that you are operating as Jade's chief cheerleader - if not her unofficial campaign manager Wink

Is there a realistic possibility that my answers will convince you to vote for me or are you just trying to make me say something stupid which you can jump up and down on and go 'Nah na na na nah Hardin is an idiot'? Wink

You first asked me which issues I was interested in - I gave you a list - were you happy no - now you want specifics - but specifics on carefully selected topics. Will you be happy with those - probably not!

Nevertheless, I will rise to the bait.

Roleplay (enhancing): I would like CCP to take roleplay more seriously. I know that many knock 'roleplay' in EVE but the backstory and history iS of interest to large groups of players (probably more than we think).

I would like to see an EVE which is more dynamic in relation to roleplay, where the old established Empires 'react', 'respond' and 'interact' with players and player empires more than they currently do.

I would like to see more recognition given to pod pilot politics in the shape of 'Empire' reactions to the initiatives of both individual pod pilots, corporations and alliances - although this is an area in which CCP has already improved massively of late (and this is an area in which CCP has to tread carefully to avoid claims of bias)

I would like to see CCP endorse and support efforts such as EVE Front - which will give players the opportunity to contribute to the history and immersion of this game.

And of course I would like storylines to progress a little faster and more logically. Hell the Amarr Empire has been without an Emperor for the past year with little to no IC justification. It is not good enough!

I will also be interested in seeing the details of Factional Warfare and ensuring that this is something that adds to the roleplay of EVE rather than detracts from it.


Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.30 23:28:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 30/04/2008 23:34:24


POS Warfare (improving): I think pretty much everyone agrees that POS/Sov warfare as it stands needs to be reformed. The question is improving it whilst maintaining balance.

I do believe defenders should have the advantage to reflect their 'entrenched' state and their initial and ongoing investment (both in ISK and time) in defensive structures.

I don't think cynojammers are the problem. Unless a defender is tipped off (or the attacker extremely incompetent) the initial strike to down a cynojammer (which takes place at a time and place of the attackers choosing) is relatively straightforward and painless.

Attackers then have the option of leaving those caps in the system until needed. In the event that the attacker does withdraw caps from the system and doesn't interdict the system (allowing the defender to regroup and repair/online cynojammers and jumpbridges) then the attacker is asking for trouble...

Nevertheless I do think it is excessive that after re-onlining the cynojammer the defender can then move as many assets into the system as it wants using the mechanic of jump bridges. The ability for defenders to uuse jump bridges to jump in multiple super caps and caps to defend a cynojammer (either via Doomsdays or Remote Rep) when an attacker can only use conventionals (assuming the attacker didn't leave their cap fleet in the system after the initial attack) is imho unbalanced towards the defender.

My suggestion would be that any jumpbridges put out of action by the attacker in the initial assault cannot be reactivated while there are POSes in reinforced in the system. Similarly new jumpbridges cannot be installed and activated while there are reinforced POSes in a system.

In this way if defenders wanted to move Caps into a system to defend their cynojammer/poses would have to open a window in their cynojamming protection which the alert/organised attacker could also take advantage of.

It also means that the defender will (may) need to FIGHT to get its conventional defence fleet into the system rather than simply bypassing the attackers fleets by using jumpbridges.

I am open to other ideas on this subject - but will not support any idea which pushes the balance too far in favour of either side. While siege warfare is tough for the attacker you just have to look at BoB's recovery in Querious and Period Basis to see how large well organised attackers can quickly capture space - particularly if the defender is not properly dedicated and motivated.


POS Maintenance (simplifying): One of the main objections I have to making it easier for attackers to kill POSes is the amount of effort that POS owners need to go to to keep the buggers online. POS maintenance (as most people acknowledge) is not much fun and needlessly so.

If the process of maintaining and refueling POS structures was simplified and made less demanding then I would certainly look more agreeably on proposals to make their destruction more 'fun' too. However as it stands, I see people investing significant amounts of ISK and time in maintaining POS networks (with the exception being those lucky few who have the right moon materials) and believe this should be reflected in the effort that attackers have to go to to remove them.

I believe CCP already has some work in progress in this area and look forward to finding out more.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.04.30 23:32:00 - [24]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 30/04/2008 23:36:51


0.0 (developing): One of the main reasons I was attracted to EVE in the first place was the ability for players to build empires and civilisations in 0.0, empires shaped and molded by us as players and based upon our own ideologies and philosophies - something unique to EVE as a single server game. Over time CCP have released tools which have allowed alliances to start to develop an infrastructure in 0.0, to actually build real and solid things.

Since that happened we have seen a fragmentation of alliances. There are more space holding alliances in EVE now than at any time in its history and this adds to the flavour and depth of EVE politics, which can only be a good thing because inevitably it leads to friction and conflict.

Yet despite the tools Sov holders have been given we still see the majority of EVE pilots based in Empire. Why? The easy answer is that they are all carebears - but the reality is that the infrastructure and economy of most 0.0 regions (and even low-sec) regions still does not offer the economic incentives to outweigh the risk of relocating to 0.0 - nor does the NBSI attitude (an understandable attitude in view of current game mechanics) favoured by the majority of 0.0 alliances.

I therefore believe that Sov Holders should be given further options with which to develop their space and stimulate their economies. One suggestion - which I have seen proposed - is the introduction of 'agents' to Outposts with sov holding alliances able to 'pay' agents (the cost would depend on the level of the agent) to relocate to their stations and thus provide another incentive for people to move to 0.0 (of course the sov holding alliance benefits from the docking fees and general economic activity stimulated by this - while the PvPers raiding their space benefit from additional targets without having to worry about their ****ty sec status).

Of course that particular idea may prove unworkable purely from a technical standpoint (I am not a dev) but I would welcome tools which actually ENCOURAGE alliances to REALISTICALLY consider policies beyond the simplistic 'its not blue - shoot it' approach and to actually think about the development of their economies (beyond ratting, mining and moon mining).

This is something which will enhance the game long term as it will help populate 0.0, increasing PvP opportunities for us all. I enjoy the depth of EVE, the depth in history, the depth of ideologies, the depth of its economy, the depth of playstyles, the depth in tactics, the depth of personalities and the depth in politics but am worried that some want to remove this depth and turn 0.0 into Counterstrike in space.


I have made it clear in my blog (and above) that I do have a bias in how I view this game. My in game experiences shape these views. This is PRECISELY why I believe I and other CSM members should not be pushing specific policies and agendas at this stage.

Should the electorate have a reasonable idea about our general game philosophy and the type of characters we are - yes they should. But we are being elected to a team, a TEAM which will look at all these ideas and issue and then (hopefully) come to educated and informed decisions which are in the best interests of the game.

If the CSM ends up being full of people who are standing to promote specific agendas - with no willingness to compromise and look beyond their own interests - then I am not very hopeful as to how this is going to turn out.

Fortunately, I believe the majority of candidates - candidates such as Omber Zombie, Serenity Steele, Guomindong, Zoolkhan and Bane Glorious, to name just a few - do have the best interests of the game at heart and I hope I get the chance to work with them.


Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.04.30 23:48:00 - [25]
 

Hardin is a good guy. Hope I get to see him in Iceland.

Heartblood
Posted - 2008.05.01 03:55:00 - [26]
 

Goons supporting Hardin really makes me quite reluctant o_O
If I can ask, Hardin, what is your opinion of Goons and their generally obnoxious behaviour? Are you friends?

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 07:35:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 01/05/2008 07:35:10


Asking me my opinion of Goons is the same as asking me what I think of Americans or Russians!

In other words it is impossible to generalise

Goons have over 4,500 members. Just like every alliance they have their fair share of ****s and knobs. Just like every alliance they have members who take this game of 'Internet Spaceships' way too seriously (but then you could argue that anyone standing for CSM does too Wink) and certainly I am not an advocate of metagaming tactics to gain an advantage over your enemies (but its not like Goons are the only guilty party on that score Sad).

Certainly, I think Goons have added something to this game. Hell the Great War has been epic and probably wouldn't have happened if they hadn't taken the first steps! I admire them for their role in the Great War in the same way I admire SirMolle and BoB for making themselves public enemy #1 - deliberately!

And yes, while Goons have crossed the line of taste and do act like obnoxious twunts sometimes (the fecking up of CAOS being a prime example), they have also contributed to the 'EVE story' and creatively to the EVE community - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vfv1QtZDirY - being a good example.

As for me being friends with Goons - well no. Apart from a few words exchanged on their forums and a chat with one of their pilots in local once I have had little to no direct interaction with Goons other than when they come to Providence and usually that interaction is based upon the use of my lasers Razz







The Templariarch
Amarr
PIE Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.01 11:18:00 - [28]
 

Edited by: The Templariarch on 01/05/2008 11:24:19
Quote:
I want to try and contribute to the process of improving EVE


You favour Amarr ships above Minmatar. You are an Ammar Nationalist in heart and soul this will have influence. You are a hardcore RP`r which is fine but when it comes to design and playstyles I believe you should be locked up in a cellar, but as long as you keep yr hands off ship design and mods,... Hardin is a living eve wiki so a non-authority function and he has my vote.

Speedie Tappaja
Minmatar
Dark Knights of Deneb
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2008.05.01 15:06:00 - [29]
 

I support this person!

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.01 15:14:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Speedie Tappaja
I support this person!


Always nice to have a 'Tappaja' on the team Smile

o7


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5

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