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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 16:10:00 - [181]
 

Originally by: Mr Stark
Great speach and as a banks fan im in agreement to the whole love of space opera and tragic loss.

I have one thing I would like looked into, and i know I will be much ridiculed: how about e-warfare being mostly restricted to e-war specialised ships? I think there is too much reliance on everyone using jammers all the time and it would make people think about what ships are in their fleets and gangs. Anyway, good calls all round, you have my votes.


Thank you Mr Stark, glad to see more Iain M Bank's fans out there! Eve needs more of us thats for sure.

Re E-war being restricted to EW only ships - to be honest I think this "problem" was pretty much solved with the EW re-balancing and re-write and the reality that now you do get a very significant role-bonus for EW from the appropriate class of ship. A Falcon with omni jammers is going to make absolute mince-meat out of the locking systems of Dominix trying to omni jam it back and this is pretty good balance already. I can remember when ALL battleships used to throw on a jammer or two just to mess with opponents in fleet battles but this was a long time ago before the chance based system and role bonuses for specific EW vessels.

And on the broader point, I'm actually still a great fan of the flexibility and variety in ship fitting in eve, I love off the wall fitting concepts and wouldn't like to see too much reduction in that flexibility for whatever purpose since I think there would be a very real danger of reducing the uncertainty and of loadouts to fixed "cookie-cutter" classes and impact the diversity of eve combat in the general sense.

Anyway, thanks again for your votes, they are greatly appreciated! Fingers crossed we can really push Eve in an exciting new direction and shake up the bogged down status quo of current conflict mechanics.




Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 17:02:00 - [182]
 

Originally by: Danton Marcellus
This candidate is being endorsed and promoted on the Nebula Rasa forums.


Thank you Danton, means a lot to get the formal endorsement of a long term and respected member of the Eve Online community. All the best to you and yours.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 17:32:00 - [183]
 

Originally by: Securion Wolfheart
I just canceled my account a few days back, mainly because EVE have turned into "Capitals Online" and everyone is flying a carrier these days...
But there are more reasons of course, like the gates we have to use for travel, "local chat", no sense of crew on your ships, very small universe (think about it; every system have how many places where you can actually travel to?) and the overwhelming griefing going on.

Anyway, you got my vote.

Why?

If you can help make EVE feel a little bit more "spacey", and adress the whole "caps online" issue, I might come back in the future...
Fly safe.



Securion I'm quoting your whole post there because I think you are expressing some very important issues and I promise you that you're not alone in perceiving these things.

I've had a good number of evemails in-game since the campaign started expressing identical views and concerns of where "the soul" of Eve has gone in this current horrible stagnant 0.0 territorial morass where risk has fled from the risk/reward equation and anyone and their dog can establish a secure space empire just by anchoring a few pos and waiting for sovereignty to build up.

Too much safety means too much income means too many ships/capital ships means strong disincentive to attacks = too much safety again and the whole rotten cycle continues.

I really want to advocate changes that bring Eve back towards its dynamic roots and make the players who desire space empire control actually fight for it once again.

Thank you for your vote! Rest assured I will be trying my best to make these things happen.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:07:00 - [184]
 

Originally by: Wu Jian
I like your ideas on improving the game play in Eve and thus I have voted for you. I am new to Eve but the kind of fleet warfare envisioned in your posts is what I would like to be a part of. Good luck and hopefully some changes for the better can be made for the good of The State...and the rest of Eve.


Thank you Wu Jian, glad to know the manifesto ideas are appealing to new players as well. Its very important for the future of Eve that new faces can join the glorious single-server space opera and carve out a reputation and story all of their own. I hope you enjoy your Eve experience and we're reading about your adventures and intrigues in a few years time!

All the best.


Maltor'Vak
Minmatar
Native Freshfood
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:16:00 - [185]
 

While it is probably still a bit early in the process, I think you are well on your way to representing Eve in Iceland. Do a good job, we'll be watching.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:46:00 - [186]
 

Originally by: Illaria
You got my vote. As someone who has got out from the trenches of POS warfare in the south, just to hop into new trenches up here in the north, I hope you will save my soul before it withers away someday while shooting my n-th hundred POS into reinforced Wink Also I always liked your style and think you will make for a good CSM member. Good luck. Smile


Thank you very much for the Vote Illaria, I'll do my best to save your soul don't worry! Much appreciate your comment too, always great when somebody likes the personal style Cool

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.08 20:50:00 - [187]
 

Originally by: Aran Makor
Its quite tempting to throw my vote your way, as i agree with 95% of your ideas. I, like half the other pilots in this thread, just got out of trench warfare. All calls going out daily, and most of the time, half the fleet on both sides would be ewarped, lagged out, dead, or anything other gruesome non combat ending. It gets rather boring shooting POS's into reinforced, and then be required to plan my life around EVE, to make sure im here to be another body to put the final stake through its heart. If you put enough missles ito something, why shouldn't it just go pop? Anyone here ever seen a Raven go into reinforced?



Its a common theme Aran, a lot of people are tired of the boring static status quo in territorial warfare, we really are coming the point where it has to change for the good of the game. These reinforcement battles are just lag-attractor dog-pile blob fests and while I can certainly see what the game designers intended in opposing timezone flip-flopping of control I'm fast coming to the conclusion that the treatment has been worse than the ailment in this case.


Shi Lang
Gallente
Wildly Inappropriate
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.08 21:19:00 - [188]
 

Just so you know, I voted for you man, gl :)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 03:20:00 - [189]
 

Originally by: One Percent
Jade has my vote.
Even if only half of Jade's proposed ideas could be realized, EVE and its players would be much better off. Currently, I'm forced to etch out a lonely existence in low-sec, normally praying upon the weak or unsuspecting. I desperately search out pvp, any pvp, that doesn't involve huge amounts of lag or 4-hour ops that end with nothing to show for it. I want a good reason to fight but more than that, I want a means of fighting for that reason that doesn't involve two huge Dread fleets with hundreds of support killing nothing but the server.
For me, it isn't a question of whether or not Jade is the right choice.The question is... will CCP listen?


Well lets hope for the best, all we can do at this point is try our hardest to advocate change for the benefit of everyone. PVP in Eve is in a tight spot at the moment but its dynamic space conflict that built this game into what it is today and a new generation of players deserve to experience the same enjoyment. Thanks for your vote!


Herschel Yamamoto
Agent-Orange
Nabaal Syndicate
Posted - 2008.05.09 04:39:00 - [190]
 

I've already voted for you - your vision for the game is exactly in line with what i'd like to see - but an idea just came to mind that I'd like to hear your take on.

You've complained pretty strongly about how cyno jammers make for too strong a defensive bias, but the solution you seem to be implying is removal of the module. How about making it a soft jam instead? A player tries to trigger a cyno in a jammed system, it flashes onto the overview for everybody in local like a cyno does, and they have to hold it up for five or ten minutes before anybody can jump to it? It'd probably be a pain to rewrite the code for the module, but it'd allow for the jammer to still have a strong effect without making the attempt to bypass it a complete grind, and it'd require alliances that want to jam systems to keep people in them to watch for break-ins, which reduces the whole "spam and forget" factor you dislike. It'd still require a blob of battleships to come in and try to break the jam, but they wouldn't have to do it right into the teeth of a death star and a waiting blob of defenders.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.05.09 05:30:00 - [191]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
I've already voted for you - your vision for the game is exactly in line with what i'd like to see - but an idea just came to mind that I'd like to hear your take on.

You've complained pretty strongly about how cyno jammers make for too strong a defensive bias, but the solution you seem to be implying is removal of the module. How about making it a soft jam instead? A player tries to trigger a cyno in a jammed system, it flashes onto the overview for everybody in local like a cyno does, and they have to hold it up for five or ten minutes before anybody can jump to it? It'd probably be a pain to rewrite the code for the module, but it'd allow for the jammer to still have a strong effect without making the attempt to bypass it a complete grind, and it'd require alliances that want to jam systems to keep people in them to watch for break-ins, which reduces the whole "spam and forget" factor you dislike. It'd still require a blob of battleships to come in and try to break the jam, but they wouldn't have to do it right into the teeth of a death star and a waiting blob of defenders.

I, for one, like this idea actually.

Something along those lines would be very very interesting.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 13:26:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: Isotobe
You have my votes, I like your ideas, and the simple fact that EVE has swung too far in favour of alliances and blob warfare. If you get through, I will hope that you will stand up and speak loud on behalf of all of us smaller entities and bring back some of the solo/small gang fun that we used to enjoy to a greater level in EVE.Regards and good luck, Isotobe


Thank you for your votes Isotobe and rest assured its my full intention to stand up and speak passionately in favour of small unit pvp and Eve combat dynamism. You really aren't alone in feeling that this aspect has suffered in recent years and its truly time to redress the balance and advocate enhancements the Eve combat mechanics to give tactical gang warfare a role again.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 15:40:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/05/2008 15:41:47

Originally by: Zareph

You seem pretty gung ho on teh ability to blow something up, but what about defense? ...


Well now Zareph, nice to have some commentary from Merch Industrial! Been a long time since we had the pleasure of blowing you guys up back in Kheram, welcome to my CSM thread!

Anyway to your points:

At the moment defense advantage in EVE conquerable 0.0 is already too dominant. The progressive stance at the moment is to provide more balance and dynamic conflict opportunity. The status quo allows a defensive side to sit behind POS shields and do nothing while an attacker cannot substantively impact the enemy outside of a formal, telegraphed, and ultimately time and place spammed uber-blob showdown in a formal fleet dog-pile.

You have to remember that Eve is a game as well as a virtual reality empire building simulator and if you make it virtually-impossible to assault player territorial claims in 0.0 you damage the spirit of the game and reduce the beauty of the glorious space opera drama of political shifts and changing fortunes.

I think you are very wrong about the population level in 0.0 of course, most 0.0 is currently spammed with POS and the plague of cyno-jammers isn’t far behind. Investment in 0.0 infrastructures is largely risk-free since the consummate grind required to actually remove these things sleights the risk/reward equation with a significant spice of “can we really be bothered?” Space ship combat is always fun in Eve – attacking POS is always the same. Time we actually got biased in favour of excitement and variety.

Lag/De-sync, etc etc. I’ve addressed these issues in the Manifesto document. The root problem is fleet blobbing and uber reinforcement battle dogpile. We need many smaller confrontations that have significance to territorial conquest. We need the mechanics to encourage conflict outside the huge lag-fests. We need disincentives to blobbing (with real game mechanics not some hokey allusions to political science or dimly relevant “game-theory”). These are “long-standing-issues” because the developers have been caught like rabbits in the headlights of the fleet blob issue and are trying to make their little guy outrun the oncoming wheels of dog-pile rather than sidestep the issue and introduce conflict resolution mechanics that distribute server load into multiple objectives across many systems and actively discourage focused fleet blob tactics.

You’re complaining about black screens and laggy fleet battle deaths? You make my argument for me really. Territorial conflict resolution that involves bringing as many players as possible into a single node at a predetermined time (actively set to allow the defender to maximise their blob) is a recipe for disaster that you taste in your combat experience. If I cram 12 people into my car it’s not going to work very well since its optimal seating capacity is 5. Time we started looking at Eve conflict mechanics in the same way. Yesterday I took part in a completely lag free fight with 60 odd people involved in blowing up a couple of motherships at a POS. That tells us that the combat engine can handle ad-hoc conflict with that kind of number of participants – does it really take a rocket scientist to realise that the solution to black screen of death horrible module lag frustration-fests is to actively discourage single node blobbing and distribute multiple concurrent objectives as the target points of territorial conquest?

Zareph
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:53:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Edited by: Jade Constantine on 09/05/2008 15:41:47

Originally by: Zareph

You seem pretty gung ho on teh ability to blow something up, but what about defense? ...


Well now Zareph, nice to have some commentary from Merch Industrial! Been a long time since we had the pleasure of blowing you guys up back in Kheram, welcome to my CSM thread!


Fraid I wasn't there, I've only been active in MRCHI since October 2007.

Quote:
At the moment defense advantage in EVE conquerable 0.0 is already too dominant. The progressive stance at the moment is to provide more balance and dynamic conflict opportunity. The status quo allows a defensive side to sit behind POS shields and do nothing while an attacker cannot substantively impact the enemy outside of a formal, telegraphed, and ultimately time and place spammed uber-blob showdown in a formal fleet dog-pile.


This is POS warfare, and wasn't what I was asking about. I was referring to your 'you can blow up stations' manifesto part.

I'll admit you have way to much text to read through, and I don't typically camp out on EVE-O forums or bother like my corp member Goumingdong likes too. In fact I find it kinda painful to visit here.

So other than speed reading some of it to get a general idea, this is where my question came from

Quote:
You have to remember that Eve is a game as well as a virtual reality empire building simulator and if you make it virtually-impossible to assault player territorial claims in 0.0 you damage the spirit of the game and reduce the beauty of the glorious space opera drama of political shifts and changing fortunes.


I remember this quite well. You also have to remember that when playing a game of territorial conquest like Risk you can't attack Afghanistan from Eastern Austrailia, you have to work your way through several territories before doing so. If those territories are lightly defended, you can burn through them, if they're not, you've got to fight your way through.

Ignoring POS/Sov stuff as it stands today my question was around your 'let stations be blowed up' part. If stations can be blowed up, stations need to have defenses that don't rely on a character/person being there, otherwise, it's SSDD with the blobs. you bring big blob to blow up station, persons who own station aren't really keen on that idea so they're going to defend...

If you can burn the 15 jumps to the station from your space to their space, or, drop behind enemy lines via a simple cyno and start shooting the station either A) Taking advantage of the guy who owns it is dead asleep at the moment or B) taking advantage that the guy isn't there at the moment because he's busy elsewhere

So you'd need some type of automated defense - just like NPC poses have. They have gate guns, and some of the missions have stasis web batteries, etc. So a player should be able to put those up as well to help in the automated defense.

Sure they should have HP and Shield/Armor/Structure but without a mechanic to combat the time delta of the players of EVE again you could easily have a roaming gang destroy all the stations of corporation or alliance during say ANZAC time if they didn't have a huge population of ANZAC folks to keep it safe.

I'm trying to understand what mechanic besides the broken one we have now you'd put in place to combat that.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.09 16:59:00 - [195]
 

It would be more broken. Large alliances like ours would just burn anything we couldn't defend indefinitely to the ground. Which would include most of the stations we take. Then, not only would you need the forces to take and defend your station from hostile assault to make it in 0.0 you would need the isk to put your own station down and the forces to take and defend the system as well as the extra forces necessary to defend the system from the increased numbers of hostiles who are about since they have less space to defend.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 18:26:00 - [196]
 

Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku
What would you do to make mining not suck? Currently, mining consists of sitting and staring at asteroids for hours. Allow me to share my proposal:


Hmmm, this is a hard question for me Miyamato :) In the past (back when we did mining ops) we usually made it "suck less" by fooling about, attacking each other with drones, stealing from each others cans and generally getting our ships exploded.

Quote:
Players would still buy mining ships, modules, etc. Their skills would still govern production output. However, instead of being forced to mine themselves, they would instead hire mining crews that would pilot their ships for them. This would allow players to have mining investments while they are doing things more interesting than staring at rocks. One could introduce skills for how many mining ships one can have active at once, behavior scripts, that sort of thing. Obviously, using a mining crew in low- or null-sec could be very dangerous. They would not be able to respond as quickly or as effectively and would probably need protection.


Wouldn't that be ideal for macro-miner business? Sounds like the sort of thing that would end up with some unscrupulous interest. I can see the argument for making the whole mining process more interesting, but I think you have to involve a player in the oversight/admin of the process directly just to ensure it isn't being entirely automated and falling prone to money-traders automatic income schemes.



Fehn Gamin
Minmatar
Pator Tech School
Posted - 2008.05.09 20:53:00 - [197]
 

Jade,
Thanks for your inspiring and eloquent manifesto. It's encouraging to me as a relatively new player of 2 months to see the thoughtful and clearly expressed vision you bring to the CSM campaign. While I do not yet have an appreciation for all the changes you propose, I find myself agreeing with your principles regarding game balance/mechanics.

One question regarding the ‘dynamic’ approach you advocate:
Could this approach at all be at odds with the play-style of many if not most of the smaller corporations (0-50 strong) whose members are typically online in a specific timezone and would not have the 23-7 resources required to defend the small amount of infrastructure to which they could hope to have access? Or, if I am misinterpreting your vision, are you advocating mobile infrastructure that would suit this group of players?

You have my vote, pending your response. Wink

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.09 23:33:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: Fehn Gamin
Jade,
Thanks for your inspiring and eloquent manifesto. It's encouraging to me as a relatively new player of 2 months to see the thoughtful and clearly expressed vision you bring to the CSM campaign. While I do not yet have an appreciation for all the changes you propose, I find myself agreeing with your principles regarding game balance/mechanics.


Thank you for the kind words, its excellent to see support from new players. Very glad you liked the manifesto and vision expressed.

Quote:
One question regarding the ‘dynamic’ approach you advocate:
Could this approach at all be at odds with the play-style of many if not most of the smaller corporations (0-50 strong) whose members are typically online in a specific timezone and would not have the 23-7 resources required to defend the small amount of infrastructure to which they could hope to have access? Or, if I am misinterpreting your vision, are you advocating mobile infrastructure that would suit this group of players?


Well here's the thing, at the moment the current largely untouchable infrastructure in 0.0 grants existing powers a huge advantage when it comes to territorial sprawl. They can spam out sovereignty claiming POS in the knowledge that they will have plenty of warning and time to muster formal fleets in for potential reinforcement battles and can generally ensure that only people agreeing to play ball "IE NAP and submit" get to establish roots. Map options give a "gods eye view" of populated systems and quick scans through local can immediately spot the presence of interlopers. So your options as things stand are generally - make a deal with an existing power for access and residence, or try to make a pitch on your own and accept that sitting territorial powers will likely mass to remove you.

Now, the kind of dynamic environment I'm advocating would cut down on the ability of existing powers to spam and maintain the extensive networks of untended POS and perma-cyno-jammed systems. With more fluid sovereignty mechanics involving actual pvp combat to maintain holdings, the big fish of 0.0 would be spending more time defending their sovereignty status on smaller claims and have less time and freedom to oppress EVERY system on the map.

The kind of local changes I'd favor would make it easier for small corporations and alliances to exist under the radar of the big boys, I'm a great fan of "ninja-industry" and unlicensed presence in the underbelly of these big territorial beasts. I'd definitely be in favour of mobile infrastructure that can span the gulf between non-territorial (empire based) endeavour and formal 0.0 architecture: examples would be utility factory ships that could perhaps be customised with modules to act as mini-stations, with fitting, repair, corp hangers and such, but without the combat ability of current cap-ships, things that can act as base-ships for younger corps and alliances and provide a focal ambition for early collective endeavor.

The basic message though: by making sovereignty harder to maintain and increasing the cost and reducing availability of items like jump bridges and cyno jammers, combined with reducing map report statistics and omnipotent local chat you produce a 0.0 environment that is suddenly ... much bigger, with far more room for newer corporations and alliances to dive in and establish themselves. I strongly believe that 0.0 as it is today is much too easy for the big powers to maintain and administrate and by making them work harder to defend their borders and space you produce greater opportunity for newcomers and new development.

Quote:
You have my vote, pending your response. Wink



Hopefully this helps explain, if you need any more clarification just ask! And I really hope you enjoy your time in Eve Online. All the best.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.10 02:31:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama
Originally by: Miyamoto Isoruku
What would you do to make mining not suck? Currently, mining consists of sitting and staring at asteroids for hours. Allow me to share my proposal:

Players would still buy mining ships, modules, etc. Their skills would still govern production output. However, instead of being forced to mine themselves, they would instead hire mining crews that would pilot their ships for them. This would allow players to have mining investments while they are doing things more interesting than staring at rocks. One could introduce skills for how many mining ships one can have active at once, behavior scripts, that sort of thing. Obviously, using a mining crew in low- or null-sec could be very dangerous. They would not be able to respond as quickly or as effectively and would probably need protection.


I already voted for you and represent some non-player support from Bangor too!!!

But in seriousness the point above made me wonder... do you think there is more scope in eve for more accessible and dynamic temporary anchored structures... such as a deployed mining station (that perhaps would stay active only so long as your lease allowed, but would be available in high-sec with meaningful restrictions), siege weapon platforms that could be deployed on the offensive, listening posts that could provide a more legitimate alternative to bacon (with appropriate skills and isk investment to deploy)... I think personally a lot of the dull jobs in eve could be automated with proper consideration to the methods, and demend on in-game resources.


I can certainly see a role for temporary anchored structures with a variety of purposes actually - things like the mining station (for storage/refine) that actually represents a fair investment and could be attacked by empire war decs, definitely on listening posts and siege weapon platforms (off grid bombardment of POS shields and micro battlefields in and of themselves) - these could be good.

Quote:
Lets pick the listening buoy example (and this is made up on the fly, not a serious suggestion but an illustration on a point). Lets say they're pretty expensive and moderately tough. You need high anchoring + some communications related skills existing or new to deploy them. You invest in 3 and while you siege a pos these are on 3 key systems on the approach to your fleet's location. These bouys are broadcasting something in order to detect incoming hostiles so they light up like cynos in system, you cant hide them. You know that if the enemy is coming they're going to pop it, but you do get to see them coming. But yeah, my question is: Is there not underutilised functionality here that could change the game for the better?


In a situation where we get local altered and diminished gods-eye map intel and scan becomes more important then this kind of listening-post anchorable structure could well be a lovely way for the approaches of a key system to be secured. Good trade off for vulnerable investment vs functionality - decent target for small strike gangs and a balanced advantage for the owner. Yep, provisionally I like it.

Anyways Ryoji thanks very much for the vote and support from good old Bangor :) All the best in Eve and fingers crossed we can get the influence needed to improve the game for everyone.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.10 12:39:00 - [200]
 

Originally by: Syrin
Jade = David cameron ?? Laughing Sounds like it anyhow.
I dont get to play much EvE, hour or 2 a day. What are your proposals going to do for a small time empire gankbear like me ?


Certainly not David Cameron that much I assure you ... Very Happy

Not entirely sure what a "gankbear" actually is? I'm going to guess it means you like short doses of pvp in hisec through wardecs and such? Well a whole section of my interest is devoted to enhanced combat opportunity in empire - things like transferable killrights as part of a bounty hunting mini-profession, improvements to the wardec system with goals and performance-tracking, mercenary career integration (binding contracts and "buy-in" to existing wars - and an enthusiastic commitment to really making sure that Faction Warfare is done right and delivered in an entertaining and inclusive way.

I've done a lot of fighting in empire space myself Syrin and consider this form of warfare is vital to the nature of Eve and has to be fun, accessible, and allow players to actively involve themselves with other players for focused hostility and conflict when diplomacy fails and gunplay is on the menu.

Revan Neferis
Amarr
Bloodveil
BLOOD EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.10 13:29:00 - [201]
 

Edited by: Revan Neferis on 12/05/2008 01:43:11
NVM. (moved elsewhere)

Rico Minali
Gallente
Sons Of 0din
Fatal Ascension
Posted - 2008.05.10 23:15:00 - [202]
 

Firstly, you have my vote.
the more I think about getting rid of local channel the more I like it, it will allow smuggling and so on to be more viable, as well as 'living in the underbelly of giants' so I think that would be fantastic, as well as more realistic, you would have to scan to see who is there.

I do think though that E-War is too prevailant, I know in my last alliance that policy was everything bigger than a destroyer had a dampener fitted. damps are overused in some situations. Cloaks should also be more limited to cov ops ships, with maybe a time limit that a cloak will work on a non cov ops ship. Or prototype ones are the only cloak allowed on a non cov ops and inrease the cpu and pg cost, this would allow at least some leeway for unusual fits without the cloak being a common mod.

Also, how would you adress the great logofski problem? take a fleet to a system log them all of except a spy and log back in as a trap when you want to, it's unrealistic and not in the spirit of Eve to my mind.

Agreed that shooting pos's into reinforced is crap. reinforced shouldnt mean invulnerable. Perhaps just everything bar shield goes offline and shield resists go up so a pos in reinforced just takes a fair amount of pounding to blow up, giving the defending force time to get ships to it to defend.

Heero Yuy
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.11 04:01:00 - [203]
 

Having read through the manifestos of all candidates, I think its reasonably fair to say that only one has a broad and well thought-out vision for the improvement of EVE. Votes have been cast accordingly.

Best wishes and best of luck to Jade, and by extension to all players of EVE.

Forkrul
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.05.11 05:53:00 - [204]
 

Just in case my reply to the exit poll gets lost, I will repost here.

I voted Jade Constantine for a number of reasons. The primary one is that she is a role-player and well known. She is therefore more likely than the other role-play candidates to do as she writes. Now why a role-player, some may ask? Well, while many things could be included to make role-players more complacent with an MMO, Jade will possibly urge the introduction of attributes to the game that may make it feel more immersive overall. She seems on the right pillar of what is truly needed in order to improve EVE Online.

I myself have technically quit playing EVE Online even though I keep my account active to train skills with the notion that I may come back. As a 0.0 solo-ist, the number one thing I am looking for is survivability, which would be perfectly okay if she somehow got the developers to remove all of this maximum speed upon undock crap.

But back to the Immersive aspect. Immersion is what keeps new players in, old players going and everyone intrigued. I recognize that Jade Constantine will keep attention to issues such as 0.0 warfare, low-sec quality gameplay and balance for both Pirates and Carebears as well as the wellfare of true high-sec carebears. Then there is me. All I want to do is just fkn play in 0.0 with the locals who I made friends with and not have to undock at full speed. Jade, please listen to this. I am voting for you because of your role-play background, but I hope you can push on issues that keep soloists balanced with corporations/groups.

Aside from all of this, if you actually read what she typed, it's quite impressive. She knows she can't promise everything, but simply do her best to get the developers to realize what needs to be done to keep EVE going. She seems to knows that the current state of Cynojammers and Capital warefare is heavily unbalanced. I don't know much about this, but I reckon that it is unbalanced toward the defender, but that she recognizes that defenders still 'ought to have the upper hand in almost any situation. Defenders should only lose out of a combination of superior attributes, not just one spearheading the enemy into their space.

Anyways, that is why I voted for Jade. As a role player, and a well known one, she seems to want to press issues which I think need pressing and will be held to it with her reputation.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.11 16:41:00 - [205]
 

Originally by: Maltor'Vak
While it is probably still a bit early in the process, I think you are well on your way to representing Eve in Iceland. Do a good job, we'll be watching.


Fingers crossed; we're just about half way through the voting and there is a still a long way to go if we're going to make sure the CSM has a good range of representatives capable of presenting genuinely progressive thinking and clear understanding of ways to improve this great game. We really need an impressive voter turnout to overcome the alliance block votes and ensure we get genuinely independent voices on the council, since its in everyone's interest that this doesn't become a council of clones voting lockstock for status quo issues and terrified of all innovation and new ideas that might damage their host alliance's position in space while altering Eve for the better.






Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.11 22:46:00 - [206]
 

Originally by: Shi Lang
Just so you know, I voted for you man, gl :)


Much appreciated! All the best.

Jamie Hara
Caldari
Posted - 2008.05.11 22:52:00 - [207]
 

Is it true that you want to nerf carriers and 0.0 space?

Forkrul
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.05.11 23:38:00 - [208]
 

Edited by: Forkrul on 11/05/2008 23:59:38
Jade Constantine is a guy!!! :-O!!!!

And I strongly support the destructible outposts idea, too.

You see, Jade is much like all those candidates that talk so much and are intelligent to face the issues head on... yet still admit that they are not going to be able to promise anything... but then people don't vote for Jade because "They took ear Jerbs," and "I WOULDN'T HAVE A DRINK WITH THAT CANDIDATE RIGHT THAR"

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 01:33:00 - [209]
 

Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto
I've already voted for you - your vision for the game is exactly in line with what i'd like to see - but an idea just came to mind that I'd like to hear your take on.


Thank you very much Herschel, very glad to hear that we share a vision for the future development of Eve - thats excellent!

Quote:
You've complained pretty strongly about how cyno jammers make for too strong a defensive bias, but the solution you seem to be implying is removal of the module. How about making it a soft jam instead? A player tries to trigger a cyno in a jammed system, it flashes onto the overview for everybody in local like a cyno does, and they have to hold it up for five or ten minutes before anybody can jump to it? It'd probably be a pain to rewrite the code for the module, but it'd allow for the jammer to still have a strong effect without making the attempt to bypass it a complete grind, and it'd require alliances that want to jam systems to keep people in them to watch for break-ins, which reduces the whole "spam and forget" factor you dislike. It'd still require a blob of battleships to come in and try to break the jam, but they wouldn't have to do it right into the teeth of a death star and a waiting blob of defenders.


I think thats a very interesting concept actually - so something like making Cyno-Jammers -> Cyno-Inhibitors instead, that simply make the process of establishing working cyno fields more difficult rather than setting a binary "impossible flag". On balance I like the idea, and yep it would make the space holding alliances much more dependent on active patrols to investigate cyno fields in progress to eliminate threats to their sovereignty. I'm going to say that 10-15 minutes is probably too short and it will need a longer period of vulnerability before the cyno can be used but as a seed for an idea of how to reform cyno-jammers from their current broken form its a pretty good one. It definitely would provide combat dynamism and variety since you are establishing new focal points conflict each time you begin to break through with the new cyno field. Its a great idea!

All the best Herschel and thanks a lot for that!




Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 02:30:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: Zareph

Ignoring POS/Sov stuff as it stands today my question was around your 'let stations be blowed up' part. If stations can be blowed up, stations need to have defenses that don't rely on a character/person being there, otherwise, it's SSDD with the blobs. you bring big blob to blow up station, persons who own station aren't really keen on that idea so they're going to defend...

If you can burn the 15 jumps to the station from your space to their space, or, drop behind enemy lines via a simple cyno and start shooting the station either A) Taking advantage of the guy who owns it is dead asleep at the moment or B) taking advantage that the guy isn't there at the moment because he's busy elsewhere

So you'd need some type of automated defense - just like NPC poses have. They have gate guns, and some of the missions have stasis web batteries, etc. So a player should be able to put those up as well to help in the automated defense.

Sure they should have HP and Shield/Armor/Structure but without a mechanic to combat the time delta of the players of EVE again you could easily have a roaming gang destroy all the stations of corporation or alliance during say ANZAC time if they didn't have a huge population of ANZAC folks to keep it safe.

I'm trying to understand what mechanic besides the broken one we have now you'd put in place to combat that.


The simple answer to that is the current proposal for destructible stations I'm most in favor of: this has self-destruction as an option to conquerers after they have held (pacified) an outpost for X period of time. (Probably 72 hours or so) The outpost would be taken in a similar way to the current system (win sovereignty by whichever mechanic is in place) - then shoot at the shields till your "conquer" the outpost. After the 72 hour "pacification period" the new owner could opt to rig it to self-destruct and trigger a 48 hour countdown to destruction. During this countdown the outpost is under "emergency access" rules and anyone could dock and access their hangers regardless of ownership. Also, the self-destructing station would be outside the local sovereignty system and could be re-conquered and saved from self-destruct up to 2 hours prior to the ultimate destruction point. As you can see this doesn't make the outpost any more vulnerable to conquest than it is at the moment and it would actually be quite a challenge to keep these things to the self-destruct process against organized counterattack by forces wishing to prevent it.

Hope this helps.


Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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