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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (16)

Author Topic

LiuSang Songbird
Posted - 2008.05.12 03:07:00 - [211]
 

I'm too new to the game to vote Embarassed .But wanted to ask you if there are any other science fiction writers you take your ideas from in Eve? You write about Ian Banks and his Culture novels but are there any other authors you think embody the Eve culture and gameplay and could be a useful start point for newer players making their characters and corporations?

Thx Very Happy

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 12:33:00 - [212]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 12/05/2008 12:34:18
Originally by: Rico Minali
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.


Yeah exactly so really, Danton Marcellus has it right when the says that less is more from the perspective of giving less "gods eye" information to make a bigger game map from the current resources. It will make it more difficult for existing territorial powers to dominate the entirety of bloated space claims since they will need a greater balance of patrol and investigation than currently exists (where the map does much of the work).

Quote:
... 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.


Well the thing with the cloak is that it allows you to operate in hostile territory and lets consider the balance here. In an outpost system you're likely locked out of the outpost where the defender can dock - thats fine, thats defense advantage. But in a non-outpost system you have the situation where the defender can avoid combat, afk and idle behind the POS shields of a friendly tower (making them effectively invulnerable in the short term) - there needs to be the option for the attacker to do the same in adverse circumstances or you've tilted the balance even further in favour of defense advantage and provided even more disincentive to actual combat. (this is the real issue at the core of all these discussions - what we have to avoid at all costs is discouraging warfare through making it too easy for the defenders).

Quote:
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.


Its a sad tactic I agree. I guess it gets partially dealt with if you address the meta-knowledge tools of the game. Remove local intel and you get the ability to hide a fleet at a deep safe spot and gain the functionality of the "log-off" without actually performing the "log-off" (ie tactical surprise). Deal with map tools and similar effect. Allow people to change their status in the address book reporting (ie the MSN style functionality of "show me offline" if you are running with a fleet and don't want war enemies who have address-booked you to know you are online and active. See the point? The "logoffski" thing is designed to give a degree of tactical surprise that we should all be able to gain through good in-game play but can't at the moment because the client just delivers too much infomation to our enemies about our location in system, online status, map intel etc etc. Level the playing field by reducing "gods-eye" intel in the client and you remove the advantage of "logoffski" and login traps and people will stop doing it. This is an example of removing the advantage of poor play by giving good players the mechanics they need to gain tactical surprise through gameplay not metagameplay.

Quote:
... 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.


It wouldn't be nearly so much a problem if the POS themselves were not the foundation of Sovereignty claims AND the "space castles" that defend cyno-jammers and jump bridges. If the POS were purely industrial hubs for moon-mining and industry then I think the reinforcement mode would be far less grim.

Bomber1945
Posted - 2008.05.12 13:10:00 - [213]
 

wow what a forum thread where two thirds of all the posts are made by the same person. Oh and btw cyno jammers mean that there is an opportunity for non-capital ship warfare to occur in 0.0 space. otherwise we would simply play capitals-online all the time and there is nothing more trench warfare orientated then 2 fleets of dreads sitting in siege mode.

Long live system jammers!

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 15:20:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Heero Yuy
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.


Thank you Heero, very kind words and much appreciated!

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


Yep, thats the ultimate point of all this, delivering a progressive CSM that has the courage and passion to advocate improvements to this great game to keep Eve fresh and exciting for existing players and newcomers to the single-server space opera we know and love!

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:00:00 - [215]
 

Originally by: Forkrul

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.



Thank you for your vote and kind words Forkul - most appreciated.

Quote:
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.


Well, there are other alternatives to the docking mechanic for achieving that, for example, when Ambulation comes around simply looking out of the docking port at stations will work wonders I think.

Quote:
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.


I'm certainly keenly interested in dynamic combat balance for small gang warfare in 0.0 and lowsec, and is vitally important that the game doesn't move to the state where such activity is nerfed out of sight by empire building tools and overt defense advantage.

Quote:
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.


I'm glad you found the general manifesto to be impressive Forkrul, I certainly hoped it gave an insight into my perception of the big picture in Eve at the moment and analysis of progressive ways forward for the good of the game and player base.

Quote:
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.


Certainly true - hence why running with a long term identity is very important. I'm asking you to trust me with your vote and you can assess on my past reputaton how well I've kept my word and did what I promised to do in the Eve history before.

Dai'Yu Shen
Amarr
Shen Capital Ventures
Posted - 2008.05.12 17:50:00 - [216]
 

Hey Jade,

Your vision of what EVE can, and should be, gels perfectly with mine. Something needs to be done about the overwhelming advantages of defense in 0.0 and the idea of destructible outposts is sexy Twisted Evil

I've just a small question, and I apologize if this has been touched upon earlier in the thread (I don't think it has, but I could have missed a post or two).

You briefly mentioned Titans in your manifesto, and it seems you don't see them or the DD as a major problem except in conjunction with Cyno Jammers. Is this a fair representation of your views?

If we assume that jammers will be removed or changed drastically, do you see any further problems with Titan fleets of the size the big alliances are now building? If so, what do you think can be done?

Ukutora Ozugas
Posted - 2008.05.12 20:02:00 - [217]
 

If you have the time, I would like for you to discuss what you can, about how you see ambulation effecting the player base.

From recent videos on Ten Ton Hammer, and other interviews, we've seen a great deal about it. CCP is already taking great steps into the personalizing of the character that it is hard to think of anything that they might leave out. One obvious thing is that people are going to want to try to make the clothing themselves. According to CCP, this might break immersion with people running around dressed like santa. My own concerns are that the costumes will become stagnant and boring over time. I hope that they are constantly going to be adding new designs, not only new textures and fabrics. Something that might also be cool, is wear and tear over time. I'm sure they've got the capability to do it. I also often forget... does PG-13 contain nudity?

Should you become elected for CSM, I can almost promise you that every player will have their own ideas and suggestions to improve that section of game play, and they will be asking you to relate those ideas.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 21:29:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Jamie Hara
Is it true that you want to nerf carriers and 0.0 space?


No idea where you got the idea I wanted to Nerf Carriers from. Absolutely incorrect.

And as for nerfing 0.0 space - I would like to see it more exciting, with more conflict opportunity, more combat variety and featuring a greater range of engagements of all sizes and levels of significance.

I guess if your desire for 0.0 space was "A quiet little place for making money" you might consider that a nerf - but for anybody looking for thrills and spills and glorious space opera dramatics on the wild frontier its a pretty easy sell Very Happy

Elaron
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.12 21:33:00 - [219]
 

As always, Jade, it is a pleasure to read about your philosophies and aspirations as they apply to this complex and unique game.

My question is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but I would very much like to know your opinion on the relative balance in the ships and capabilities of the four races. Do you even think this is much of an issue given the open nature of the skill system?

Deathbear
Minmatar
eXin Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 11:18:00 - [220]
 

I loved your poster, so I already voted for you, but I'm still curious: Realistically, how do you intend to bring about the (mostly very welcome to me) ideas for changes you're promoting? I've read some concerns about how the scope of the CSM isn't quite clear to many people, and I fear I'm one of those people.

The ideas you represent notwithstanding, what do you think the CSM can achieve, and how?

Thanks in advance for your answer.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:30:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 15:31:00

Originally by: Forkrul

Jade Constantine is a guy!!! :-O!!!!



True story Cool

Quote:
And I strongly support the destructible outposts idea, too.


Jolly good! Seriously its an option badly needed in 0.0 conquerable space - Eve really shouldn't be all about spamming indestructible structures on easy mode. If you build a space empire it should be possible to see your holdings turned to ash by a dedicated foe who can triumph over your forces in war.

Quote:
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"


Ummm, not sure I understood exactly what you said there Forkrul Very Happy

jdok
Rage and Terror
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:55:00 - [222]
 

Jade I apologize if this has been mentioned already, or if it isn't really within your power of CSM, but what can you do about more hotkeys? Especially drone hotkeys. Also would you be able to push for a better user interface? CCP isn't exactly the best at it...

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:15:00 - [223]
 

Originally by: LiuSang Songbird
I'm too new to the game to vote Embarassed .But wanted to ask you if there are any other science fiction writers you take your ideas from in Eve? You write about Ian Banks and his Culture novels but are there any other authors you think embody the Eve culture and gameplay and could be a useful start point for newer players making their characters and corporations?
Thx Very Happy



Interesting question, probably not that relevant to the CSM campaign specifically but I'm a sucker for science fiction Very Happy

As some who have taken an interest in Star Fraction in the past know we took our name from the the novel of the same name by Ken MacLeod which is a brilliant story in a speculative near-future setting with a world dominated by the US/UN and the British Isles divided into micro-states on the verge of a covert nano-tech powered revolution. I don't want to spoil the plotline but lets just say it has a whole slew of relevant happenstance particularly appropriate to building political movements in Eve Online. Star Fraction goes on to a further sequence of novels exploring revolutionary dynamics and something of a recurring theme in this writing - artificial intelligence, post-humanity and political ramifications of significant technological change. As another standalone book - Newton's Wake has some great ideas too, but is sadly less well written IMO.

I'd also recommend the books of Dan Simmons (Hyperion sequence) -> for its wonderful Ousters vs Hegemony ideological clash in space settlement + (Illium sequence) -> for great insight into potential futures and technology post transhumanist singularity. Dan Simmons is a master storyteller and superb writer and is highly recommended.

I really good go on all day with this stuff, but I'll close by mentioning Adam Roberts who tends to be a bit of hit and miss author with some mediocre books and some truly excellent books - I absolutely love his debut novel SALT (a tale of colonization of an alien world by culturally-distinct colony ships leading to the horrible inevitability of nation-state hostility again) and my favorite book of his Gradisil (which is a near speculative future of individual revolution amongst the private owners of habitats in near Earth Orbit.)

Anyway I'll stop there, but feel free to drop by the SF forums and say hi if you want more ideas, we're got entire topics devoted to our favourite SF writers and stories.

Hope you enjoy sparking your own revolutions in Eve!


Leneerra
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:23:00 - [224]
 

You already have my vote.

But there is a few things I wonder about with regards to the destructeble outpost idear.

An outpost represents a vast investment by a group to construct. Would you be in favor of having the destroying party make a similar investment as was originally made by the builders?
I think it should require at least something like a full load for a freighter in trade and produceble goods (and perhaps a bpc?). Part of these goods would be lost if the self destruct is aborted and part refunded to the statiuon manager, similar to a factory job.

Also I have seen posts about having the station remain as a destroyed remnant where people can retrieve their assets as well as providing a rebate on constructing a new outops on the same spot.
What would your opinion be in having that destroyed outpost removed at the end of the month during the recently (not yet operational?) clean up function (Although I think it should not be removed the first time it participates in the cleaning cycle, ensuring accassebility for salvage for at least a full month)


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:51:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: Bomber1945
wow what a forum thread where two thirds of all the posts are made by the same person. Oh and btw cyno jammers mean that there is an opportunity for non-capital ship warfare to occur in 0.0 space. otherwise we would simply play capitals-online all the time and there is nothing more trench warfare orientated then 2 fleets of dreads sitting in siege mode. Long live system jammers!


Shock horror news at 11! CSM Candidate replies to people in his own CSM Q/A thread! Very Happy

Cyno-Jammers actually mean that only one side gets to have capital ships in the Cyno-Jammer assault phase of the POS battle. They also mean that Capital Ships can be used with impunity by the defenders in Cyno-Jammed systems against any kind of raiding force - its not unusual these days to see capital ships deployed to fight 2 Drakes and a Crow on a gate.

If more capital ships could be deployed in 0.0 space battles you'd see more capital ships dying. Dead capital ships cost money to replace and would have some impact on the otherwise entirely upward spiral of capital ship ownership and stockpiling in 0.0 at the moment. Cyno-jammers prevent incidental small unit capital ship engagements (handful a side) but do nothing to inhibit formal mega slug-fest capital warfare at reinforcement battles. Hence they are clearly a technology that penalize small scale warfare while ensuring big lag fests are neccessary.

At to that: the modules are too cheap, too easy to deploy and spam over the whole of sovereign space, and you have a serious issue with 0.0 becoming a cyno-black hole where literally nobody can move ships about. This is the veritable definition of static trench warfare.

Death to cyno Jammers!

(or if not death then a damn good hard "rebalancing" with the nobbly end of the nerf bat. Cool



Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:36:00 - [226]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine

Cyno-Jammers actually mean that only one side gets to have capital ships in the Cyno-Jammer assault phase of the POS battle.



Only if the capitals are already there. If they are not then it requires them to down the jammer which, if you're attacking it gives you time to bring them in[or requires the defender has precognition]

No jammers mean that there is no fight that can't be a capital fight. It means that sovereignty warfare has no overarching capital strategy and only consists of "move capitals up to station system, siege, repeat"

Jammers are good. The only problem is how hard it is to take them down. Just like all other strategic infrastructure there is no strategy in a war without them. No strategic infrastructure means no intermediary objectives. No intermediary objectives means there is nothing that can be accomplished with anything but full force.

Ideally, Jammers, and bridges, and generators should be spread all over the place, and relatively easy to destroy/disable. This means a host of objectives for small gangs that tie directly into the overarching campaign.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:58:00 - [227]
 

Originally by: Dai'Yu Shen
Hey Jade,
Your vision of what EVE can, and should be, gels perfectly with mine. Something needs to be done about the overwhelming advantages of defense in 0.0 and the idea of destructible outposts is sexy Twisted Evil


Yep, I think sometimes the player-led empires in 0.0 forget that part of the drama and beauty of this game lay in the ups and downs of political process and the sense of accomplishment needs to be coupled with a genuine sense of threat. Destructible architecture has such a prominent place in good scifi drama that its a bit amazing that a game with a background story and theme as rich as Eve should have this degradation of vision in 0.0 as a sop to softcore empire builders who fear aggressive action might burn their castles to dust one day. What makes Eve exciting and addictive is the adrenal-rush of fear that attends risking any significant asset in the dangerous regions of space - its a real death penalty and its a shame that 0.0 compromises this sensation in dull capture-the-flag mechanics on the outpost level.

Quote:
I've just a small question, and I apologize if this has been touched upon earlier in the thread (I don't think it has, but I could have missed a post or two). You briefly mentioned Titans in your manifesto, and it seems you don't see them or the DD as a major problem except in conjunction with Cyno Jammers. Is this a fair representation of your views?


Yes it is a fair representation actually. I've never been a fan of knee-jerk nerfing ships and classes based on the political or gameplay aspirations of pressure-groups. I think the Titan class today has become a problem in combination with the nature of territorial warfare (everyone groups at pre-arranged time for the reinforcement battles as doomsday bait) and I'm also not terribly happy with the function of cyno-jammers making conventional fleets attack jammers at positions reinforced with Titans on the initial attacks.

As ships in and of themselves though, I don't really have a problem with them - they represent a huge investment of training time/expense for the pilots, and they take an absolutely epic slice of effort to build them in the first place and they remain pretty vulnerable to dreadnaught class attack.

Where I can see problems in the future is massed groups of Titans doomsday-shooting Heavy Interdictors out of space casually and having no countermeasure to their EW invulnerability/scramble immunity. I think a solution could well be to introduce a capital ship grade warp scrambler module that operates like the hictor focused scramble and allows capital ships to tackle Titans and Moms and will ensure that Titan/cap fights will be fought to bloody conclusions rather than allowing doomsday usage and scott-free escapes after doomsday blasting support fleets to bits. I also like the idea of scripting the doomsday weapon between AOE and focused mode (where the focused mode is a devastating anti capital blast of significant yield attack other caps and super caps.) The Titan pilots/FCs would need to choose from the benefit of the DD weapon and significant cooldown or maybe the ability to fire a powerful focused blast each minute or so. In essence this would give more tactical choices to the Titan deployment but via the capital scrambler more risk as well.

Point is I think you can deal with Titan proliferation by making them get stuck in more. I really don't mind the idea of vast battles where titans are scambled on both sides and alliances throw hundreds of capital ships into the fray and see billions of isk going up in smoke. This is high end content and the biggest powers in 0.0 should be paying a cost for making war - I want to see literal Ragnarok for the capital powers in 0.0 in furious brutal showdowns.

Ending the Titan-Age by just nerfing the ships to uselessness seems tawdry and un-eve-like to me. I want to see them used in the bloodiest fights the server has ever seen.







Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:30:00 - [228]
 


Originally by: Arithron
So you would like to see POS and other structures attackable and defeatable in one attack? How does this support small corps, who spend considerable time, effort and ISK putting the POS up in the first place? We all work in different timezones, and can't be on 24 hours a day to defend our structures in space- hence the reinforced mode. This gives a corp a chance to defend its property.


Doesn't follow, I'm actually opposed to POS being used for Sovereignty warfare - I don't mind utility/industrial POS having reinforcement timers, but I do mind the universal "one-size-fits-all" Deathstar POS with critical elements of space control infrastructure being defended in such ways. Lets have Moon mining POS spawn attackable convoys outside the range of their guns for raiders to target. Lets have jammers and jump-bridges moved away from POS full stop. Lets have sovereignty determined NOT by large tower spam, but by a mechanic that actually promotes player on player conflict with distributed objectives encouraging smaller simultaneous battles.

Originally by: Arithron

I'm not interested in reading your manifesto, tbh. I personally don't think its our place nor job to come up with new directions and ideas for the game- the PLAYERS will do this. Our job is to decide which of these issues has the support of the players or is important to be brought to CCP's attention.Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


I guess thats where we leave this part of the discussion then. Not much point you asking me to explain my stance on specific items when you are on record as believing that candidates shouldn't be talking about specific items in the first place.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:32:00 - [229]
 


Originally by: Arithron

Actually, it does follow. What you really mean is you want to split POS and other anchorable structures into two different groups, specifically those that give Sovereignty (0.0) and those that don’t (low sec and empire structures).


Nope, I really don't see a need to split between 0.0 and lowsec and empire for functionality of POS structures. I would like to see POS returned to a purely industrial role for economy/mining/research and such and in this form there really wouldn't need to be a 0.0 only POS. As to how Sovereignty gets determined and what it should actually do in the future - thats another discussion and quite complicated in its own right. For the sake of argument here we'll go with CCP's "gate-control" sov prototype so we don't get sidetracked.

Quote:
As far as I can make out (since I have read your threads, as I have with all other candidates and players in the CSM forums), you are wanting to see changes in the way Sovereignty works?


Yes.

Quote:
Can I ask you how big of a percentage of players you think this will affect?


A significant proportion of players involved with territorial warfare in 0.0 + and generally for the better, in that sovereignty disputes should be more entertaining, and involve far more actual player on player space combat rather than player vs structure grinding of POS shields.

Quote:
Additionally, what benefit to new players and younger players (ie, less than a year old) will these changes bring about?


Ability to take part substantively in territorial warfare within fleets. With sovereignty fights coming down to actual spaceships vs spaceships rather than the current design in POS warfare the role for newer players will be much more prominent.

Quote:
How will it affect Empire (apart from possibly disrupting the rarer moon mineral supplies, which will go down a treat with manufacturers)?


I would envisage no real effect on Empire since this is about sovereignty mechanics. As for the disruption of moon mineral supplies - well, at the moment giant cartels control rare moon minerals Arithron - they will either continue to to control rare moons and profit from it (while adapting to the demands of a more dynamic sovereignty conquest system) or they will fail and others will gain access to those resources in turn. This is eve, things change.


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:59:00 - [230]
 


Originally by: Arithron
If you are pushing for POS to lose the determination of sovereignty role, then its actually a pretty relevant discussion to be having. Your ‘fix’ present a bigger problem…how to determine Sovereignty that reflects the expenditure of resources/time/effort/ISK to obtain it, and gives some stability to systems. Because, even if what you assert about cartels being in control of rare moon minerals is true, unstable POS existence to mine such minerals will have a major affect on their availability, and hence their price.


Yes it certainly is and lets discuss it if you like. Thats what this thread is for. You appear to favor a pure economic expenditure model and I'm in favor of a pvp contest model. I think 0.0 empires should have to fight for their space - of course that fighting involves spending money so we're not that far apart on the principle just the execution. I think you are also missing the point on "unstable POS existence" -> since I'm actually quite happy with pure economic POS structures (non sovereignty) keeping their reinforced mode.

Quote:
Okay, you avoid giving numbers….what percentage of PLAYERS do you think are involved in this significant proportion of 0.0?


Depends on the region really, but if sovereignty assessment happened on a more overt pvp fleet battle system I'd say increased participation would occur, I'd expect double the number of current characters involved with territorial warfare at least.

Quote:
Do you think that the current setup of the server, and the tendency of alliances to employ large numbers of capitals, will actually make sovereignty disputes more entertaining?


Yes I do. More battles, more losses, more excitement - more alliances going bankrupt and paying a price for warfare as it should be.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:04:00 - [231]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 13/05/2008 20:05:46
You missed this question ;)

Quote:
I must have missed your reply to my question about how Empire dwellers (a big percentage of players) will benefit from your Sov changes?



Quote:
Okay, you avoid giving numbers….what percentage of PLAYERS do you think are involved in this significant proportion of 0.0?


And you again avoided numbers...is it because the actual percentage of players involved are in the single percentages of players of Eve?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:21:00 - [232]
 

Originally by: Arithron

And you again avoided numbers...is it because the actual percentage of players involved are in the single percentages of players of Eve? Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


Its quite possible. But as you say yourself what happens in 0.0 has impacts on the secondary markets and game-play of many more in Empire. I honestly don't see the rigid caste divisions between 0.0 and Empire as some do. If your going to ask me how many players are involved with sovereignty warfare - well, I don't have access to CCP server logs to cross check numbers of shots fired against POS but I'd be happy to estimate 10,000 or so? roughly, and these being quite active players often with multiple accounts. Compared against the 220,000 subscriber base thats probably 5% if that - but are you trying to say that issues involving 0.0 warfare should never reach the CSM because of the pure number of non-involved people?

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:35:00 - [233]
 

We are having a discussion about the ramifications of a change that _may_ benefit a small percentage of players, but will have an impact much wider than just the one you focus on. Its just a difference of perspectives.

Quote:(Arithron)
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do you think that the current setup of the server, and the tendency of alliances to employ large numbers of capitals, will actually make sovereignty disputes more entertaining?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Reply: Jade

Quote:
Yes I do. More battles, more losses, more excitement - more alliances going bankrupt and paying a price for warfare as it should be.


My question above was highlighting some issues that your proposed changes might have: Namely, server lag and system lag, making large battles difficult and frustrating. Additionally, it won't stop major capital + support ship engagements and thus we are back to the system lag again.

The economic losses are important, especially if you are a small alliance trying to get a foothold in 0.0. Such alliances can only take the losses for so long...so the larger alliances may still dominate the Sov (so we end up back where we started...).

Discussions such as ours will have to take place on the CSM forums with players, and in the CSM meetings etc. Lets hope they can be civil discussions, such as ours...

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)




Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:41:00 - [234]
 

Quote:
Compared against the 220,000 subscriber base thats probably 5% if that - but are you trying to say that issues involving 0.0 warfare should never reach the CSM because of the pure number of non-involved people?


Not at all. Indeed, some issues will need a representative to support them in order for them to be discussed at a CSM meeting, since the issue may affect less than 5% players!

However, I'm sure we realise that the wider picture has to be considered when deciding such issues, and that many CSM representatives may disagree with a particular issue due to these wider concerns.

That being said, I think that a good mixture of issues will make it to a CCP meeting.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.14 01:00:00 - [235]
 

Originally by: Ukutora Ozugas
If you have the time, I would like for you to discuss what you can, about how you see ambulation effecting the player base. From recent videos on Ten Ton Hammer, and other interviews, we've seen a great deal about it. CCP is already taking great steps into the personalizing of the character that it is hard to think of anything that they might leave out. One obvious thing is that people are going to want to try to make the clothing themselves. According to CCP, this might break immersion with people running around dressed like santa. My own concerns are that the costumes will become stagnant and boring over time. I hope that they are constantly going to be adding new designs, not only new textures and fabrics.


Well the science fiction genre has a rich vein of possibility for different ethnic looks and styles, I'm guessing some lucky graphic artist (or three) is going to get tasked with the job of ensuring that rare and exotic clothing forms that suit the Eve background are out there to be purchased for isk. I can certainly see the concern over self-design clothes though - a lot of amateur efforts in other games look quite tawdry and immersion-breaking and I can sympathize with CCP wanting to keep the graphic style "in-house" to maintain creative standards.

Quote:
Something that might also be cool, is wear and tear over time. I'm sure they've got the capability to do it. I also often forget... does PG-13 contain nudity?


I believe PG-13 allows for topless women but no other naughty bits for either sex. Wear and tear for clothing could be good - but might just be something you need to customize yourself as a graphic style to differentiate costumes even more. I'd certainly like a battered leather flight jacket for Jade with the Star Fraction logo on it!

Quote:
Should you become elected for CSM, I can almost promise you that every player will have their own ideas and suggestions to improve that section of game play, and they will be asking you to relate those ideas.


I've no doubt about that, ultimately its part of the role and responsibility and its down to the voters now to select the nine candidates they think can best achieve this within the aspirations of the CSM.

All the best, and happy voting!


Erotic Irony
0bsession
Posted - 2008.05.14 01:10:00 - [236]
 

"Black ops"

Go.

Miyamoto Isoruku
Caldari
Original Sin.
Posted - 2008.05.14 02:41:00 - [237]
 

PG-13 doesn't allow topless women, at least not in the states. Then again we're prudes here...

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.14 11:13:00 - [238]
 

Originally by: Elaron
As always, Jade, it is a pleasure to read about your philosophies and aspirations as they apply to this complex and unique game.

My question is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but I would very much like to know your opinion on the relative balance in the ships and capabilities of the four races. Do you even think this is much of an issue given the open nature of the skill system?


Thanks Elaron, very kind words and much appreciated. Re the relative balance of the four empires ship technology - well, at the moment I do think there is a good degree of balance overall, all races have been through overhauls indirectly through addressing specific weapon systems (lasers, drones, missiles etc). If another race needs to be looked at its probably the Minmatar at this point but this would be a general stock-taking and assessment of how they work in the current environment rather than crisis "omg my race is broken" style issue. Certainly the open skill system does allow players to mitigate changes and perceptions of weakness in the four races and I think thats most long term players tend to cross-train at least a couple of races to allow for engagement variety and focus (and also if they are lucky those nifty pirate faction ships).

My strongest pair of racial skills are Caldari/Amarr (ironically) and its certainly made the Nightmare an absolute beast at the moment.


Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Noir. Mercenary Group
Posted - 2008.05.14 12:04:00 - [239]
 

Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 14/05/2008 12:06:46
While some might be intimidated by your text and lengthy interviews, I received them as incredibly detailed and well thought out. You got my vote :)

Three things though.

1. Destructable outposts: Yes. Should still be capturable but they cant be the invulnerable fortresses they are now. One issue with this, and I'm surprised no one's brought it up (that I've noticed, sorry if i missed you) is that outpost destruction will become the new and most epic EVE griefing tool. Goonswarm will have a field day, if not many more groups. How do you address this risk?

2. Advocate for 100% player content POS. You want alliances to not be able to claim gazzilions of systems, to rebalance in favor of attackers, and bring more sentiment behind removing POS as the basis for sov this is an important stepping stone. Look at what removing NPC involvement in the shuttle market is doing. Instead of an alliance being able to buy an endless amount of POS at a fixed price, let the players limit the supply and dictate the price if they dont have the industrial capacity to build in house. And if they DO, then that's more minerals shifted away from cap ship production or at least presenting alliances with a more challenging opportunity cost than is now the case. We'll see a massive decrease in POS spamming and a shrinkage of 0.0 claims. This should be paired up with all POS fuel being player createable/harvestable. No more NPC buy/sell orders for junk. Buildable with bpo or harvestable through something (exploration?).

3. Dont ever stop advocating for rebalancing 0.0 space. As long as most 0.0 is barely better than lowsec (if that) and some 0.0 space is a gravy train EVE conflict will still be funnled and predictable. Removing local in systems is key, but so is increasing the incentive for players to spread into more systems. This will also greatly benifit small/med alliances seeking the 0.0 land.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.14 16:58:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Deathbear
I loved your poster, so I already voted for you, but I'm still curious: Realistically, how do you intend to bring about the (mostly very welcome to me) ideas for changes you're promoting? I've read some concerns about how the scope of the CSM isn't quite clear to many people, and I fear I'm one of those people.


Thanks for your vote Deathbear much appreciated. Ultimately what can be achieved by the CSM will depend on the nine candidates chosen by the electorate though - if we get 8 conservative stick in the muds with a status quo agenda there is going to be limited amount I can do with that if I'm elected as the 9th rep. The CSM needs to vote issues onto the formal agenda for discussion in Iceland and thats why is very important that people read the manifestos and get a "tell" on the kind of candidate they are supporting with their votes in advance. Whats more likely to happen though is we'll probably get 5-6 candidates with a genuinely open mind who can be persuaded to advocate progressive changes and then all sorts of things are possible. As for my campaign, the reason I've been very open about what I support and where I'd like the game to go is so that voters can have a high degree of confidence in where my voting power is going to go should I be elected. As an entity the CSM could be good, bad or indifferent and will dependent entirely who gets elected to it - everything is still up in the air and its going to be very interesting to see what happens in a weeks time.

Quote:
The ideas you represent notwithstanding, what do you think the CSM can achieve, and how?
Thanks in advance for your answer.


I think the CSM can achieve a positive reconnection of CCP development talent to the player-base itself. It can express serious concerns and desire for development effort and ensure that the general standard of communication between players and devs reaches a much higher standard then in recent years. If all goes well and we get a well-rounded CSM of passionate and progressive representatives willing to take the hard decisions for the benefit of future gameplay dynamism and excitement then the sky is literally the limit.



Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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