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

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 16:27:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: xOm3gAx
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.


Thank you very much for your endorsement. Its very gratifying to see people taking a deep interest in these issues and looking at the big picture for the future of the game. I think its why it was very important to express the whole scope of opinions and general candidate understanding of current gameplay issues; the Eve electorate really needs to know who its voting for and to have faith and confidence in the vision, passion, and general fellow-gamer insight into these concerns on the CSM.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 17:46:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Big Bossu
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?



1) becomes an issue with uber tanks that can shrug off damage for 15 minutes definitely. I know full well that expensively-fitted Amarrian Carriers and Motherships can pretty much achieve this with triage/uber bonuses and simply disappear if things look dodgy. Much more a potential problem in the small gang/pirating/lowsec hot-drop environment too because likely enemies just don't have a dps on hand to kill them in the time limit. Longer aggression timers on bigger ship hulls? (maybe 30mins for cap ships). Its annoying I understand that you might have to spend a bit longer cloaked on disengage before you can log off a capital ship, but might be a price worth paying to counter logoffski in fleet combats and skirmishes.

2) Is just rubbish really. It shouldn't happen. I guess one fix might be counting bubbles as "aggression" against an incoming ship (even while cloaked) so that its impossible to simply do the log off and disappear in 60 secs trick. I can imagine that being a tricky programming issue though so I'm very open to suggestions on this. But the principle is clear, I think its a nasty little cheat/marginal exploit to do the log-off at jump-in while cloaked and subvert the aggression timer.

To which (on this general subject) I'll add another peeve based on timers and thats the deaggression/redock timer. Here's the thing, we've been through multiple iterations of ship hit-point boasts and buffs. Ships today are 2-3 times harder to kill than they were a few years ago. But redock/jump timers are the same as they ever were. This means that aggression/dock/undock "games" are more common and powerful than they should be and realistically this is a very easy fix and something I'd definitely like to see dealt with. When 0.0 fighting becomes about dock/undock games with fat tanked ships leaving the bay, shooting off some rounds and then de-agressing to dock again seconds after there is a problem. It encourages overwhelming force/hot-drops as only way of killing in time and is a blob attractor as a result. Cheesy tactics like these need clear fixes and its not unreasonable to increase the dock/jump timers in line with the hit point buffs that all ships have received in my opinion.




Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.04.30 17:58:00 - [63]
 

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 30/04/2008 18:01:47

POS aren't broken, sov mechanics are. POS serve two functions atm; Claiming a system and boosting sov level. You need to decouple claiming sov from sov levels. POS make sense as the method for claiming. A new system is needed for the levelling, which is what I proposed.

---

Why not do this with planetary interaction? Because you can have both. Planetary interaction is a "soon(tm)". I'd rather not wait a year and a half to see sov mechanics get changed just so they can fit neatly in with planetary interaction.

In fact, the sov system should be changed first, so that when planetary interaction comes, it slots in perfectly, and feels like a mere extension of an existing system rather than something imposed on top.

---

To elaborate:

Sliding scale sov should not have set levels. Instead you have sov points like cuture points in civ 4. Anchoring more POS in a system than a rival is equivalent to capturing a city in civ 4. It shows on the map as yours and resets the culture points to zero. If the city has temples and libraries, you gain control of them and start gaining culture points from them. If the enemy in their retreat however burned the temples and libraries, you have to rebuild them, which takes time and you get no points in the meantime

As you go past certain set levels of culture points, you get more squares of land around your city and less "angry citizens" or whatever.

---

In Eve, this translates into the small and medium sized targets being the schools and hospitals that gain you "sov points" (POS would not get you any points alone).

You don't magically get fuel bonuses from out of nowhere after a set length of time like atm.

Instead, for each sov point you get, it knocks some amount off the cost of fuel for starbases, because the local population who run your POS and man your reactors are healthier and better educated

Equally, you can anchor a flat pack cyno jammer any time you want, but to attract the specialists who are qualified to run it, you need to have a certain quality of life in your system for its inhabitance. This level is represented by 4000 sov points or whatever

Edit: This fits in with the complaint that sov is artificial and why should you suddenly be able to magically anchor something that you couldn't yesterday when nothing has changed except a number in some concord database

---

What I'm really saying is that small corps and alliances should not be able to take sov from big ones. But they can make that sov meaningless.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.04.30 23:39:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Proxay
http://macrochan.org/source/5/V/5VBONAMN5DIMRPJSNHZ5QIHZA6WQ5FJL.jpeg

You've got my vote.


Thank you Proxay, and I love the image too! Much appreciated Cool

Ikar Kaltin
Amarr
Beatus Tutela
The Reclaimers
Posted - 2008.05.01 11:25:00 - [65]
 

I would like to insert several quotes here but its from several pages, so I will try to go from memory when asking questions, got a few of them.

1) On the subject of nano-ships:

You state that there is nothing wrong with these types of ships, saying that the problem is instead 0.0 infrastructure and the threat of hotdrops. If Im honest, thats a view not based on the basic premise of 0.0 warfare. Nanoships are not used for long range raiding for the simple reason that they are fast, seems obvious but im talking about warping, travelling alligning etc. Not pure speed. Larger gangs just take too long to get very far, making fast moving gans the ship of choice, especially considering the amazingly (and perhaps disproporionate advantage) of speed and combat capabilities compared to other ships such as battleships, command ships etc. Do you have enough familiarity with the everyday necceseities and experience of living in 0.0 long term to be able to represent those who live in 0.0.

2) On your main issue of Destructible outposts and simplifying infrastructure.

As the leader of an alliance which does not claim space (well is actually principally motivated against holding space at all), do you think you are able to represent those who are involved in POS warfare on a regular basis, and if not and you are more directed to helping the "small guy" to cause damage on established infrastructure, as you do if I read your proposals correctly, do you think the risk vs reward balance is fairly established in that equation, where small roaming gangs can cause significant damage to expensive, well established infrastructure? Or do you agree that your suggestion would be too inbalanced in favor of the raiders instead of the defenders.

2b) If your idea of destructible outposts and pos infrastructure came in do you think EVE would turn into essentially a death match game where entities move around trying to destroy every outpost they can, and if this is the direction EVE should be taking? (I personally dont, but interested in your opinion). Do you feel you have given fair time (if any) to alternate views of your own, or be prepared to consider them considering the strength of your attacks on these? or to put another way, would you be going to the council with these ideas stuck in your head and be unwilling to compromise or would you be willing to look and and consider the other point of view.

3) To What extent do you think your views represent the majority of the player base, or are your ideas more catered towards a minority within the game, whos play stuyle you wish to cater for?

4) On your suggestion of remote AoE (Area of Effect) weapons (speaking on your idea of a stealth bomber being able to fire from off grid to strike everything on a gate, to eliminate gate camps etc), to what extent do you think this would reduce blobbing as you claim and not increase it, and make POS warfare substantially more difficult as it makes it easier for the defender to defend their system. Do you believe remote AoE weapons (i.e. from off grid) really have a place in eve?

5) The suggestion of Removing of Local channel.

Do you think removing the channel would unbalance things too far in a pvp circumstance (at the moment it being about even), and would favor one play style more than another, say that of a pirate over a miner, giving one an advantage whilst putting another at a disadvantage

6) What is your view on super capitals such as titans? I personally find it worrying the number of titans in the game, as it gives a great advantage to one group which is difficult to be countered or matched by another group unless they are well established. Do you believe titans and doomsdays to be detrimental to small/medium/large....well all gang warfare in EVE? If so what do you suggest to deal with them.

Ikar.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.01 14:05:00 - [66]
 


Probably best to avoid the big quote match technique Ikar, since you are asking a lot of questions its much more space efficient to present as you have done. I’ll respond in the same vein:

1. Nano-ships, I disagree obviously on your view of the “basic premise” of 0.0 warfare informing your conclusion that nano-ships are primarily valued for long-range movement and not escaping hot-dropped blobs from the jump-bridge. I fly nano-ships, I fight nano-ships, I’ve led nano-fleets, I’ve fought nano-fleets, I commanded nano-fleets against “the blob” and I know where there strengths and weaknesses are Ikar. I would certainly say that I have more than enough familiarity with 0.0 environment and living – I’ve been fighting the good fight in 0.0 for almost five years now and have seen pretty much everything there is to see out there.

2. You are incorrect on both counts, Destructible outposts are part of a general eight point view of how Eve combat can be enhanced, made more dynamic and exciting for all Eve players. Simplifying infrastructure? Not sure what you mean by this. With regards again to my experience in Eve, I’ve commanded attacks on sovereignty POS, I’ve been heavily involved in defensive actions for Sovereignty POS, I’ve looked into the minutiae of these things, I’ve played against them, I’ve seen the consequence of the current balance. Yes I do think smaller gangs should be able to inflict fiscal damage on the space infrastructure of player led space empires. Whether that damage is significant is in the eyes of the defender. Yes I believe risk/reward equation is very firmly established and no I don’t agree with your premise that making items of infrastructure vulnerable to raiders would be unbalanced.

2b. No I don’t agree with your premise. See the following discussion thread for detailed discussion on the destructible outpost issue Ikar (or if you wish, feel free to begin a thread in this forum and we’ll revisit the issues with every candidate having an opportunity to respond and comment).

Yes I certainly feel I’ve given a great deal of time hearing and discussing the views of others on this issue. If you read through the linked thread you’ll see the evolution of the concept, compromise suggestions, and actually a decent resolution which had Hardin and I pretty close to agreement on the implementation of a destructible outpost proposal. I think this stands a good example of how such matters can be debated to good outcome in council.

3. I would say my broad Eve experience is capable of representing a vision for the common good of the game. The manifesto in the OP for this thread is about what Eve is and can be, and what it represents to the players. Speaking of minorities is a bit nonsensical really, most players in Eve play in Empire, run missions, play the market, trade and socialize. Does this mean 0.0 is a minority and shouldn’t be represented? And by the same measure does one career specialty “empire management” automatically need more focus than another “roving pvp”? The answer is that every interest is important but the most critical element to address is the general health and dynamism of the game.

When things become too static and dry then the excitement fades away and imagination suffers. Its generally accepted by most candidates for CSM (and I’d say a majority of the 0.0 population) that there are serious problems with 0.0 warfare, with POS, with Jump Bridges, with Cyno Jammers, and with the prevalence of Capital Ship blobbing without the engagement variety to actually tempt them into losses. Ultimately it would be more reasonable for you to categorize me as a progressive change candidate, who wants to improve the balance in 0.0 for the benefit of all playstyles there.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.01 14:08:00 - [67]
 


4. Off-grid AOE weaponry (combined with a degree of vulnerability in warp out from launch sites while bombardment continues) has the effect of adding another battlefield to the engagement where scanned targets can draw off elements of both forces. Gate camping blob needs to be aware of the threat from stand-off elements of the aggressor, once this starts happening mobility and reaction time becomes important and fleet battles will break down to smaller groups. Re the POS warfare angle, it’s not really relevant – since the weaponry envisaged is too expensive to be employed against POS shields/structures/cap ships and if deployed by defenders against attacking sub cap ships would create additional battlegrounds and focus as per the gate battle.

Yes I do believe that off-grid weaponry has a place in Eve, and its an important place because it’ll help split up the ubiquitous single dog-pile engagement into separate skirmishes. I’m also a strong believer that its about time we got off-grid POS capable weapons (like deployable siege guns) that would be expensive (need defending) and would give attackers an alternative to frontal assault on POS shields - -these would be artillery pieces that would again create alternative battle grounds away from POS for engagement variety.

5. On local, no I don’t think removing local channel would unbalance conflict/evasion mechanic in 0.0 as long as the reduction of local was coupled with an improvement in scanner functionality and dropping of map features that provide a godmode overview of system statistics. Local Discussion and Comment

6. On Titans, I think the problem with Titans is their combination with Cyno-Jammers and critical reinforcement battles that force both sides to blob assets at a single time and place to attack a single module initially, this means that mobility and initiative is surrendered and the Titan’s attack strength is over emphasised. At the moment this combination IS detrimental to Eve.

I think Titans are far less of a problem to other kinds of warfare and do represent an decent risk/reward scenario for their effectiveness.

Case in point a couple of weeks ago I had an Avatar class titan hot drop onto one of my gangs in PF system while we were trying to kill Tyrrax Thork's Carrier. The Avatar arrived, triggered its weapon and most of my gang had plenty of time to activate warp drives and escape, some were adequately tanked, a couple of exploded. For the risk and vulnerability of the Titan in situ I felt that was a fair result. So again, I think the problem with Titans is directly in combination with current Broken POS/Sovereignty tools and mechanics, not as a ship in their own right.

Hope these answers help Ikar. All the best.

Ikar Kaltin
Amarr
Beatus Tutela
The Reclaimers
Posted - 2008.05.01 19:44:00 - [68]
 

and a response:P

1)Nanoships, whilst used for long range raiding can also be used to escape conflict. Unfortunatly this same behaviour stops small-medium gang warfare from taking place, as nano ships can cause damage from range, stay outside of kill range and cause a significant amount of DPS from range whilst staying safe. Do you not think that this is unbalanced, as it requires a counter nano gang to get to them, and into Minmitar recons, forcing people into certain ships to counter an overpowered ship (i say overpowered because....well it is, nanoships are just too versitile, they can do too much for too little counter). Nanoships are not a direct response to POS structures, if they were all removed nanoships would still be the ship of choice, though I imagine you cant see that as you are self admittedly a heavy user of this ship type? Correct me if I'm wrong.

2)I really dont think your experiences are that extensive, heck pretty sure I've been involved in more of both encounters than you, and its not the sov and pos mechanics that are broken, just the servers ability to handle it. Do you not think that changing outposts to destructable at this stage would not be unfair on those who have spent tens of billions, even hundreds of billions building them for a purpose to see their entire value undermined over night?

And why exactly should small gangs be able to cause significant damage on entrenched infrastructure. It almost seems like you wish to change the rules because you are not winning the game

2b) actually covered above, whoops

From your suggestions in 4) and 5) please tell me what stops this situation.

A group anchors mobile bubbles on a gate and deploys these stealth bombers around a gate. A cloaked scout sits on a gate. A hostile gang jumps in, and without local they cannot know who is there. Suddenly they are struck by off grid weapons which they cannot see, which they cannot know in local. It removes the point of PVP when you can sit unkillable with system mechanics to protect you, and you can rinse and repeat anywhere you want in 0.0 because your enemy will not know your in local. It does not remove the need for blobbing, instead just giving small numbers the abiliy to kill large numbers without threat. Thus small gangs can destroy hostiles at certain points in system with no ability to defend themselves. The only way to escape this would be to fly nano ships to escape this, thus forcing people into more nano ships. This would unbalance eve, but again I doubt you agree.

In fact Jade, which suggestions adversly affect you and your game style in any way?

Are you just using this as an opportunity to advance your own play style by manipulating systems which you cannot beat at all?

All of your ideas completly destroy the balance there is, do not seek to establish a new balance, ignore risk vs reward factors giving great rewards with little risk.

Why is it that one of the candidates the least involved in 0.0 warfare (not roaming ganksquads, actual 0.0 warfare) is the one suggesting the most radical changes to 0.0 warfare?

I do notice this has turned to an accusing note, but the more I think about how you play the game, the sorts of ships you fly and the way you play, the more I realise its more about what is best for you instead of best for eve, suggesting changes that cater for your game style. Can you deny that?


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.01 23:22:00 - [69]
 

Okay Ikar, response to the response,

1. I’m going to have to disagree with you on your conclusions re: nanoships, as I’ve said I’ve played nano-ships, I’ve fought against against nano-ships, there are significant disadvantages to nano-gangs and it is possible to exploit these with a little planning and tactical awareness. I disagree with your premise that they are “too versatile” they do one thing well; maintain mobility and ability to disengage when things go south. I also disagree with your assertion that POS/Sovereignty structural influence has nothing to do with nano-ship choice. If we didn’t have to contend with instant reinforcement via jump-bridge in sovereign space there would be much greater variety in gang-composition choice.

2.
I’m going to disagree with your assessment of my experience of 0.0 combat of course, that’s obvious. I’m going to point you at the discussion thread on the subject of Destructible outposts again since you still seem to be unsure about the issue. Re “winning the game” – its irrelevant really, what is important is the general health of the game and most sensible people hold that POS/Sovereignty and the current status quo needs urgent attention.

3. Re the example given, the arriving gang have enhanced scanning tools that show the stand-off bomber gang, scouts transfer tactical awareness of the situation and incoming heavy gang break in different directions to align out of the bubble. This reduces vulnerability to AOE weaponry and fast attacking units begin to get solutions on the stand-off units while the battlefield breaks into multiple linked objectives.

4. Its not about my gameplay, its about gameplay that benefits the entire server, and I am convinced that enhanced combat dynamism and engagement variety achieves this objective nicely.

5. Ultimately Ikar, we all have our specialities and focus, I’ve done a lot more attacking 0.0 infrastructure than you have that’s true, but we’re talking about general improvements to the territorial warfare system in Eve online that addresses current failings and lag-inducing dog-pile fleet battles that nobody really enjoys. Ultimately the voters are going to need to read the material on the subject and understand the big picture of what’s good for combat variety and enhanced conflict dynamism.

Anyway, its been an enjoyable couple of posts and I trust I've answered all your questions on the issues you raise and you'll appreciate that the CSM must contain voices from all sides of the territorial perspective and its very important we have an open and honest discussion on the current situation in conquerable 0.0 infrastructure.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.02 12:49:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Voculus
You're pulling my heartstrings, Jade! +1 voteVery Happy


Awww Voculus thanks a lot. Nice to know the appeal of manifesto is genuinely universal when its attracting pledges from Imperial Republic of the North. Quite a rich, various and vibrant history we've had in our own way! All the best.


Ramruqai
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:10:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Big Bossu
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?



1) becomes an issue with uber tanks that can shrug off damage for 15 minutes definitely. I know full well that expensively-fitted Amarrian Carriers and Motherships can pretty much achieve this with triage/uber bonuses and simply disappear if things look dodgy. Much more a potential problem in the small gang/pirating/lowsec hot-drop environment too because likely enemies just don't have a dps on hand to kill them in the time limit. Longer aggression timers on bigger ship hulls? (maybe 30mins for cap ships). Its annoying I understand that you might have to spend a bit longer cloaked on disengage before you can log off a capital ship, but might be a price worth paying to counter logoffski in fleet combats and skirmishes.

2) Is just rubbish really. It shouldn't happen. I guess one fix might be counting bubbles as "aggression" against an incoming ship (even while cloaked) so that its impossible to simply do the log off and disappear in 60 secs trick. I can imagine that being a tricky programming issue though so I'm very open to suggestions on this. But the principle is clear, I think its a nasty little cheat/marginal exploit to do the log-off at jump-in while cloaked and subvert the aggression timer.

To which (on this general subject) I'll add another peeve based on timers and thats the deaggression/redock timer. Here's the thing, we've been through multiple iterations of ship hit-point boasts and buffs. Ships today are 2-3 times harder to kill than they were a few years ago. But redock/jump timers are the same as they ever were. This means that aggression/dock/undock "games" are more common and powerful than they should be and realistically this is a very easy fix and something I'd definitely like to see dealt with. When 0.0 fighting becomes about dock/undock games with fat tanked ships leaving the bay, shooting off some rounds and then de-agressing to dock again seconds after there is a problem. It encourages overwhelming force/hot-drops as only way of killing in time and is a blob attractor as a result. Cheesy tactics like these need clear fixes and its not unreasonable to increase the dock/jump timers in line with the hit point buffs that all ships have received in my opinion.



First off, sorry for the pyramid.

1)It's gonna cause more grief an annoyance than actual usefulness to have 30 minutes as you crash, loggofski etc. etc. So I have to strongly disagree on that. I've had logofski carriers dissapear from me cause I did not have enough DPS in time to finish it off. It's annoying but we did not deserve the kill imo. If anything it will cause more ships that are not supposed to have cloaks on their ships to have cloaks, making the game imo more boring.

2) When a someone jumps in and sees himself in a bubble and logs he'll be there for 15 minutes this is already implemented as far as I know so this 60 sec trick or whatever is not a valid tactic. CVA learns a lot on these sorta game mechanics due to a huge amount of such things attempted to get away from us/our blobs if you prefer.

3) (or To which :)) Dock and re-dock games are indeed in need of a fix. All stations also need to be balanced to the point of having the exact same range from the station as you undock. I don't mind if it's 5km off of 5km within dock range, just that it is the same. Caldari stations and Gallente outpost with their 50km dock range are just silly.

I would propose that all stations have their focal point changed to where the undock actually is, instead of currently center for the model. From that point you'd have a 5-10km radius that you can dock at. It makes Rp sense that you dock and undock and the same place. you'd come our of warp same 5-10km from where folks undock to prevent jita undock cluster.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:23:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Ramruqai

First off, sorry for the pyramid.


Ah no problems! It happens Very Happy

Quote:
1)It's gonna cause more grief an annoyance than actual usefulness to have 30 minutes as you crash, loggofski etc. etc. So I have to strongly disagree on that. I've had logofski carriers dissapear from me cause I did not have enough DPS in time to finish it off. It's annoying but we did not deserve the kill imo. If anything it will cause more ships that are not supposed to have cloaks on their ships to have cloaks, making the game imo more boring.


I do see your point, but its a matter of balancing these things for smaller unit action too. The problem is when you get a mothership/carrier that becomes literally "unkillable" by anything other than X blob of ships because it can triage/run tank and log-offski (particularly in lowsec drops). In principle I think the 15min disappearance is fine for most ships but this is about some really uber tanks that make it impossible for smaller numbers to kill them before the timer is elapsed - its a direction that encourages (and necessitates) blobbing and I'm quite unhappy about it. Can you think of a solution that would allow a smaller gang to kill a tackled (well-fitted) AEON, Archon, before the log-off period that would not involve lengthening the disappear from space timer for that class of ships Ramruqai? I'd be very interested to hear one.

Quote:
3) (or To which :)) Dock and re-dock games are indeed in need of a fix. All stations also need to be balanced to the point of having the exact same range from the station as you undock. I don't mind if it's 5km off of 5km within dock range, just that it is the same. Caldari stations and Gallente outpost with their 50km dock range are just silly.


Agreed completely.

Quote:
I would propose that all stations have their focal point changed to where the undock actually is, instead of currently center for the model. From that point you'd have a 5-10km radius that you can dock at. It makes Rp sense that you dock and undock and the same place. you'd come our of warp same 5-10km from where folks undock to prevent jita undock cluster.


Seems a good idea, that combined with increasing the redock timers in line with hit-point buffs in some way would certainly go a long way to reduce the attraction of "dock/redock" games in PVP.



Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:26:00 - [73]
 

I have several questions, and taking a page out of Talkuth Rel’s book, I decided to ask each candidate in their own thread…

1) Invention – A good idea that still needs work…
a. Have you ever tried invention?
b. What ideas do you have to improve invention?

2) Pilot Security Level – Should it be more important?
a. (In High Sec) – Should Concord react faster if the victim has a higher security level? If the attacker has a lower rating?
b. Should the Security Level of a system affect changes to Pilot Security level changes?
c. Should the Security Level of a Targeted Pilot have more of an effect on the security change of the attacker?

3) Industry – The Creators of Eve
a. Do you regularly build anything?
b. Do you regularly mine?
c. What do you think could be done to improve industry in Eve?
d. You have been asked to help with new ships for industrial characters, describe a few ideas…

Ramruqai
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:42:00 - [74]
 

I do have a better solution than just flat out increasing the loggofski timer yes, should have posted it obviously before.

This is if you log of with the timer on you AND you have people shooting you your ship will stay in space until 15 minutes after the last person places a hit/scram/bubble on you. I'll paint a picture.

Coward Aeon get's shot at and every time he get's shot at, even after he's offline, his timer will just re-set. Hence if you log of with aggro and get caught before the 15 min timer is out then you are there until the ship is dead, you get saved or you log back in. That would not cause extra grief to people that sorta need to run (we have RL believe it or not) so they wait 15 instead of 30 minutes, 30 minutes is a very long time!

On the same issue I'd like to speak of self-destruct timers. We've had it happen once. I jumped into low sec activated my HIC scram on a hostile Nyx, activated cyno, the guy self destructs pretty much as soon as he sees me. Our caps come in and by the time he's in half struct or so he goes boom via self destruct. No mail, only the loot that was in cargo and drone bay.
Again, I'd like to suggest something like actual in combat self destruct = impossible. Defiantly the loot should drop when self destruct is initiated, and mails sorta should show as well. Self destruct sould not be a viable PVP tactic imo.

GFLSandman
Minmatar
Volatile Nature
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:55:00 - [75]
 

Jade....everything sounds great, but i am kinda still waiting on a answer to the question of supporting station destruction and still being able to support the "little guy" If you have station destruction in game you will turn this game into a game of maybe 3 or 4 major alliances running everything...if you aren't apart of one of those allinaces...you might as well never venture to 0.0.....i dont want to see that...the only way the "little guy" will be able to get to 0.0 is to become slave workers to a major alliance renting space... i thought we got rid of that kind of thing when ppl got fed up with B.O.B.. dont want to return to that.

Anyway you platform sounds great and you almost have me.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.02 15:04:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/05/2008 15:46:35
Originally by: Hamfast

1) Invention – A good idea that still needs work…
a. Have you ever tried invention?


I personally haven't, but then I'm really not much of an industrialist as already stated. However, Invention is VERY popular amongst the Free Captains of the Star Fraction and a decent proportion of the alliance make very good income from invention producing a wide range of modules and ships for profit and alliance provision. Overall I'm extremely impressed with how invention has allowed a far wider range of industrial characters to get a step on the ladder of profitable production.

Quote:
b. What ideas do you have to improve invention?


We'll in an ideal world we'd have the ability to tinker with the attributes of vessels as part of the invention process and could have a Star Fraction brand Deimos with a bonus to ECM drones :) More seriously though, I think invention is a good template for the introduction of future tech levels and I would love to see more customization possible on the base design of ships and modules in the future.

Quote:
2) Pilot Security Level – Should it be more important?
a. (In High Sec) – Should Concord react faster if the victim has a higher security level? If the attacker has a lower rating?


Yes, Sec level should be more important, and yep, I'd agree with a variable concord reaction time (+loss penalty) depending on the sec level of the victim.

Quote:
b. Should the Security Level of a system affect changes to Pilot Security level changes?


Yes.

[quote[c. Should the Security Level of a Targeted Pilot have more of an effect on the security change of the attacker?


Yes.

Quote:
3) Industry – The Creators of Eve
a. Do you regularly build anything?


Not really, most I've ever built really would be tech1 frigs, cruisers, modules and ammo for personal use. I have about 55,000 skill points in Industry and thats mostly from the mining skills I started with.

Quote:
b. Do you regularly mine?


Nope. Haven't mined for a long time. Last time was an alliance mining op in delve a long long time ago, but we more or less ditched mandatory corp economic activities in favor of individual initiatives (invention in the main).

Quote:
c. What do you think could be done to improve industry in Eve?


Improvements to the interface. Option to set up sell order weighting based on relative standings of the buyer (ie -10's pay more, +10's get discounts).

Re-distribution of rare moons, perhaps seeding more in lowsec to boost population/traffic.

More factory/lab slots. Extra skills for industry characters to further specialize rather than needing multiple identical alts. (+version Mass Production/+lab spec/+tycoon).

Production efficiency implants!

Quote:
d. You have been asked to help with new ships for industrial characters, describe a few ideas…


Well I'd like more ninja-industrial vessels that are specifically-designed for operating in 0.0 away from the protection of fixed territorial infrastructure. What I mean are truly mobile refineries/factory/laboratory ships, maybe even mini base-ships that deploy to a functional fitting/repair/storage array that alliance mates can dock at.

I'd love to see some commercial "clipper" style vessels, cruiser/battlecruiser class armed transports for role bonus for speed and maneuver perhaps the built in wcs bonus from blockade runners. Think East India company tea "clippers" - beautiful fast converted warships for hazardous trade and distant transit.

I think there is definitely room for another class of freighter - bigger than the ones we have today.

Custom Salvage ships with bonus to salvage rates and range would be good, probably cruiser class with big cargo holds.

Just a few ideas. Hope it helps!

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.02 15:22:00 - [77]
 

Originally by: GFLSandman
Jade....everything sounds great, but i am kinda still waiting on a answer to the question of supporting station destruction and still being able to support the "little guy" If you have station destruction in game you will turn this game into a game of maybe 3 or 4 major alliances running everything...if you aren't apart of one of those allinaces...you might as well never venture to 0.0.....i dont want to see that...the only way the "little guy" will be able to get to 0.0 is to become slave workers to a major alliance renting space... i thought we got rid of that kind of thing when ppl got fed up with B.O.B.. dont want to return to that. Anyway you platform sounds great and you almost have me.


Fair enough. Basically on the Outpost issue, we've done a lot of talking round the concept on the chatsubo thread and people do have that concern. Thing is though, at the moment you do have a similar situation - if a big power decides it wants your outposts it simply moves in, spams/eliminates towers and takes the outpost locking you out pretty much as long as they want to lock you out for. What having a destructible option in the mix will achieve is that the big powers will need to consider their own defense more seriously since whilst they are away making trouble they could lose ground at home. The option for outpost destructible I most favor is the "need to capture conventionally, hold for x period 72hours is - then you trigger self destruct, and for the next 24/48 hours the station counts down to destruction and ANYONE could recapture it in that period and stop the countdown (until the last hour and then its locked in).

Advantages for the loser even. At least if your outpost is captured and triggered for self destruct you have an option to counter-conquest without going through the sovereignty hoops again (destructing outposts opt out of sovereignty protection) and while the SD process continues no docking restrictions which means you can get your stuff out if your alliance/friends can secure space superiority for a time.

Now if you consider whats happened in the "great war" at the moment its basically a lot of nothing. The great powers went one way, then went the other, then went back again. Outposts change hands, regions change their flag, but nothing of the infrastructure is actually lost. Goons didn't get to burn BoB outposts on the way out. Bob won't get to burn Goon outposts going the other way. This means neither side needs to do much rebuilding or re-investment in infrastructure and by consequence has more money left in the kitty to build immense capital fleets to threaten neutrals and dominate more pets. Looking at the big picture the status quo is far more beneficial for big powers than destructible outposts would be where one or both sides would be committed to rebuilding war damage at the outpost level rather than just plunging everything into the aggression budget.

Now, like I said, we've already had a lot of good discussion on the issue and I'm open for compromise on elements of the destructible agenda - for example, its been suggested that the blown up outpost leaves a "derelict" that could be rebuilt for cheaper than a whole new outpost, and that the derelict still has the hangers intact in the wreck, allowing people to come close, open their hangers and move possessions directly to ship cargo holds (though not dock or fit or any other station service obviously.) I quite like this option as it keeps the drama of the self-destruct timer and critical battles around the issue, leaves a scarred wreck as a sign of destruction, and also provides a focal point of potential future pvp as people come and try to "salvage" their remaining possessions from the derelict station.

Anyway, hope these additional thoughts and explanations put your mind at rest Sandman! Thanks for the kind words and fingers crossed I've convinced you.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.02 15:32:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 02/05/2008 15:37:50
Originally by: Ramruqai
I do have a better solution than just flat out increasing the loggofski timer yes, should have posted it obviously before.

This is if you log of with the timer on you AND you have people shooting you your ship will stay in space until 15 minutes after the last person places a hit/scram/bubble on you. I'll paint a picture.

Coward Aeon get's shot at and every time he get's shot at, even after he's offline, his timer will just re-set. Hence if you log of with aggro and get caught before the 15 min timer is out then you are there until the ship is dead, you get saved or you log back in. That would not cause extra grief to people that sorta need to run (we have RL believe it or not) so they wait 15 instead of 30 minutes, 30 minutes is a very long time!


Yep, you've convinced me Ramruqai! Pretty hardcore. So just to recap:

If you wait for your aggression to elapse (15mins from last aggression) and then logoff - nothing can stop you disappearing from space in 1 minute right?

But if you log off within 15 minutes of last aggression then the timer is reset to 15mins each time you are aggressed thereafter? Is that a correct summary?

(Only other issue I see with it is the jump through to a bubble / HIC camp. Where technically you haven't been aggressed even though you are cloaked in the bubble and can simply log-off and disappear in one minute - somehow this still needs dealing with.)

Quote:
On the same issue I'd like to speak of self-destruct timers. We've had it happen once. I jumped into low sec activated my HIC scram on a hostile Nyx, activated cyno, the guy self destructs pretty much as soon as he sees me. Our caps come in and by the time he's in half struct or so he goes boom via self destruct. No mail, only the loot that was in cargo and drone bay. Again, I'd like to suggest something like actual in combat self destruct = impossible. Defiantly the loot should drop when self destruct is initiated, and mails sorta should show as well. Self destruct sould not be a viable PVP tactic imo.


I can actually see an argument for self-destruct and denying loot to an enemy. If you are fighting a fiscal war to destruction with another corp/alliance there might be times you really don't want to give them your loot because its going to hurt your comrades and corp-mates.

Case in point here, way back in the Mito War Star Fraction pretty much funded our entire war effort on the loot drops of a couple of enemy ships right at the beginning of that war (faction fit missioning load-outs) if those guys had self-destructed then our war budget would have been multi-billion worse off and we might not have been able destroy the Kimotoro Directive at all. We wouldn't have liked it if they had engaged SD and denied us the loot, but Eve is a pretty harsh game and knowing that the price of giving your enemy that kind of ISK injection could be the death and destruction of your entire alliance I think you could be forgiven for reaching for that big red button in some circumstances.

So yes, I do agree its pretty lame with a huge ship where there is no chance whatsoever you can destroy it before the self-destruct charges go up but I can't see a fair way to prevent that without denying the actual tactical decision to deny income to a war-enemy at the times it really matters.

On the subject of killmails though I think SD should generate killmails just like any other kill if a player has laid damage on the target. Denying loot to an enemy force is one thing - denying killmails because of the shame/e-peenery involved - now thats just sad!

Ramruqai
Amarr
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2008.05.02 20:27:00 - [79]
 

Yep you got it right on the flag thing.

On the self destruct, self destruct imo should be like a normal explosion of the ship. It should not be a powerful explosion that kills all your modules. It should be the same as a normal ship going poof. The same logic should apply to similar things. So if you can self destruct your ship to deny someone loot you should be able to do the same thing with pos and pos modules.

In the end though, from a role play perspective (you represent that at least half way yes?) self destruct should not make all your modules die, same as when you normally die only part of them dies.

Zeknichov
Life. Universe. Everything.
Posted - 2008.05.03 02:28:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: Zeknichov on 03/05/2008 04:09:19
Roughly half of the candidates support changes that would undermine the ideals that this game was founded on. The others focus far too much on insignificant changes. You are the only candidate who understands what makes EVE great. I hope you get this position, you have my vote.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.03 16:05:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Ramruqai

On the self destruct, self destruct imo should be like a normal explosion of the ship. It should not be a powerful explosion that kills all your modules. It should be the same as a normal ship going poof. The same logic should apply to similar things. So if you can self destruct your ship to deny someone loot you should be able to do the same thing with pos and pos modules.


Well I think its arguable actually, and I certainly believe the choice to Self Destruct to deny loot to the enemy is actually a valid one. Re the POS equipment, its a fair point, no reason why one shouldn't be able to self destruct a tower and modules either rather than allow them captured. (I could see the rationale for any kind of self-powered piece of equipment that had a reactor.)

Quote:
In the end though, from a role play perspective (you represent that at least half way yes?) self destruct should not make all your modules die, same as when you normally die only part of them dies.


From a role-play perspective I actually think the complete destruction of the ship does make sense, its essentially setting scuttling charges and overloading the reactor with the express purpose of ensuring nothing valuable survives in the wreck. Look to real-word conflict examples - when the German Battleship Bismark was critically damaged and helpless following the naval battle with the Royal Navy the Captain ordered she be scuttled and sunk rather than risk the ship fall into the hands of the enemy. This is a perfectly understandable motive.

In roleplay terms I could certainly agree it could be something with more significance and impact resonance though - if the decision to Self Destruct is effectively damning the crew to death (rather than as we imagine in normal ship loss, allowing survivors to abandon ship, put on vacuum suits, or otherwise take emergency precautions) there could perhaps be a security penalty? or some other item of reputation impact. Certainly no insurance payout! Maybe its a flight of fancy - but I can see Self Destruct being a fully roleplay-sensible decision in certain circumstances.

So I'm going to have to say I come down in the favour of Self Destruct continuing as it is now for nullification of loot drops - but I think it should definitely produce kill mails for involved characters.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.04 00:11:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Zeknichov
Edited by: Zeknichov on 03/05/2008 04:09:19
Roughly half of the candidates support changes that would undermine the ideals that this game was founded on. The others focus far too much on insignificant changes. You are the only candidate who understands what makes EVE great. I hope you get this position, you have my vote.


Thank you very much for those comments, makes it all worthwhile. Very glad you enjoyed the manifesto and share the vision of what makes this game truly great!

All the best.

Cventas
Minmatar
Chilled Solutions
CryoGenesis Mining Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.04 04:10:00 - [83]
 

I dodn't really read your forum but I like your attitude....HOWEVER....as a member of the casual players voting hand I have a few question I'd like direct answers to that I find pleasing.

1. Is it necassary to complete the seduction?

2. Why are you the right choice for the individual who places a strong reliance on Eve as a platform?

3. How are you at asking questions(this a rhetorical query; yet, it deserves a response)?


Hermia
Steel Daggers
Sev3rance
Posted - 2008.05.04 13:50:00 - [84]
 

Jade's Manifesto chimes to the right tune for a better game.

It comes as no supprise that jade (considering his massive experiance) understands the soul of eve better than anyone else. This sorta knowledge only comes with reading dev blogs and player acheivements over the span of eve's existance.

Jade has my vote!

Jorah Vulture
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.05.04 14:51:00 - [85]
 

Just a slight chance of having that Bounty Hunting system implemented is worth my vote, not to mention all the other interesting ideas you posted there.

I simply can't disagree with any of your points.

Good luck with the campaign, Jade!

Kali Burr
Posted - 2008.05.04 17:08:00 - [86]
 

I will be addressing each candidate with the same questions ableit it might be a little late:

1) What do you think about more PVE scenarios, ones which would incorporate a large section of the EVE universe. Perhaps like a war between the races, or a war against a different race. Perhaps it would be a war against a pirate corp where PCs are encouraged to come help out the fleet. This could allow players to get more of a feel in some way fleet battles as well.

2) Along the lines of the above statement, how would you feel if the EVE universe had a vote in how their races interacted. Perhaps in order to get users more involved the races would submit 'Resolutions' to the players on actions they take. Perhaps the Gallente Federation gives some offense to the Caldari State or vice versa, maybe the resolution to those that are members of the Caldari State would say something like, "Should the Caldari State retaliate with military force against system XYZ for said offense?". Then there could be some possible PVE event taken in that sector of space. The Caldari State can then give real-time missions to players who wish to participate be it material gathering, intelligence, combat missions, mercenary action, etc.

3) How would you feel about opening Invention to invent new items that they design, potentially completely new items to the EVE universe? I believe giving the players the ability to customize items and perhaps make something completely new would greatly increase their involvement and enjoyment of the game. This would introduce even more learning skills for those that want to do industry and allow them to decide how and what will improve ships. Perhaps even allowing researchers to invent totally new kinds of ships.

4) How would you feel if the EVE universe could start impacting in some way on 0.0? Pirates and alliances in 0.0 often have influence in Empire space and low sec, what if the tables were reversed? What if players in empire space could pass resolutions for the races to clear out temporarily portions of low sec, perhaps even attempt to clear out portions of 0.0? The idea here would not to attact home systems, but perhaps fringe systems. This could help introduce empire players to 0.0 and pvp, it could also help keep in check mega alliances and factions. In addition this could allow empire players the 'occasional' chance to get some resources in 0.0 if they aid the initiative.

5) Finally how would you feel about creating and opening events to all players and not just the wealthiest alliances in EVE? There could be many talented pilots out there that want to compete for fame and glory, but may not have the ISK to do it. Perhaps if EVE provided weekly/monthly tournaments around the EVE universe and then allowed the winners to compete in a bracket system up to a finale, it would encourage even more interaction. Instead of just giving some enormous prize once/twice a year, they could give smaller prizes for each stage of the contest leading up to the ultimage prize. These could also include side contests like 1v1/2v2/etc frigate/cruiser fights. Find out who the best 1v1 player is, or who the best tandem team is, etc.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.05 01:02:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Cventas
I dodn't really read your forum but I like your attitude....HOWEVER....as a member of the casual players voting hand I have a few question I'd like direct answers to that I find pleasing.


No problem at all Cventas, thanks for taking the time to ask questions:

Quote:
1. Is it necessary to complete the seduction?


Good question, to a degree yes, seduction leads to intellectual intercourse and gets things done. Sometimes you have to inflame the passions to make something beautiful.

Quote:
2. Why are you the right choice for the individual who places a strong reliance on Eve as a platform?


For the last five years I've been fighting for smaller organizations against the dominion of larger collectivist entities - its pretty much the foundation of my gameplay in Eve online. I'm a strong believer that individual aspiration and gameplay needs to be protected and enhanced, small unit combat needs to be promoted and mindless impersonal blobbing should not be awarded by game balance. I love the idea that a strong individual mind can rise to prominence and fame in this single server environment and I'm absolutely committed to ensuring that all new players have the same opportunities the veterans once had in this game environment.

Quote:
3. How are you at asking questions(this a rhetorical query; yet, it deserves a response)?


Pretty good, I've actually worked in fields where research, interviewing and formal process analysis play an important role in contract success. Of course in the eve context again we're here to ensure that we understand the ins and outs of developer preference on key issues and a facility in charming interrogation is going to be most useful.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.05 02:23:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Hermia
Jade's Manifesto chimes to the right tune for a better game.

It comes as no supprise that jade (considering his massive experiance) understands the soul of eve better than anyone else. This sorta knowledge only comes with reading dev blogs and player acheivements over the span of eve's existance.

Jade has my vote!


Thank you Hermia, very kind words and excellent to see another long time player still active in the game of eve!

Snarker
Caldari
Dragon's Rage
KIA Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.05 04:42:00 - [89]
 

Jade Constantine has the vision of how EVE should play and will take steps on improving the cold and dark universe, she has 2 of my votes.

Neth'Rae
Gallente
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.05.05 04:54:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Neth''Rae on 05/05/2008 05:32:17
Edited by: Neth''Rae on 05/05/2008 04:54:42
Originally by: Jade Constantine
Piracy, bounties and transferable kill rights.


I read this and fell in love at first sight!

This HAS to be implemented!

You got my vote :D

edit:

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 28/04/2008 21:57:23

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.

I remember five years ago noticing the “surrender” option in the war panel and wondering what the cost was going to be for “losing” a war. That question needs to be revisited and it’s something we all need to ask and consider.



I felt the need to discuss this if you don't mind?

With EVE being the sandbox game it is, isn't it up to the players themselves to make the goals of a Wardec.
A Declaration of War simply means you are allowed to fight the other corp/alliance without any concord involvement or sec status loss.
What the goals of the War is about should be up to the players, since the goals can change, or the goals might only be known by a few people, or just the CEO of a Corporation..
By leaving it up to the players it comes closer to real wars..

When someone starts a war in reallife he doesn't say "ok first side who kills 1000 tanks, 100 planes will win."
And I don't want war in EVE to be simplified like that.
Weather you win or lose might be entirely subjective, there's no need for any clear goals, and from a RP perspective it would be silly to stray from the open sandbox nature of EVE and implement something like that..

And you ask about the penality of doing really bad?
Well, if you're doing really bad isn't that enough, and who decides how a war is going?

And the cost of "losing" a war?
Doesn't that mean that you'll have to give in to the other sides demands? Isn't that enough?

Wars in EVE could probably be more interesting, but not by having rules and static objectives.

- You still have my vote tho Laughing


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