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


 
Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.04.29 11:45:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
I have to admit ever since I heard about ambulation I had this secret fantasy about playing a ten billion isk sit down poker game on a soon to be exploding player outpost out in 0.0 with ISD covering the detonation and imminent bankrupcy of many of the players.


Can I just say - this is why we need Jade on the CSM.

Renosha Argaron
Caldari
IronPig
Sev3rance
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:21:00 - [32]
 

As far as im aware jade,and as good or bad as i may think your proposals are, none of them will be implemented as the whole point of the CSM candidacy is not to change any of the game mechanics, but to see that the game is being ran fairly, and so we dont get a repeat performance of GM's helping out there favourite allaince's or corps.

Anyway good luck jade....but as you will prob already know, my vote will lay with someone else...lolVery Happy

Regards

RenoshaVery Happy

Xennith
Imperial Logistics and Supply
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:39:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Renosha Argaron
the whole point of the CSM candidacy is not to change any of the game mechanics, but to see that the game is being ran fairly


i thought that was the purpose of CCP's internal affairs department?

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.

That role i think fits Jade like a glove.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.04.29 12:48:00 - [34]
 


Points 1) and 2) respectively of your manifesto are only a single solution to point 3). Would you still support cyno jammer mechanics and indestructable outposts if some alternative solution were to be found that allows for many more gameplay styles including your own alliance's revolutionary and/or guerilla style insurgency?

And if not, why not?

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 15:16:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Bad Harlequin

I suppose you're aware of how Horzalike you are in this context, Jade; there are several candidates I'd like to support (and will, should they be elected), but i know that if there's anyone who can be counted on to balance the MegaHugeAlliance's interests in space in favor of keeping freedom and openess in game, it'll be you; so given one vote, I give mine to you.


Thank you Harlequin! Brilliant to see you back in the game and on the forums by the way. And yep, good old Horza, well if the Federation is the pro-culture and I'm profoundly anti fed nationalist it kinda makes sense. Its certainly a role I'm happy to play - and thanks a lot for your vote!

Quote:
Everyone hopes and wants a neutral CSM board; everyone also hopefully realizes that it's impossible to achieve fully. I think (and hope :D) you'll keep out your own issue-bias when you can, but i want some of that bias represented on the CSM. For the benefit of the big players as well as the small; few things can kill a game as quickly as massive vet-blocks getting everything they want too fast Twisted Evil.


Its an exciting and dangerous time in many ways. The wrong alliance blocs could do a lot of harm to the game and I foresee the first CSM being a defining moment for this community really. Like I've said in the manifesto - my voice is there to speak for players like me that still love this Eve dream and love the potential opportunities for cybernetic rats in the stainless steel wainscoting of overarching alliance power. Screw the end game, lets keep fighting!

Quote:
I *hate* to bring any hint of the "Local rules!" "Screw Local!" "Screw YOU!" brouhaha in here, but... when Ambulating, and no excuses about being Pod-tied into CONCORD and sensors and comms and godlike infosystems can be made: should we know who else is in station in any way? Or find out the hard way by running into them?


In 0.0/lowsec with no local rules I'd say we shouldn't know who else in the station until we meet them. In empire there'd probably be a docking roster or something and concord oversight, but with these shady locations in marginal space I think the captains will want their privacy a bit.

Quote:
Dammit, i don't WANT some godmode knowlege of who else is in station. I want to walk down a corridor, turn a corner, and stop dead as Hardin and I come face to face, blinking for a second...


Then my friend, you'll be reaching for a virtual blade or snub-nosed projectile hand cannon and be cursing the devs they said no for station combat in eve Cool

Quote:
Hillarity shall ensue, oh yesssss.



Damn straight.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:38:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
I wanna know what experience you have with industry in general.


I don't do industry on my account or alts. Never have really. So speaking personally (as in have I ever done much building) nope. Most I've ever built would be a couple of cruisers, torpedoes, cap charges or something from tech1 blueprints.

However, in my corporation I currently have directors who are amongst the most effective industrial producers in the game at the moment, in the tech2 market, and in the capital market. These guys really know their stuff and suffice to say I do get to hear a lot about the challenges and issues to particular elements of the production/supply/marketing process.

Quote:
Are you able to represent the people who care about the secondary market, for instance?


Can you be a little more specific as to which secondary market elements you'd like to know about and what concerns there are please?

Quote:
I mean, i guess most people have high-sec characters, in order to make isk, which does something carebearish. But is the same true for you, and do you have any experience?


I don't have any specific isk-making characters and as I said, have no real hands-on experience with this specialization - I generally pvp for money. When I need to know I ask people who are experts in the field. Rest assured if it comes down to voting and informed choice on such issues if very thoroughly briefed by people who do know everything there is to know about these areas.

Quote:
If yes, what is the most annoying thing for you, when you do these things?


Well chatting to some industrialist contacts I'm hearing the following issues at the moment:

Very high price tech2 dyposium moon derived components; reactor units, shield emitters etc etc. Questions about the distributing of these moons, perhaps there should new seeding of moons in lowsec perhaps? Generally feeling the distribution is currently wrong.

Issues on establishing more factory/lab slots - pointed out that POS management isn't fun and some industrialists like the ship/module building game but don't want to get into POS management to enlarge slot availability. Emphasis on fun production empire's rather than baby sitting the POS tamagotchi monster.

On production: some people lament the batch system of ship building output ships - questions about whether it would be possible to have things coming out of the factory in single units again.

Extra skills needed:

Advanced(advanced mass production) Maybe call it Industrial Empire or something + (+5 factory slots a level) same for lab operation. Basically industrialists don't like the necessity to have multiple production alts just to get enough factory build jobs running. Would much rather further specialize on existing production characters.

Same for market sales, more skills beyond Tycoon wanted. Production efficiency Implants would be nice?

On market "PVP".

Standings based tariffs (ie if you are -10 from the buyer you pay a penalty fee, if you are neutral you get the market price, if you are +10 you get it cheaper.) that kind of thing.

Just some issues I'm hearing about LaVista.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:45:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Renosha Argaron
As far as im aware jade,and as good or bad as i may think your proposals are, none of them will be implemented as the whole point of the CSM candidacy is not to change any of the game mechanics, but to see that the game is being ran fairly, and so we dont get a repeat performance of GM's helping out there favourite allaince's or corps.


Common misconception that Renosha and you are in quite famous company amongst those making that mistake. I've given a detailed answer to this subject already on SHC here

That refers directly to the CSM PDF made available by the organizer.

Brief Summary:


1. CSM reps can ask questions and make proposals to the CCP council on issues of importance to the general health and future of Eve.
2. CSM reps can vote on whether to escalate a public motion (5% electorate vote) to CCP council response. (important we get a fair and balanced CSM council to ensure that good public motions will get supported and encouraged - 5/9 rep votes needed).
3. CSM reps can and will advocate and debate in direct interaction with the CCP council in Iceland to influence official judgments and decisions on the issues raised.
4. CSM reps are responsible for communicating back the results of these motions, suggestions, questions etc, and ensuring that the eve public are engaged in process of developing the game.

At no point in the founding PDF does it state these issues are solely involved with corruption investigations/internal affairs oversight, or policing GM's and CCP staff.

Our prospective job as CSM reps is to watch for hot topics from the community, inspire and encourage good debate and raise popular and important topics to the CSM shortlist and refine that down for the agenda in Iceland. Face to face talks will decide the outcome of the issues and CCP undertake to give us detailed answers and feedback.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 16:46:00 - [38]
 

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. That role i think fits Jade like a glove.


Exactly so, (and thank you!)

Skidd Chung
Caldari
Euphoria Released
Posted - 2008.04.29 17:42:00 - [39]
 

I really like what I read on you manisfesto. Although most of it sounds like a long shot, it is definitely what I would expect to change in EVE to ensure it remain fun for all.

Questions:

1) What is your view on Empire dwellers, specifically the mission running pilots who would not even risk isk and limb and stays in NPC corporations, do empire complexes and basically complains about 'PVPers' hassling them to 'get out more'? Or the typical 'carebear' that most PVPers tend to refer them to.

2) Do you feel that Player run corps/alliance should have an ideal/minimum size before being able to form compared to current mechanincs that allows pilots to form corps/alliances on a whim wihout any other pilot support?

3) What is your view on current insurance payout mechanics and how do you think we can improve if you think something is lacking from it?

4) What is your current stance on the RMT issues in EVE including CCP's method of handling the problem? And how do you think we can improve the managements of it?

5) Would you support a dumbed down EVE if it can attract 50% more subscribers?

Looking forward to your replies. Cheers.


lecrotta
Minmatar
lecrotta Corp
Posted - 2008.04.29 17:43:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
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. That role i think fits Jade like a glove.


Exactly so, (and thank you!)



Yup you have my vote so far and most of my mains corp members votes as well.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 18:59:00 - [41]
 

Jade, how can support destroyable outposts when you also claim to support "dynamism" and "the little guy". Destroyable outposts hurt smaller alliances who wish to play in the 0.0 sovereignty game.

This is because large alliances will destroy outposts of their competitors, and anyone wishing to enter space must build their own. These outposts must be defended and it will always be very hard for a small defender to defend against a larger one. The attacker then destroys the outpost and leaves and if the small alliance wants that space they have to put up another outpost.

But if the outpost cannot be destroyed then they do not have to furnish the cost a second time[or first time if they are going after one already built] they attack. And the larger alliance has to commit forces in order to keep that outpost out of enemy hands[instead of just destroying it and then coming back to destroy it if they put up another].

How can you reconcile your positions when they are mutually exclusive.? Or do you simply not care about small players and instead care about pushing your corporations agenda for the game?

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 19:42:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Spoon Thumb

Would you still support cyno jammer mechanics and indestructable outposts if some alternative solution were to be found that allows for many more gameplay styles including your own alliance's revolutionary and/or guerilla style insurgency?


Its a far wider impact than just small unit pvp consequence really. The current terrible situation with 0.0 territorial warfare affects everyone involved with it. This really isn't just small unit raiding corporations wanting to be able to destroy 0.0 holdings in an eyeblink.

Under the proposals I made to illustrate the need for dynamism in space combat you'd still need to fight a significant military campaign to gain the ability to take (and thence self-destruct) an outpost.

This stuff will be of the utmost significance to all sizes of alliance and territorial entity and will have a real impact on the current sprawling afk-defensive playstyle that populates 0.0. The problem at the moment is the wasteland of empty systems with more POS than players and cyno-jammers/arranged reinforcement battles, ensuring that if somebody does want to change something its going to be a laggy-dogpile battle rather than decent fleet fight.

I believe eve needs destructible outposts to make 0.0 powers take their holdings seriously and apply the proper active defensive effort to make sure they can't be taken and occupied for little real meaning. Otherwise the landscape eventually gets filled with a desert of semi occupied "flags" that increase in number and blandness until nobody really cares who owns what and nobody has the defense focus or inclination to engage in serious fighting to defend them.

Allow an aggressor the option of razing an outpost it takes and suddenly 0.0 becomes interesting again and powers have to make a significant commitment to defend the critical locations.

Ironically some have claimed that this would lead to a situation where huge 0.0 powers would automatically destroy all the outposts of smaller powers but what it really achieves is to make anyone more circumspect in regard to overstretch and over-greedy landholdings. If you've only got a couple of outposts you'll fight with your whole fleet and focus to defend them and retake them in the self-destruct countdown if they do get taken. If you've got 100 outposts you don't really care about and the far-flung locations are attacked then sure, you'll lose them because you don't care enough.

Eve is a game where commitment wins fights. Dedication brings results. A smaller corporation can achieve fantastic victories over a much larger corporation just because it has discipline, good activity, clear goals and focus. Same really on the alliance level. A bloated 2000 man alliance is comprised of any number of people at varying levels of commitment to the cause and if they are trying to defend dozens of outposts simultaneously they'll do much less well than a focused smaller alliance concentrating on just a few.

At the moment the primary argument against destructible outpost concept comes from lazy large alliances that hate the idea that smaller focused groups will make them pay for their greedy land grabbing and lackluster defensive commitment with focused assaults with slash and burn objectives.

Eve status quo as it is now allows these "lazy powers" to pretty much ignore the activities of smaller groups because they know "at some point in the future" they can just come back and reclaim what they have lost. Make it possible to destroy outposts and suddenly war becomes real and threat's significant - eve 0.0 changes from sim-city to civilization and gets truly dynamic again.




Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.29 20:56:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Eve status quo as it is now allows these "lazy powers" to pretty much ignore the activities of smaller groups because they know "at some point in the future" they can just come back and reclaim what they have lost. Make it possible to destroy outposts and suddenly war becomes real and threat's significant - eve 0.0 changes from sim-city to civilization and gets truly dynamic again.




No, the "Lazy Powers" simply won't hold the space. They will instead simply destroy the stations and then not bother to defend it because if anyone puts anything up[a daunting task], they can just come back and blow it up again.

All the benefits of denying space to your enemies and none of the work.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 21:55:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Skidd Chung
I really like what I read on you manifesto. Although most of it sounds like a long shot, it is definitely what I would expect to change in EVE to ensure it remain fun for all.


Thank you, glad you feel that way, its definitely what I'm aiming for and to demonstrate the right kind of thinking in the CSM role.

Quote:
1) What is your view on Empire dwellers, specifically the mission running pilots who would not even risk isk and limb and stays in NPC corporations, do empire complexes and basically complains about 'PVPers' hassling them to 'get out more'? Or the typical 'carebear' that most PVPers tend to refer them to.


People have a right to play the game in any way they choose really. If they don't want pvp its up to them. Hisec mission-running in npc corps is pretty damn safe and only suicide ganking is really going to be a threat to their way of gameplay - but is quite easily prepared for and countered. What I'd really like to see is these guys (and girls) lured into higher risk systems/low-sec and such by excitement and rewards. Not by nerfing or damaging the hi-sec experience, but just by providing more content and interesting bits and pieces in more dangerous space. I think people adjust to the pvp environment of eve at different rates and nobody says closed to possibility forever. One of Star Fraction's industrial director's hasn't pvp'ed for 4.5 years at this point but a couple of weeks ago was coming up with ship loadouts and concepts for "giving it a go" and seeing if that part of the game is fun.

Thats the point, people choose their level of risk based on gameplay interest and potential profits. (Should point out that while our industrial director hasn't actively sought spaceship combat against players for most of the game, he's been dodgying pirates, blockade-running, ducking and diving while making filthy amounts of isk - its not an insulation from the rest of the server, just a way of handling your preference in interaction.)

Quote:
2) Do you feel that Player run corps/alliance should have an ideal/minimum size before being able to form compared to current mechanincs that allows pilots to form corps/alliances on a whim wihout any other pilot support?


Interesting question, but I'm going to say "no" there shouldn't be a restriction. If an individual pilot wants to form a corp then invest in alliance creation skills and payment just to have a flashy logo and more expensive incoming wardecs then its up to them. They need to pay a maintenance fee for the alliance and it gives them certain functionality - thats fair enough. I would however be in favor of introducing a clean up (maybe yearly check) to remove defunct corporations just to free up names and office spaces.

Quote:
3) What is your view on current insurance payout mechanics and how do you think we can improve if you think something is lacking from it?


I'd actually love a more dynamic insurance system that ups your premiums if you keep getting blown up and makes you pay a premium for insurance if you are low security rated. I think there is a lot that could be done with the insurance system to make it more interesting and let standings play an increased role. On the whole I don't like the minimum insurance payout either. I think it puts too much isk back into the economy from fights and Eve needs cash-sinks/fiscal impact to strip money from the economy and let pvp battles and slaughterfests in 0.0 actually reach critical dispute resolution levels (when one side literally is out of cash).

Quote:
4) What is your current stance on the RMT issues in EVE including CCP's method of handling the problem? And how do you think we can improve the managements of it?


I don't like RMT in the game. I think it spoils the environment and balance of play.

Quote:
5) Would you support a dumbed down EVE if it can attract 50% more subscribers?


Absolutely not. Eve is pretty damn successful as it is.


Kehmor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:17:00 - [45]
 

It's good to see some things never change Jade Laughing I'm delighted you stuck to your ussual propaganda method of throwing a novel at any potential opposition in order to avoid any serious criticism. While I doubt I hold any true significance in your eyes you'll always be remembered by me as my first real enemy, although at the time I had no idea of Jericho Fraction's history. Despite our ups and down you are, for the moment looking like my canidate of choice, if for no other reason than that I know you ruthlessly persue your interests and they happen to more or less correspond with my own. That said there is one issue that I would seriously encourage you to either clarify or reconsider:

Originally by: Jade Constantine
2. Enhanced corporate strife, open mercenary contracts. The war-dec system in Eve is pretty ancient now and a very blunt stick. It’s largely unchanged since the beginning of the game five years ago. One side picks a target, votes or selects the enemy, pays the fee and corporate / alliance warfare begins.

There are no win conditions save “blowing up ships” / “outlasting the endurance of declarer” – no real structure, no penalty for doing hideously badly or award for doing well. At the minimum we could do with some kind of corporate / alliance statistic showing their ratio of wins / losses / ship tonnage / efficiency just to know who was really terrible at conflict and who did well (very important for merc corporations’ credibility).

But what we really need are terms of the fighting – is it to kill ships? Is it to drive the target from XYZ system? Is it to reduce target membership? Is it to destroy a POS? Is it to protect / nullify somebody else’s wardec? There needs to be some variety and there needs to be a penalty for failing in the objective.



You frequently mention eve's "sandbox" nature and seem to claim that maintaining this unique quality is of the upmost importance. However this idea of corp. "stats" surely goes against this. Let's take your example of the credibility of mercenary corporations. With their stats published to the world a huge chunk of the game is removed, namely propaganda. Fame and respect are things I feel should be worked for on all fronts. Indeed Jericho Fraction's own former and continuing fame were heavily influenced by propaganda campaigns.

Let us now move on to consider the individual players taking myself as an example. My first ever war was against your own corporation, a mere few weeks into the game. I lost more ships in that month or so of war than I have in the last year or two. Do I regret it? Not at all, one of the most enjoyable times in my eve career, and certainly the most educational. It destroyed the noobish preconceptions I had about PVP and taught me to think for myself and, more importantly, outside the box. While my triumphs were few, they were each a true triumph for me atleast, and I hope you will atleast agree that I was almost always willing to fight.

Now let us consider the new player of today. How many would be willing to be so daring, to lose so many ships in the name of self-improvement and sheer fun if their stats were to be forever publicised to the world, their embaressing defeats highlighted to the eve community, their corporation or avatar ever a laughing stock among those who know better. Such daring rookies are few and far between as it is, should we discourage this minority with such a ruthless punishement?

All I can really see this sort of change accomplishing is encouraging the already widespread paranoia of losing one's ship. Already blob's are wide spread, people take unneccesary precautions to protect their precious pixels. Bringing to light "who was really terrible" would merely further reward this type of general cowardice and reduce the enjoyment of pvp. I myself am reluctant even to use killboards because it encourages me to take the same precations in the name of "stats". Reconsider.

Regards,

Kehmor

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:33:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Kehmor
It's good to see some things never change Jade Laughing I'm delighted you stuck to your ussual propaganda method of throwing a novel at any potential opposition in order to avoid any serious criticism. While I doubt I hold any true significance in your eyes you'll always be remembered by me as my first real enemy, although at the time I had no idea of Jericho Fraction's history.


You were my probably my 2nd ever 1v1 pvp victory Kehmor. And I promise you back then we weren't much more seasoned than you were as a fighting corp. Pojo's Typhoon schooled us all while the war was on. I still remember our caracal duel distinctly, and I'm very glad you have stuck with the game yourself.

Quote:
You frequently mention eve's "sandbox" nature and seem to claim that maintaining this unique quality is of the upmost importance. However this idea of corp. "stats" surely goes against this. Let's take your example of the credibility of mercenary corporations. With their stats published to the world a huge chunk of the game is removed, namely propaganda. Fame and respect are things I feel should be worked for on all fronts. Indeed Jericho Fraction's own former and continuing fame were heavily influenced by propaganda campaigns.


Well remember this stuff is going to happen in some way or another with faction warfare, there will be dynamic results based on in-game accomplishment, ships killed, LP collected, establishments nuked, widgets salvaged etc etc. Every merc corp of note at the moment runs a killboard and invites their clients to take a look at it to assess whether they are worth hiring - why shouldn't this functionality be tapped into to make a more useful war-declaration and fighting system? You are certainly right with regard to JF's early history, we were a tiny corp with a huge reputation and used PR to emphasize all victories and positively paint our defeats, the same could still be done - ultimately, you can't lie about killing ships or getting killed and not be called to task about it on the forums anyhow. You have to weigh up the current problems with the unfocused war-dec system against the benefit of hiding or occluding engagement stats I think.

Quote:
Let us now move on to consider the individual players taking myself as an example. My first ever war was against your own corporation, a mere few weeks into the game. I lost more ships in that month or so of war than I have in the last year or two. Do I regret it? Not at all, one of the most enjoyable times in my eve career, and certainly the most educational. It destroyed the noobish preconceptions I had about PVP and taught me to think for myself and, more importantly, outside the box. While my triumphs were few, they were each a true triumph for me atleast, and I hope you will atleast agree that I was almost always willing to fight.


Absolutely you won a tonne of respect from us for engaging and fighting hard for your RP principles as Caldari Nationalists. And I'm really glad you took a positive experience from the conflict.

-continued

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:45:00 - [47]
 


Quote:
Now let us consider the new player of today. How many would be willing to be so daring, to lose so many ships in the name of self-improvement and sheer fun if their stats were to be forever publicised to the world, their embaressing defeats highlighted to the eve community, their corporation or avatar ever a laughing stock among those who know better. Such daring rookies are few and far between as it is, should we discourage this minority with such a ruthless punishement?


Well bare in mind I'm not talking about personal stats here. I'm talking about a war-system actually tracking the results of that war and leading to a result based on the actual engagements in space while its active. I'm not suggesting every pilot in eve has a public kill record that follows them around like a bad smell if they got blown up a lot as new players. This is a corporate reputation thing. Its useful for mercenaries to opt in to a public assessment of their capability to make it easier to sell their services - that would be their shop window really. Otherwise its a game mechanic thing to assess whether a war is still active and in the balance or whether one side or the other has won. We could certainly compromise on the suggestion and make the public side of conflict result listing an opt-in option that merc corps could agree to if they think its worth while for them. Other conflicts would be resolved by comparing the hidden/internal engagement stats but unless they are mercs and trading on results there'd be no reason for them to publicize these things.

Quote:
All I can really see this sort of change accomplishing is encouraging the already widespread paranoia of losing one's ship. Already blob's are wide spread, people take unneccesary precautions to protect their precious pixels. Bringing to light "who was really terrible" would merely further reward this type of general cowardice and reduce the enjoyment of pvp. I myself am reluctant even to use killboards because it encourages me to take the same precations in the name of "stats". Reconsider.


I dunno, I can see your point on the personal/individual/character level yes. In general I agree, not every eve character should be tracked in this way and there is no purpose for the publicizing of performance on the corp/alliance level unless its a merc corp that wants these things made public as a sales technique. Of course in the bounty-hunting suggestion I link to in the op there you'd have an example of bounty hunting players listing their accomplishments on a leader board too but thats again an opt-in, profession choice, rather than a general tracker.

As to people being embarrassed about losing and just playing even more carefully - well, like I said, it shouldn't be a universally reported thing for everyone. I'm primarily interested in this functionality for a) interior mechanic for deciding concord wars b) external op-in listing for professional entities and c) leader boards for Eves deadliest bounty-hunters. Flashy show-offs can certainly pursue flashy show-off PR results, but the average eve player shouldn't be "punished" with embarrassment over terrible kill figures.

Anyway Kehmor, don't worry about me going all "elite-pvp" on you, I lose loads of ships and list them all on our public killboard aways. I've always considered being brave enough to keep fighting and take a bullet for the team is a much better assessment of whether I want to hire someone than absolute killboard efficiency anyways - the people with the best ratios in Eve tend to have a very boring/selfish fight style that doesn't work well in our alliance anyways.

Hope this addresses your concern somewhat Kehmor. And again, very glad you're playing! And I hope you're a stone cold Cerberus Ace by now!




xOm3gAx
Caldari
Stain of Mind
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:47:00 - [48]
 

Just wanted to let you know you have my support Jade. I've taken the time to read through many of your posts in the past and more recently with your CSM candidacy and i must say more often than not i agree with you. You have a good grasp of how things really are in eve and what the true causes of many of the problems this game has.

All that being said you officially have my endorsement and will have my vote when the time comes.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.04.29 22:56:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 29/04/2008 22:58:13
You didn't actually answer my question. I get what you're saying and I agree about the problems

Hypothetically, if I did have a solution that had significant advantages over yours and fewer disadvantages or cons, solved all the problems you cite and more, would you drop your solution?

What I'm really asking is are you willing to lay aside your own ideas and represent the ideas of others if they are better than yours?

Edit: and argue other's points with the same vigor?

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.29 23:11:00 - [50]
 

Originally by: Spoon Thumb

You didn't actually answer my question. I get what you're saying and I agree about the problems Hypothetically, if I did have a solution that had significant advantages over yours and fewer disadvantages or cons, solved all the problems you cite and more, would you drop your solution?


I'm not really keen on playing games with arcane debating techniques Spoon Thumb. And I don't like leading questions - hence the way I chose to answer you earlier. I much prefer people to just come out and say what they think, make proposals, let us all take a look at them and give appropriate value to good ideas. Basically, just say what you think! I can't answer your question above (for example) because its a logical trap (I have to answer yes or it means I'm nuts) But I am interested in hearing your solutions to the problems of 0.0 sovereignty and overpowering defense advantage though, and if I like what I hear I'll be very happy to support your ideas and advocate them. I don't care which organization you are from, if you've got good ideas that are in the interest of dynamism in space combat I'll happily support them.

Quote:
What I'm really asking is are you willing to lay aside your own ideas and represent the ideas of others if they are better than yours?
Edit: and argue other's points with the same vigor?


Yes absolutely.

Kehmor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.04.30 01:18:00 - [51]
 

Edited by: Kehmor on 30/04/2008 12:43:05
Originally by: Jade Constantine

You were my probably my 2nd ever 1v1 pvp victory Kehmor. And I promise you back then we weren't much more seasoned than you were as a fighting corp. Pojo's Typhoon schooled us all while the war was on. I still remember our caracal duel distinctly, and I'm very glad you have stuck with the game yourself.



Ah good times, I seem to recall that fight lasted several minutes with multiple warp ins/outs in order to achieve an EW advantage. Is till credit your victory to your better skills (and thus faster lock time) but prehaps that is just me being ussual arrogant self. Prehaps a rematch is in order? Very Happy Anyway, back on topic:

Originally by: Jade Constantine

I'm not suggesting every pilot in eve has a public kill record that follows them around like a bad smell if they got blown up a lot as new players. This is a corporate reputation thing.



That clears a few matters up, however I still see problems arising. First and foremost it would discourage PvP corps from recruiting rookies. Again this is another way of discouraging young players from throwing caution to the wind and getting stuck in to the wonderful world of PvP Why would a mercenary corp take the time to train some young blood when he will inevitably tarnish their record with foolish errors. While at the moment such losses do little to tarnish a mercenaries corp's rep (as kills are what the contracter is generally interested in) as soon as you begin to introduce statistics such as "efficiency" the loss of a few t1 fit rifters can mean the difference in getting the job or being shunned as noobs. Or are you suggesting that the value of losses etc. is taken into account? Were that the case I must question what sort of time commitment such a system would require to implement, and whether there are not more pressing matters to attend to?

Secondly, newer corporations, or indeed older ones that are just moving in to pvp, would be just as open to this "bad smell" during their initial pvp adventures. This would encourage the reforming of corps in order to obtain clean slates, something that, I think you will agree, would take away from the game experience. When I consider my character I think of more than just my attributes. Kehmor has fought in countless wars, ruthlessly murdered and scammed. He has worked as a mercenary and now, in a strange twist of fate, finds himself as a pirate hunter. I wouldn't trade the avatar for one with twice the skill points.

Now consider corporations. When I was a director in blood inquisition I felt a great reluctance to abandon something I had worked hard for. Now in PAK I again feel part of a collective, and even another corporation with the same members and a similar name would not be the same thing. We have history, old grudges and allies that creep back into existence when one least expects it. Any system that encouraged corporations to abandon their home in order for nice stats would take away from the feeling of meaning and significance that this game provides. I am fortunate enough to be flying with a group of ace pilots who can proudly boast their kill/loss ratios, however consider the two year old industrial corporation that decides to move in to the realm of pvp. They suffer the ussual newbie losses we all went through in our early days of combat and are left with what? A two year legacy tarnished in an instant by a game mechanic. Unable to recruit and quickly losing members what option do they have but to "re-roll" their corporation and lose the history that came with it.

Originally by: Jade Constantine

And again, very glad you're playing! And I hope you're a stone cold Cerberus Ace by now!



Although fully specced in Caldari I find I only really enjoy flying the Falcon, my love of big numbers has seen me convert to Gallente gank boats. Ironic considering my RP roots. Anyway, running out of characters and cba to make two posts.

Regards,

Kehmor

Kehmor
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.04.30 01:38:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Kehmor on 30/04/2008 01:41:04
Ah, seems I was too hasty and should have taken time to read your response properly. Thus a second post is required afterall.
Originally by: Jade Constantine

As to people being embarrassed about losing and just playing even more carefully - well, like I said, it shouldn't be a universally reported thing for everyone. I'm primarily interested in this functionality for a) interior mechanic for deciding concord wars b) external op-in listing for professional entities and c) leader boards for Eves deadliest bounty-hunters. Flashy show-offs can certainly pursue flashy show-off PR results, but the average eve player shouldn't be "punished" with embarrassment over terrible kill figures.



Fortunately I considered this response before making my initial post and have my next annoyingly petty reply ready and waiting. Any "optional" system would not really be optional. There is a certain corp pride felt by every member of every corp. in eve (excluding the corp robbers and freeloaders). There would be an undeniable internal pressure for any semi-established corporation to make use of such a feature. Any who didn't would again instantly be classified as "noobs", as it would be assumed they had something to hide.

So, once they have activated this "option", what then? Well it is as I said before, they restrict recruitment, introduce overly paranoid PvP guidelines, and generally aid the ever declining state of PvP in eve.

Originally by: Jade Constantine

a) interior mechanic for deciding concord wars


Now this interests me, but I fail to see how such a thing could be implemented fairly. Who is to say that an industrial corp has "lost" a war simply because they have lost some ships, it could have been their most profitable week for the last year merely because they chose not to actively fight and instead continue with their industrial endeavours. Would both sides have to agree on a deciding factor? This seems unlikely to work in many cases.

On to rewards, what do I get for "winning" a war? Isk? Loot? Sure, but from where? The losing side prehaps? Again we encounter issues of what is a fair way of determining that my corporation has won? How about external isk or LP is introduced? So I make an alt corp and beat it rutlessly into the ground in exchange for the cash. How about reputation? A big gold star in PAK's corp info, awesome. Again, what's to stop me recycling alt corps in order to aid me in this quest for status?

Re-reading your (many) posts, I also noticed you mentioned a penalty for failing to achieve war goals. This does sound nice on paper but certain fundemental mechanics make it impossible to introduce. I don't know what you feel these war goals should be, but say for example it was to kill the enemy CEO. We are at war for a month, and it turns out this chap has died in real life. What now? We are expected to tarnish our record because somewhere in the world a pasty fat nerd ate his last slice of re-heated pizza and had a heart attack? Or say it is to achieve 100 kills within a week? The corp we are at war with, after losing 99 ships in a day decide it would be best to jump ship and form a new corp until we get bored, or indeed, consume our very own fatal slice of Domino's.

Anyway, my last thoughts on the matter for now, it just seems to me that this one idea was thrown in there for the sake of attracting a few votes, something your campaign has thus far avoided. Hope you prove me wrong.

Regards,

Kehmor


Big Bossu
Posted - 2008.04.30 09:34:00 - [53]
 

1) capital fleets logging off when in combat (disappearing in 15 minutes)
2) Battleships logging off at jump in and disappearing in 60s

Is that an issue?

Proxay
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.04.30 14:00:00 - [54]
 

http://macrochan.org/source/5/V/5VBONAMN5DIMRPJSNHZ5QIHZA6WQ5FJL.jpeg

You've got my vote.

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.04.30 14:14:00 - [55]
 

ok, here is my idea:

Sov 1 is gained by having more POS in a system than anyone else (as current).

Sov 2 and 3 is gained by placing lots of small anchorable structures around a system. These serve the NPC population of a system, basically the schools and hospitals and power stations, the infrastructure.

Insurgents or small gangs can hit these small soft targets. If they do it for long enough, sov starts dropping. If a system is well managed and defended, sov starts rising

If you just whack a POS somewhere out in deep 0.0 and just refuel it once a month, you don't automatically get sov levels and all the associated shiny toys

---

Advantages:

  • No sov steps. Sov is sliding scale, therefore small and medium sized attackers have an effect relative to the time and effort and size of force they put in.

  • Industrialists have something to do in 0.0 beyond fuel POS and make guns for pvpers. Now they can create their own little empires ugh

  • Extra effort needed to build sov levels means 0.0 entities have to concentrate into smaller areas, thus allowing for new groups more chance to come in and colonise the vast swaythes of 0.0 currently claimed by alliances but not really used.

  • Sov level is relative to the isk, time, skill in managing and general effort put in rather than just some low constant of effort plus time as it is atm



Constants:

  • Big alliances can still drop in from on high and destroy POS with mega blobs. Defenders however have the extra option to burn the small target infrastructure behind them as they retreat



Disadvantages:

  • Still need caps to take down POS

  • Still get camping at gates. Raiders still need to get into a system

  • Outposts still an issue if left indestructable?

  • Isk sinks & inflation. There is still too little isk being lost by pvpers with result of the real terms value lost from ship destruction falling



---

I'm also a big fan of tactical environments, and I think they can help remove some of the bland same-ness of space just for aesthetic reasons more than anything as well as make pvp more interesting

In conclusion, Pvp in 0.0 can be made more dynamic and interesting with the above suggestion without actually nerfing cyno jammers or having destructable outposts. The issue of outposts, which is highly contentious, I feel is part of a wider debate of which "dynamism in 0.0 pvp" is just one aspect (others being isk sinks/inflation, declining real terms value from pvp losses, and reasons Jade cites about untouchable assets and trend of 0.0 filling up with them, all of which along with pvp are interconnected)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 14:32:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 30/04/2008 14:32:25

Well Kehmor,

The thing about kill records and mercs not wanting to recruit new players – I’m going to disagree about what makes a successful combat corporation/alliance there. Sure you can massage the stats and play with nothing but uber high skillpoint pvp “pros” to protect your record. But, the reality of eve is that people burnout, they take breaks, they get on with their lives, they come and go and have variable playtimes available. Stats are one thing, but having an active and enthusiastic corporate environment is something else and far more useful in the long term.

In Star Fraction for example we recruit relatively new players, 2-3 months in game, we put a premium on personality and select applicants we actually want to be spending time with. In the short term sure, this means our killboard stats are not as good as the Burn Eden’s and TRI uber pvp corps out there. We sit on around 70% success rate overall and its good but not that good, but it means we are continually replacing numbers and keeping the movement strong and active. That’s the long term view on playing Eve and its noticeable that JF is still around and going strong after nearly five years while any number of stats-loving “elites” are gone to dust and emo self-destruction.

Point is kill numbers are not everything. To your question specifically maybe the merc corp sucks this up and makes it part of the PR appeal, promises activity and enthusiasm and devil-may-care hilarity rather than yawn-tastic cloaked-raven bombardment and near 100% efficiency.

In terms of the merc-stats/contract efficiency I’d say yes, by all means incorporate things like damage caused, kills per day, activity levels, things like this – its up to the merc corp to decide which aspects of its appeal it wants to promote.

Re the “bad smell” / re-rolling corps to lose early records – How about you can reset any time you like pretty much. The clients will be able to see when your records date from so if you’ve reset 3 months ago you’ll be a) relatively new, but b) will have a clean record to begin from. Again, remember this is at the corp/alliance (PR) level its not about your character specifically and being called on your entire eve record.

If an industrial corp decided to change its focus and rebrand itself as a mercenary outfit after 3 years of being uber miners in Maut then its not unreasonable for those guys to publicise their results post the transition and begin their new PR history on combat engagements from the moment they choose the mercenary specialization.

Re the “peer pressure” about public engagement stats well, first I’m saying this is an option specifically for corps/alliance that would appear on an in-game hiring roster of Mercenaries – and would specifically track accomplishments over accepted contracts. (Random kills and nbsi wouldn’t be relevant, just results in contracted mercenary wars). And secondly with regard to the general “shame” at not having killboards etc. Not everyone in Eve at the moment has a public killboard. Some corps opt to keep their stuff private and that doesn’t make them worse or less effective pvp’ers. Anybody judging x,y,z corp entity in eve on appearances alone is likely to be badly surprised sometimes.

On the war-mechanics, here’s the basic concept:

You declare war. The eve-system then tracks the results in this war (tonnage/av market value of ships/equipment blown up being the basic measure) If the overall exchange damage is > 75% or < 25% after 2 weeks (say the maximum default period) then the system is going to trigger a war end condition with either a win or lose for the attacker/defender. (If the numbers are somewhere in between war can continue).

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 14:36:00 - [57]
 


Basically if we wardec random fat territorialist supply corp and shoot down 20 haulers for no losses in week1, and 15 haulers in week2 (with no losses) then the war is ending with a “win” for us at the beginning of week3. We get a victory “boon” = x% of the target tax rate delivered to our corp wallet for example.

If the fat territorialists actually brought some fighters to oppose us and the results were (we shot down 20 haulers and they downed a couple of battleships) and the overall numbers remained between 25/75% efficiency the war continues (and we have the option of continuing the pay the war bill - if we don't and the war finishes in the middle zone its a draw. No result).

Whereas if they took it really seriously and hunted us like dogs and reduced our efficiency to -25% we’d suffer a loss and involuntary penalty with the war cancelled, some kind of automatic war-reparations payout added to our alliance/corp bills.

I’d see mercenaries fit into this equation by letting them be "bought into” somebody else’s wardec and join their statistics to the allied force (in order to pro-actively prevent the conflict ending with the whitewash win for the attacker) - (hence again the importance of the performance tracking for registered mercenary corps - so the defender can have an idea of exactly what they are buying)

It’s a very rough idea, but it illustrates some thinking of where the war-dec system should be going in my opinion. CSM candidates have been asked questions about the war-dec system, are wardec’s too expensive? What do we think about “griefing” wardecs – should bigger alliances cost more? Etc etc. We do need an answer on these issues and in my opinion the introduction of actual goals and penalty/reward calculations for sanctioned war-decs could add a useful balance and very interesting possibility for the future of the game.

It’s not so much about chasing votes Kehmor, as in just thinking about problems that have been raised. If somebody asks me my opinion “are wardec fees too extensive at the moment?” I’m obligated to think seriously about the answer and consider the big-picture pertaining to general conflict dynamism in Eve.

I mean you can say “yes” and advocate making them cheap but then every-wannabe empire ganker and his little dog too will wardec everybody with a freighter for ongoing free jita ganks. You can say “no” (or even make them more expensive) and then you price younger pvp’ers and war-corps out of the equation and force them to do their fighting out of hi-sec.

The true answer is that the system is too crude at the moment and could be something far more nuanced exciting. Challenge of CSM, eve electorate, CCP development team in concert is to express precisely what that “something” should be and agree its shape and roll-out.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 15:02:00 - [58]
 

Okay then Spoon,

First thing I have to say is that while my gut feeling remains that even Sovereignty 1 from POS is wrong, I do think the idea of general attackable infrastructure items away from the POS guns and thereby valid targets for raiding and conflict has some merit.

That though said though, why not just make it about planets? Make sovereignty about putting orbital facilities (headquarters, administrative hubs, propaganda centres and such) in the orbits above planets and have the actual sovereignty of a system determined by the collective loyalty of the planetary population. Let both sides influence this by blowing up/establishing orbital facilities and dropping trade goods and equipment down to the planetary population (luxuries and flash grav vehicles to bribe them, guns and bombs and nerve gas to increase instability). Make the business of Sovereignty about blockade running, interdiction and generally influencing the simulated politics in the system.

(That’s all a bit blue sky and planetary environment-tastic but it would be a way of simulating sovereignty without POS.)

And that’s a key point I keep coming back too Spoon-thumb. I think Sovereignty from POS is the greatest single problem that links all other 0.0 problems with dynamism. They are blob-makers. They are the things you HAVE to hit if you want to cause lasting damage and conquest or nullify conquest and the nature of the things makes warfare boring and blob-tastic. Hard to shoot down, impossible to destroy in one sitting, reinforcement timer means you have no initiative and will have to fight the collective war-blob of the defenders (and every other nap member) in order to destroy it. It’s a concept that hugely damages the war-simulation in 0.0, the whole “reinforcement timer” paradigm has had a terrible effect and these are the real underlying issues.

Now I like some of your bullets, the sliding scale is good, its nice for industrialists to have something to build, its good to have intermediate objectives for small/medium gangs to hit. But without actually dealing with the problem of POS being the sovereignty claimers at core (you’d still have to destroy / outspam all POS in an outpost system to take the outpost) you haven’t really dealt with the core issue.

Re tactical environments – definitely, I love the concept and it would really help differentiate terrain and engagement variety. Callais made a really good post on the subject in my “removing local / discussion thread.” here

In conclusion while there are good ideas there Spoonthumb, I still think you haven’t tackled the basic problem of POS/Sovereignty role in 0.0 wars. These things are a strong disincentive to a dynamic environment – they promote forced alarm-clock blobbing and a two-speed culture in 0.0 (caps/everything else). As a concept they just don’t work. Ultimately having a nuanced system for increased sovereignty levels is a pretty good idea, but if the foundation level is still about POS spamming, you have the same old problem for the attacker in that they’ve got to destroy or outspam the enemy POS network to attack the Outposts.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.04.30 15:56:00 - [59]
 

Are you going to answer my questions or ignore me like you do anytime someone blows on your house of cards?

Voculus
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.04.30 16:13:00 - [60]
 

You're pulling my heartstrings, Jade! +1 voteVery Happy


Pages: first : previous : 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (16)

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