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


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.04.30 08:12:00 - [1]
 

Ok people, let me introduce myself to you.
I am a 33 year old Engineer, living in Munich, Germany. I enjoy crunching numbers in games just as much as IRL, which is quite helpful in the kind of games I favor (Strategy/Management).

I started playing EVE in August 2005, and my main occupation ever since then had been running missions. In highsec, lowsec and recently also 0.0. Since my other primary passion (besides killing evil people) involves the pimping of ships, my main focus regarding missions has always been on empire though. I also delve into trading occasionally as that is where the really big bucks are made, but I tend to find it too boring to occupy me for extended periods of time. Mining? Well I did it for maybe a week once. In my first month of play. Never again since then, just not my cup of tea.
As far as killing people goes, I am a good guy I guess, as in I take great pleasure in dead pirates, but could never get myself to shoot neutrals in lowsec. Out in 0.0 though, I am a firm believer in NBSI, even while I consider that same doctrine in lowsec to be simple piracy and thus fight it there if I can.
And even though I have been in player corporations for pretty much my entire EVE-life, I believe the ability to also achieve things solo is of utmost importance to the success of EVE as a game.

About my agenda:

Seeing how I am such a mission ***** at heart, my primary agenda would be to counter the 'move all L4s to lowesec' people that we will undoubtedly get on the council. As far as balance is concerned with missions, I would fight for the status quo, as I see it working out quite okay the way it is atm. No need to make it any worse by moving them to lowsec or nuking bounties, but neither any need to boost them by increasing bounties or improving loot quality. (Loot composition on the other hand definitely needs to be fixed, frigate ABs from BS wrecks always irk me). Lowsec itself (and also the low end 0.0) do need a boost imho, but this must not come at the expense of highsec dwellers.
As far as piracy goes, I realize that we NEED pirates to keep the game exciting, but we also need some limits for them to keep them from spoiling the game too much for the more peaceful folks. So while I sometimes endorse boosts even for what is my chosen enemy, they must not always have their way. Moderation is the clue.
Only if you are a suicide ganker, logontrapper, gang invite sploiter or any other such lowlife you definitely do not want me on the council, as I am vehemently opposed to such cheesy tactics that will yield maximum rewards for minimal risks at the expense of unsuspecting players.

Moving on towards ships and modules, which I consider my primary area of expertise, you will get total balance out of me. I never specialized in any races' ships, which means I can (and do) fly almost every subcapital ship and use all modules to good effect. Meaning I have no personal agenda to further 'my' race over the others simply because there is no 'my' race. Instead, I strive to achieve my idea of balance. Which basically is described by 'different but equally capable'.

As far as PvP mechanics go, I am a small gang fellow with very little care for long range fleet fights or POS sieges. I am quite opposed to the current nano trend, at least for cruisers and above. In my book, the line between big and small ships is drawn below cruisers. So frigs and dessies should be able to nano themselves to their hearts content and the speedtank should be a viable defense for them. For cruisers and above though (and that includes the Vagabond), I don't mind them going fast if they are made for that, but them using that speed as actual tank should not work anymore.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.04.30 08:13:00 - [2]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 30/04/2008 09:14:23
Also like I already said, the solo play aspects of EVE need to be defended. There are lots of people out there saying that we could play X3 or something if we want to solo. I think this is dead wrong. Even if in both games everything is just bits and bytes in some computer, the bits and bytes on the EVE server are so much more real. And you do not have to fight with or against other players to interact. Almost every item you buy or sell is interacting with one or even more than one player, something that cannot be said for some offline single player game. And for most people, whatever they achieve when soloing will eventually be used for PvP, even if it is 'only' market PvP, which actually is more cutthroat than pew pew more often than not.

Politically I am fairly neutral. I don't really give a rat's ass about any of the big alliance power games. The only entities that I do dislike are those that frequently employ the cheesy tactics that I mentioned above, and I can't think of any that I particularly like over any others (except my own Alliance and its blues I guess ;)).


So if you find your own concerns mirrored in one or more of my points, feel free to cast your vote for me. And spread the word, we do not want a council filled with alliance puppets, do we?



Now, some specific issues I see with EVE and the solutions I favor:

1. Suicide ganking.

While I agree that highsec should not be safe but safer, the level of 'safer' needs to be adjusted upwards a notch or three. If you cannot run a mission in the nextdoor system without a scout anymore because people will suicide-gank you with 5 T1 Battleships for your meager 500 mil in gear, something is wrong. Suicide ganking should really only be profitable on paper-thin ships carrying loads of valuables, or really pimped combat ships (like the ones I fly Embarassed).

The solution to this is obviously to do away with insurance for ships killed by concord. And that means not even the basic payout but complete voiding. Nada, nothing. Recently someone posted a good optimization for this: You only lose insurance IF the target dies. If your target lives, you get insurance. This provides a nice safety net for both suiciders and those prone to accidents with gang members. Thus it does not even raise the risk level for the suiciders (still very close to 0 if you do your homework), but it steeply raises the value of bigger ships loot to be worth suiciding. Which seems like the perfect solution to me. Not that I would mind complete insurance revoking for any concord kills, but I wouldn't want to drown in 'griefer' tears.


2. The lofty scam and gang mechanics in general

These two are intertwined, so I address them in one topic. Basically the current lofty scam exploits peoples' wrong belief that noone may fire on them in highsec. Iirc, in the past it used to be so that if you were in same gang it was like if you were in same corp, i.e. free pew-pew and concord doesn't care. This was abused I guess, and changed so that it wouldn't work anymore.
Now that people found ways around that, I think it would be time to allow free pew pew among gang members again. No more false sense of security, no more accidents in highsec gangs, no more need for a complicated set of aggro rules applying to gangs. And the best protection against gang scams would still be to auto-reject invitations just like it is now. Actually it would be nice to be able to only autoreject gangs, but not chats.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.04.30 08:14:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 30/04/2008 09:14:16
3. The Nano.

The population of EVE seem somewhat split on whether there is a nano-problem or not, even if judging by the forums and my own ingame experience the supporters are more vocal but the anti-nanos are way more numerous. Personally, I do see a problem.

And the problem I see is not the speed in general, but that speeds making ships close to invulnerable are attainable by ships that are already plenty powerful even without it. Basically the entire T2 cruiser class.
So the solution I would favor would have something to do with nerfing 10mn MWDs. Anything that also nerfs frig sized ships would be wrong imho.
Also, the whole thing might have something to do with webs making anything caught by them vulnerable to even capital guns, while unwebed top speeds make stuff invulnerable even to weapons specifically designed to hit fast ships. So the (un)balance between highest and lowest speeds might need some looking at as well. Personally, I would find it interesting to see what would happen if webs were completely removed and speeds were seriously cut across the board. Would probably require way too much module rebalancing to be feasible, but still...

4. Skill queue

This is something that has cropped up time and again in the past. And while I personally would not really want to see a real skill queue, I WOULD like to see something like a 'backup skill'. Like, you set some very long skill as your backup skill, and whenever your currently training skill finishes, it switches to that backup skill. This would prevent SP loss at unconvenient skill end times, but would not really allow queueing.

5. More love for the side factions!

This really needs to happen someday soon, who knows, maybe it is planned for factional warfare. What I would mainly love to see are of course faction ships for Khanid, Thukker, Mordus etc.. But also (more) modules from them, and especially modules with different stats! Like for example a Khanid BCU currently has the same as a CN or DG BCU. Would be so much more interesting if it had for example a higher damage mod but a lower rof mod, so you end up with the same (or maybe even less for balances sake) dps, but a better volley.

6. Market mechanics

I find the way the market works fairly stupid. Always buying from the lowest order regardless of what you clicked and how much you pay is so counterintuitive it makes me hurt. And seeing how many other avenues are open for cash transfers these days, the argument that it could otherwise be abused by isk sellers is pretty moot.
Imho you should see who market orders belong to, or actually allow players to create trademarks under which they can do their trades. And then of course you should by off the order you picked, not the cheapest one. Like for example, I would gladly pay 10% more if I knew the ISK goes to an alliancemate rather than a hostile.
And of course this would do away with a large portion of the need for $1 undercutting.

7. Fix the forums!

And please for the love of god get these forums sorted. I had to log in a few dozen times to get all this posted...

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.04.30 08:15:00 - [4]
 

reserved

Spoon Thumb
Khanid Provincial Vanguard
Vanguard Imperium
Posted - 2008.04.30 14:21:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Spoon Thumb on 30/04/2008 14:23:00

Unfortunately I've already pledged my vote to another candidate, but I highly recommend considering this candidate for those still deciding who to vote for

Talkuth Rel
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2008.04.30 16:22:00 - [6]
 

You have my attention.

I can't say I'm completely on board with all your ideas, particularly your proposed solution to the lofty scam, but in general I like the way you think. I'll be looking for more from you in the coming weeks.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.04.30 18:10:00 - [7]
 

So far you are my best candidate, as I agree with most of your points and where I disagree your position don't seem unreasonable.

There is only a point I think you should reconsider

Originally by: Leandro Salazar


2. The lofty scam and gang mechanics in general

These two are intertwined, so I address them in one topic. Basically the current lofty scam exploits peoples' wrong belief that noone may fire on them in highsec. Iirc, in the past it used to be so that if you were in same gang it was like if you were in same corp, i.e. free pew-pew and concord doesn't care. This was abused I guess, and changed so that it wouldn't work anymore.
Now that people found ways around that, I think it would be time to allow free pew pew among gang members again. No more false sense of security, no more accidents in highsec gangs, no more need for a complicated set of aggro rules applying to gangs. And the best protection against gang scams would still be to auto-reject invitations just like it is now. Actually it would be nice to be able to only autoreject gangs, but not chats.


I like the possibility to help some new player but at the same time I want some control on the situation to avoid to be the one scammed. It is true that if I am protected, with the current system, the other party is the one at risk, but if someone ask for help he should accept and consider the risk.

A possible solution could be a different kind of gang, one were any new member of the gang should be approved by all the member. A similar system would be useless for a PvP gang, but useful for a PvE gang, that usually is composed by a smaller number of people .

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.04.30 19:47:00 - [8]
 

Actually for helping new players, I would prefer simply putting in a way to post clickable links to your position in chats (when you are not in any gang yourself anyway) so people can warp to you without being in your gang at all.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:38:00 - [9]
 

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…

Claire Voyant
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:08:00 - [10]
 

What would you think of the following proposal to address the problem of 0.01 isk undersellers and overbidders?

All real-life auction markets have minimum price increments. In eve you could implement this with a three significant digit limitation to all market orders. If the current low seller is 1000.00, you could sell for 999.00 or 998.00 but no fractional isk. If the current price is 100 million, you could sell for 99.9 or 99.8 million. If you don't want to sell at the next lowest increment, you would have to get in line behind all the sellers at the current price.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:40:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Hamfast

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


Yes, I have done a little invention, not a lot of it though as I am more into combat than industry.

What irks me most about it is the chance factor in the success rate. This can be a major pain if you only do very little of it, only evens out when you to it a lot. Which might discourage part time inventors.
I would rather see the chance factor moved towards the material and time requirements of the resulting BPs. Something that might be interesting would be to add some of the currently more or less worthless rig parts into the materials required by invented blueprints (maybe even replacing some of the T2 components, thus possibly giving those parts some value and spicing up invention a little.

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?
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?


a. Seeing how some of the most evil sleazebags in EVE have high sec ratings due to the relative ease of coming back from -10, I do not think that should affect concord reaction times. If anything, it might be interesting to have factional forces spawn to help people that are attacked in lowsec, and the reaction time and force strength would be dependent on the victims faction standing. And obviously these forces would be much weaker than concord and destructible (no loot though).

b. and c.: No to both, imho the crime remains the same regardless of who it is committed upon and where.

Quote:

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…



a. The only things I semi-regularly build are rigs, battleships and ammo/cap boosters. And that mainly to somehow use the low end mins that there are no good buy orders for and that I can't be arsed to haul.

b. I do not even mine irregularly. Shooting things that don't shoot back is just too boring for me ;)

c. The only thing that has often come to my mind that might spice up the industry a lot would be the ability to actually build named modules. Of course the mineral values would have to be scaled so that they are still worthwhile as rat loot, but this might create a whole new industry. Otherwise I am not delving into idustry enough to have killer ideas on how to improve it.

d. The first things that come to mind are the small freighter and a refinery ship. The immense gap between normal industrials and freighters definitly needs filling (and Jump freighters are not the fill in that is needed). And afaik industrials were at some point intended to fit some sort of factory module anyway (hence the huge CPU), so why not give us a whole new factory ship class.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.02 16:49:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Claire Voyant
What would you think of the following proposal to address the problem of 0.01 isk undersellers and overbidders?

All real-life auction markets have minimum price increments. In eve you could implement this with a three significant digit limitation to all market orders. If the current low seller is 1000.00, you could sell for 999.00 or 998.00 but no fractional isk. If the current price is 100 million, you could sell for 99.9 or 99.8 million. If you don't want to sell at the next lowest increment, you would have to get in line behind all the sellers at the current price.


I believe that first and foremost we need the ability to decide ourselves whether we buy/sell at Walmart or our local supermarket regardless of price, rather than having the game decided it for us based only on price.
Beyond that, I think a minimum increment would be a good idea to implement though.

Venkul Mul
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 19:21:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Claire Voyant
What would you think of the following proposal to address the problem of 0.01 isk undersellers and overbidders?

All real-life auction markets have minimum price increments. In eve you could implement this with a three significant digit limitation to all market orders. If the current low seller is 1000.00, you could sell for 999.00 or 998.00 but no fractional isk. If the current price is 100 million, you could sell for 99.9 or 99.8 million. If you don't want to sell at the next lowest increment, you would have to get in line behind all the sellers at the current price.


I believe that first and foremost we need the ability to decide ourselves whether we buy/sell at Walmart or our local supermarket regardless of price, rather than having the game decided it for us based only on price.
Beyond that, I think a minimum increment would be a good idea to implement though.


A minimum increment mean faster swing in prices (generally toward lower prices), maybe a positive thing for the buyer, but it will mean leaving the market in the hands of the people that think that "the minerals I mine are free".

Beside that the example done by Claire seem to put even a floor to the lower price as apparently her idea is that you can undersell another vendor by only 1 step.

To me it sound really as a bad idea.

Hykke
Free Imperial Vikings
Posted - 2008.05.03 20:59:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Venkul Mul
Originally by: Leandro Salazar
Originally by: Claire Voyant
What would you think of the following proposal [...]
All real-life auction markets have minimum price increments. In eve you could implement this with a three significant digit limitation to all market orders. [...]


I believe that first and foremost we need the ability to decide ourselves whether we buy/sell at Walmart or our local supermarket regardless of price [...].


A minimum increment mean faster swing in prices (generally toward lower prices), maybe a positive thing for the buyer, but it will mean leaving the market in the hands of the people that think that "the minerals I mine are free".

Beside that the example done by Claire seem to put even a floor to the lower price as apparently her idea is that you can undersell another vendor by only 1 step.

To me it sound really as a bad idea.


To tell you the truth I was getting ready to vote for you right until you started talking about changing the market. Being a trader, The market is something I feel strongly about, and there are only two changes I would like to see:
1. Round off all orders to the three most significant digits (exactly like Claire said)
2. When you enter an order to buy tritanium for 300 isk (forgot the decimal point) you will not buy all your trit at 300 isk a piece, instead you will buy at the prices already available at the market. (Every day someone buys something from me at a higher price than the price I set... this is bad for the buyer, especially if the higher price is simply a mistake)

Now for the counter arguments already given.
1. "This will cause the prices to swing more rapidly"... That is exactly the point, all prices in EVE move in increments of 0.01 isk. this is too little for the more expensive things. I often see cases where the buy and sell prices are more than 10% apart from each other, and even though there is obviously a lot of competition going on, they are closing in on each other very slowly First order: 10.000 next: 9999.99 Next 9999.98 and so on. the difference between buy and sell orders is actually called "market inefficiency" because it means that the market is unable to find the "correct" price, and the market in EVE needs to become more efficient.
2. It should of course be possible to set any price you like, it's just rounded off
3. In my mind this is the correct and only possible remedy for the 0.01 isk underbid situation

Kali Burr
Posted - 2008.05.04 17:09:00 - [15]
 

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.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.04 17:24:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Leandro Salazar on 04/05/2008 17:27:00
1. I am all for more interesting PvE. Starting with more dynamic missions, and going towards what you suggest. PvE is a very important aspect of EVE, regrettably treated like an ugly stepchild by CCP most of the time. I would love to see this change, as long as that does not come at the detriment of other aspects.

2. I would not mind if Roleplayers could influence the big picture, as long as it does not impede the gameplay of people not interested in those aspects by means that go beyond current player interaction.

3. I don't believe custom items would add to the game. Usually custom stuff just creates a lot of uber things that end up being the only items used at all and totally killing variety and balance going out the window of a skysc****r penthouse. Making the best out of a huge number of balanced existing things makes for a much better game than total customization imho.

4. I don't think such a thing is needed, see point 2 about RPers affecting non-RPers.

5. Yes, I definitely agree that the events should be open to more people. The problem is probably that it would end up being a total mess to organize if there are no high limits though, so I can understand the limitations, even if I do not like them.

Kenji Kikuta
Posted - 2008.05.04 23:26:00 - [17]
 

Originally by: Leandro Salazar

...

the solo play aspects of EVE need to be defended

...


You got my vote

Vailandra Tekkinashi
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2008.05.06 15:53:00 - [18]
 

Good luck Leandro, you have my vote !

John Edmunton
Provenance.
Endless Horizon
Posted - 2008.05.08 19:02:00 - [19]
 

You have my vote

You seem to have a quite reasonable approach to the game. For the most part I like your agenda (the market is fine the way it is - the mechanics help limit scamming), but are willing to consider other points of view. You also have an understanding that EVE should include a variety of gaming styles.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.05.11 15:22:00 - [20]
 

This candidate gets the official "Akita T seal of approval".

Well, one of two candidates to get it (LaVista Vista is the other), but then again, I'd have to say, the choice was tough enough even like this.
Hey, good thing most people I know have more than just one account, no ? Wink

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.11 21:05:00 - [21]
 

Thanks for the support guys, greatly appreciated!

Yakia TovilToba
Halliburton Inc.
Posted - 2008.05.12 07:55:00 - [22]
 

I appreciate your agenda and agree especially on issues no. 1, 2 and 4.
You got my vote.

Hanell Steel
Posted - 2008.05.12 08:25:00 - [23]
 

I apreciate your veiws on pve content and how the players should be able to choose their lot in life not having a few "hardcore pvpers" say that you have to come to low sec so I can get more padding to my kb. Im glad theres someone who sees it how I do and how much of my corp does, you have my vote as well as my recomendation to my corp.

Qui Shon
Posted - 2008.05.17 19:50:00 - [24]
 

Allowing gang members to shoot at each other might not be so bad an idea after all, if you could indeed send bookmarks through chat, or at least allow non-ganged people to warp to you. Ways to help non-affiliated people on the spur of the moment must be possible, not carry an overwhelming risk, and not be too arduous. Bookmarks work, except for tractoring salvage, and a "warp to me" chat link would work even better.

Freely shootable gang members would allow 1vs1's in empire for those that wanted them, which I think would be good, much better then the can stealing method. However, it would also make traps, betrayals and ganks easier via "social engineering". Hmm.

Not sure how much CSMs will be able to actually do, but I think you've got my vote(s) in any case. Or perhaps that should be, just in case Smile

Doctor Blue
Posted - 2008.05.17 22:29:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Doctor Blue on 17/05/2008 23:26:39
Edited by: Doctor Blue on 17/05/2008 22:38:26

For what it's worth, you just got my 2 votes.

*edit
and it's too late to take them back now. Should have read a bit more before I voted. Oh well, you seem like a mature reasonable guy with a fairly well rounded playstyle, which is the main thing. As to all the gameplay stuff, from what i remember the council was conceived to make sure the game is transparantly fair, rather than decide what the game should actually become, so I guess that is not so important anyway.


*edit2
Since youv've actually got my hastily placed votes, i may as well take to minutes to express my opinions here.

1. suicide ganking - Whatever, but basically ok as it is atm.
2. Lofty scam - cheap, bordering on cheating, happy to see it go.
3. You say solo play should be ok earlier, but if you nerf nano there will be nothing left but who has the biggest blob, and pvp will be dumbed down.
4. 'backup skill' - Whatever. I'd like it, but I guess ccp want people to keep in touch with the game and there mates. Log in to change skill, but end up in a gang and have a great time etc.
5. yup
6. No No Nnoo. What you are proposing in a load of seperate monopolies opperating through one exchange. not only will this totally destroy the market, but also make rmt childsplay. As to the 1 isk undercutting, there are plenty of other traders like myself. I trade in some of the most highly contested markets in eve. I update my orders (and buy/sell direct from the markets) once or maybe twice a day, and do very well thank you. It's a bit like nanos. Just because you haven't worked out how to counter it doesn't mean that it can't be done, and therefore has to be changed. Especially when the proposed changes are just dumbing down with a side effect of worse gameplay.
7. Yup

hodgebobble
Posted - 2008.05.17 22:47:00 - [26]
 

WTS: G95 Station

Starting Bid: 18b

Hit me up in game.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.17 23:24:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: hodgebobble
WTS: G95 Station

Starting Bid: 18b

Hit me up in game.


Wrong forum, troll. You wanna go here Razz

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.18 00:06:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Doctor Blue

3. You say solo play should be ok earlier, but if you nerf nano there will be nothing left but who has the biggest blob, and pvp will be dumbed down.
4. 'backup skill' - Whatever. I'd like it, but I guess ccp want people to keep in touch with the game and there mates. Log in to change skill, but end up in a gang and have a great time etc.
5. yup
6. No No Nnoo. What you are proposing in a load of seperate monopolies opperating through one exchange. not only will this totally destroy the market, but also make rmt childsplay. As to the 1 isk undercutting, there are plenty of other traders like myself. I trade in some of the most highly contested markets in eve. I update my orders (and buy/sell direct from the markets) once or maybe twice a day, and do very well thank you. It's a bit like nanos. Just because you haven't worked out how to counter it doesn't mean that it can't be done, and therefore has to be changed. Especially when the proposed changes are just dumbing down with a side effect of worse gameplay.
7. Yup


Well, I am sorry to have 'stolen' your votes, but I can assure you that I am openminded enough to consider other opinions than my own when they are actually backed by good arguments, and I realize that in many cases compromise is the way to go anyway. And especially in case of the market thing, I have seen good arguments against my position already, so nothing is set in stone here...

And seeing how it is the councils main function to 'filter' player concerns for CCP, the agendas presented here really should only serve to give the voters a general outlook on how the candidates will react to issues in certain game areas. Not something that the candidates are actually going to push onto CCP all by themselves, since that is not going to work anyway as all motions must be started and approved by a number of players.

namelessclone01
Caldari
blackbox ops
Posted - 2008.05.18 02:32:00 - [29]
 

/voted

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.05.22 07:59:00 - [30]
 

Thank to all of you who voted for me. I am amazed that with no big corp/alliance backing, no 2003 ties and no fancy PR campaign I could round up almost 500 votes. For me, you are the silver lining on the cloud that is the awfully low overall turnout of the election.


Pages: [1] 2

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