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


 
Author Topic

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:07:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Arum Erzoh on 06/05/2008 15:00:55
Edited by: Arum Erzoh on 02/05/2008 14:25:36
Previous Forum Post announcing candidacy (prior to this forum existing).

Campaign Website

I am a candidate for the Council of Stellar Management.

As I've started a thread earlier (as it turns out, prior to this forum having been started) I thought it best not to rehash all the items I've posted in my other thread.

My website will give you a bit more information as to where I stand and a couple of the issues I'm interested in pursuing. As a matter of principal, and with an interest in transparency, I thought it best to give a brief summary as to where I stand on a few "Hot Button" issues.

Local Channel and Bacon: I feel there is a need for information regarding who and what are around you at a given time, however it should be something active on the players behalf and without automation. I would be for Local channel only displaying those members who have held conversation within the channel. I believe there is room for an additional skill in EVE for players to put time into to allow them to scan for who is currently in system. Perhaps each level of the skill will allow for a further and further reach within the system to see who is present. Perhaps there may even be an advanced skill to be notified of a player with a given set of criteria. This way players have to dedicate a portion of their character building time to have the capability to know more about who is in system.

Ownership of Wrecks: I believe the player who creates the wreck should hold ownership of the wreck for the first half of the wreck's "lifespan." At that point the wreck becomes a "free" wreck that anyone can salvage. An owned wreck would appear in yellow and a "free" wreck would appear as gray. Multiple pilots creating a wreck would result in a "free" wreck and any and all wrecks created in non-Empire space would be "free" wrecks (As the laws of CONCORD wouldn't be able to be upheld).

Cloaking in Empire Space: Although I certainly have had my troubles with cloaked pilots in Empire space I would want to see the ability for pilots to cloak in Empire space maintained.

Some of these topics and more and found in either my earlier Forum Posts, or on my Website.

Please feel free to take a look and let me know your thoughts.

Thank you for your time.

Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.02 14:28:00 - [2]
 

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…

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.02 15:07:00 - [3]
 

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?


I have not tried invention. As I have members within my corp who are quite good at these types of things I've let them cover this angle. Not that it's immediately relevant, but I thought it might be worth re-instituting such an idea coupled with invention. Perhaps invention time/lab time could be put towards a lottery in which a given pilot or corporation would have the opportunity to submit a new named tech I or tech II piece of equipment (I realize there's no named tech II, but I believe such an idea would generate significant interest).

Originally by: Hamfast
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?


Fantastic questions. I'm initially inclined to say yes to all the above, but let me see if I can't break it down a bit. Security and it's correlation to CONCORD is an interesting one when coupled with your questions. It would seem that CONCORD would have a vested interest in protecting those with a higher security rating better/faster then one with a low security rating. Likewise, while in Empire space a pilot with an abysmally low security rating "poping" a pilot with a very high security rating should see a larger security rating drop than should they have been close to one another in their security ratings. The system and it's security rating is an interesting idea, but I'd generalize the question towards CONCORD response times and not with security rating changes.

Originally by: Hamfast
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…



I regularly build ammo, and then a few other odds and ends. I played a miner for over a year, and loved it. My first instinct on improving industry in EVE points me towards the few pieces of salvage that aren't currently used to create anything. It seems a reasonable fix and one that may very well increase the value of these pieces of salvage goods. New ships? I love the idea of a massive hauler/miner that has no turret spots but has a massive drone bay. One of the things I ran into many times while mining was never having enough cargo space (even with a decked out Hulk). However, I realize that you'd have to counter balance that with something, so the lack of strip miners might just be the solution. Serious drone mining and a massive cargo space sounds pretty cool to me.

Thank you very much for the questions, and the opportunity to answer them.

Xyzibit
Caldari
New-Roots
Posted - 2008.05.02 17:40:00 - [4]
 

Quote:
Local Channel and Bacon: I feel there is a need for information regarding who and what are around you at a given time, however it should be something active on the players behalf and without automation. I would be for Local channel only displaying those members who have held conversation within the channel.


i also had this idea as a solution for the "local channel problem" and i like itExclamation
makes me happy to see this idea coming up here *thumbs up*

Timotheus Siberius
Gallente
Federation Navy Shipyards
Posted - 2008.05.05 05:51:00 - [5]
 

I take it you are a man who could represent the casual player's interests.

I have two questions:
What do you think about high-sec ganking?

Why are you Amarr? :-)

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.05 17:02:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Timotheus Siberius
I take it you are a man who could represent the casual player's interests.

I have two questions:
What do you think about high-sec ganking?

Why are you Amarr? :-)


Allow me to answer your second question first, as it's an easier answer. No reason other than this Alt was designed for heading up a Corp I created and I needed a starting race with good Corp. Management skills and a high Charisma - that's all. No reason of substance beyond that. I should be clear, this character is a shell. Should I be lucky enough to earn your vote know that you're voting for a person not a character.

Now on to a far more important question, High-Sec. ganking. Let me see if I can boil down my stance so as to avoid any smoke and mirrors. I'm for players getting insurance payments for the loss of ships - regardless of how they are lost. I am also in favor of an increase to those insurance rates corresponding to the number of ships lost. The more ships you've lost, the high and higher the cost to insure your ships. Once getting a bit of hard information from CCP as to the frequency of these instances and the amount of ISK involved, I would also entertain an exponential cost to the insurance rate increase.

I hope that clears up my position. Thank you for the questions.

Bishop Karn
Posted - 2008.05.06 15:06:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Arum Erzoh

I would also entertain an exponential cost to the insurance rate increase.



How would this work? Based upon a month's loss of ships, or overall for the entire game?

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.06 15:14:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Bishop Karn
How would this work? Based upon a month's loss of ships, or overall for the entire game?


Deciding how to implement the exponential increase in insurance rates would be easier to see some raw data from CCP. However, that aside, I'm inclined to imagine that the number of ship to ship losses a player has are often clumped together. As one puts together a means of "punishment" for endless insurance claims there will be those to take careful note and find means within it to exploit a loop-hole. Perhaps it's best stated that as ship losses are accumulated this number is averaged against the total time the character has been in play. From there you may be able to extrapolate consistency in ship loss and correlate that to a rate increase.

That'd be my initial thought, but I'm certain that should it go any further there would be those who would have other and perhaps better ideas on implementation.

Piitaq
Gallente
19th Star Logistics
Posted - 2008.05.07 02:54:00 - [9]
 

Hi,
I have a few specific questions for you, as you seem to care for the little guy.

Its become harder to solo mine in high security space, due to griefers who try to pick a fight, by destroying your hard work. (Can flippers) theese people can get away with this tactic time after time, with little or no risk at all. While you have major investments at risk and hours of work. (A fitted hulk with mining crystals easily goes beyond 100 million ISKs)

As stealing is a crime in the real world, so should it be in high security space. In my opinion CONCORD should react to theese things in some way. Id imagine people stealing / flipping cans would be shot by CONCORD or a more moderate approach could be huge security drops, so after stealing / flipping a few cans, they could no longer enter high security space, unless they work to raise their standing towards concord.

What do you think about can flippers?

Would you stand by a suggestion along the lines Ive written above?

Do you have another approach to the problem or do you simply not see a problem here?

Caileb Memorax
Posted - 2008.05.07 03:27:00 - [10]
 

I'd like some clarification on a statement that you made. I hope I'm getting it right but you stated that you think that a player should get an insurance payment no matter how they were destroyed? Does that include suicides? This is an important issue as it has become more prevalent with members of some of the larger alliances.

If my understanding IS correct on your stance here, could you explain why? Isn't insurance supposed to be for when something unforeseen happens, not when you commit an act KNOWING you will be killed? Concord doesn't lose.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.07 04:20:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Piitaq
What do you think about can flippers?

Would you stand by a suggestion along the lines Ive written above?

Do you have another approach to the problem or do you simply not see a problem here?


Let me see if I understand your question correctly. Would I be in support of CONCORD action against a player who steals another players goods from a can in High Sec. space? (Let me know if I'm misunderstanding because your Hulk comment's making me wonder if the 100 mil isk you're talking about is the Hulk or the ore you're mining)

As it currently stands stealing from another player is an act of aggression, thus allowing the victim of the theft action against the thief pilot. Therefore, there currently is justifiable recourse for the pilot whose goods have been stolen. On top of that the miner can use secure containers so that their goods can't be so easily taken. If you're talking about jet-can mining where you're just filling a jet-can to be picked up later after switching ships, then I'm sorry to say that I support the current "rules" with regard to the high risk/high reward mining style of jet-can mining.

Though I'm not a pirate/thief/bad-guy myself I do support a means for these types of players to make a living. By having a means to switch ships in a nearby station to go "hunt down the thief" or by using secure cans, you have means of resolution within the given rules.

That would be my stance, and I apologize as I'm guessing it's not the answer you were looking for.



Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.07 04:35:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Caileb Memorax
I'd like some clarification on a statement that you made. I hope I'm getting it right but you stated that you think that a player should get an insurance payment no matter how they were destroyed? Does that include suicides? This is an important issue as it has become more prevalent with members of some of the larger alliances.

If my understanding IS correct on your stance here, could you explain why? Isn't insurance supposed to be for when something unforeseen happens, not when you commit an act KNOWING you will be killed? Concord doesn't lose.


I agree with your sentiment, and understand your concern. It is true that I support getting insurance payments for lost ships regardless how the ships were lost. However, and allow me to be clear, I believe there should be an increase to a pilots insurance rates (the cost to insure future ships) contingent upon the number of ships lost. The more ships you've lost, the more costly it is to insure your ships (eventually costing you more to insure your ship than you'd get in payment from an insurance claim/reward).

An an example of a proposed solution, we could take the number of ships lost vs. the number of days (weeks, months, etc.) the pilot/account has been active we can get a sense of that pilots suicide rate. However, we'd have to balance this with the "new player" factor where we've all lost plenty of ships initially. It also may be worth looking at how many ships have been lost in a day (or week). Often suicide pilots toss ship after ship at their opponents and this may be another flag to impact their insurance costs.

In any case, I'm for the insurance being there, but for implementing a means for associated costs should a player abuse the insurance payments by suiciding his ships.

I hope that answers your question.

ZenRath
Psychopathia
IDLE EMPIRE
Posted - 2008.05.07 10:53:00 - [13]
 

What organisations do you belong to in rl?

Piitaq
Gallente
19th Star Logistics
Posted - 2008.05.07 12:20:00 - [14]
 

Thank you for the answer, and yes I have a different opinion to the subject matter, but I do like people to stand their ground, and not just sweet talk everyone just to get one more vote. I respect that.

The reason I think there is a problem, is that secure cans are so small you fill them VERY fast, and you have to place them a certain distance from eachoter. So its more or lees easier to just fill the cargo bay and dock up, undock and resume mining. But that kind of mining is ******ed, atleast I think it is. Jet can mining offers a reasonable amount of ORE to be accumulated before hauling.
I dont understand why so many people see the glamour in theft / pirating / griefing it is in my opinion WAY to easy to "bully" the "weak kid" but I guess its survival of the fittest in EVE. So the new noob, the lone industrialist, just have to have two accounts in order to high sec mine or team up with friends / corp / alliance.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.07 14:33:00 - [15]
 

Originally by: ZenRath
What organizations do you belong to in rl?


I've been a member of the Denver Gamers Association, the Program Advisory Committee of Westwood College (part of their student services for Game Software Development), the Rocky Mountain Minority Supplier Development Council (through my work), and USA hockey.

There have been many others off and on throughout the years but these have garnered the majority of my attention.

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.07 21:37:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Piitaq
Thank you for the answer, and yes I have a different opinion to the subject matter, but I do like people to stand their ground, and not just sweet talk everyone just to get one more vote. I respect that.


Thank you for the kind words.

Originally by: Piitaq
The reason I think there is a problem, is that secure cans are so small you fill them VERY fast, and you have to place them a certain distance from each other. So its more or lees easier to just fill the cargo bay and dock up, undock and resume mining. But that kind of mining is ******ed, at least I think it is. Jet can mining offers a reasonable amount of ORE to be accumulated before hauling.


I agree. I've been there. Especially with the rarer ore's, those cargo holds fill really fast. I have mentioned elsewhere the idea of a larger mining/hauler vessel. I like the idea of a larger cargo hold and no high slots (or, at least, no turret spots), and then giving the ship a large drone bay. It's just a thought, but one I somehow fancy.

Originally by: Piitaq
I don't understand why so many people see the glamour in theft / pirating / griefing it is in my opinion WAY to easy to "bully" the "weak kid" but I guess its survival of the fittest in EVE. So the new noob, the lone industrialist, just have to have two accounts in order to high sec mine or team up with friends / corp / alliance.


There are all types of players in the game, and whether or not you subscribe to one style of play or another is your own prerogative. I play more of the "good" guy - sticking to my own business most of the time. However, with a sacrifice to time, there are several ways to be safe while mining.

Wildash
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:31:00 - [17]
 

So, having read in one of your other posts about your concern that the CSM will only be representing the opinions of the EVE players who both read and post within the forums, do you think that small niche of players will really represent EVE's community?

Basically, we all know that the forums of any MMO are primarily soap-box posts from the vocal minority - those with a specific axe to grind. Is there any concern that this "squeaky wheel" contingent will wind up steering the CSM?

Arum Erzoh
Amarr
Kreios Imperium
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:07:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Wildash
So, having read in one of your other posts about your concern that the CSM will only be representing the opinions of the EVE players who both read and post within the forums, do you think that small niche of players will really represent EVE's community?

Basically, we all know that the forums of any MMO are primarily soap-box posts from the vocal minority - those with a specific axe to grind. Is there any concern that this "squeaky wheel" contingent will wind up steering the CSM?


Indeed I have voiced this concern as it was something that just struck me the other day. I should be clear that I have no idea what the actual percentages of players who read the forums, and of that percentage, what portion actually post. I too am inclined to think that forums are filled with fan-boys, players with an axe to grind, and devout players of the game. It would be my hope that the players participating in the CSM, and the petition process would be made up of those devout players.

Taking a step back, I'd have to say that the best I can offer is to carefully scrutinize those changes the players want. To mindlessly say that some random percentage of the players want "X", therefore we'll push CCP into making that change seems irrational. Now I know what you're thinking, "but it's the CSM's job to put forth whatever issues 5+% of the player-base deem are important", but often what goes into resolving the issue is usually more important than the issue itself.

As an example, someone once posted that they'd like to see a selection of Rigs that would allow for an additional High/Medium/Low slot to be available for a ship. My immediate instinct is to say "no," and the rationale behind that is that the ship slot layouts are a key component to ship balance. Allowing another midslot to your Navy Raven may be an incredible game imbalance. However, if your interest is for an industrial ship with more offensive capabilities, then perhaps you're really looking for another ship-class to be added to the game.

I, for one, do not see the CSM as a means to "finally get the changes I want" implemented into EVE. I do, however, see my role in the CSM as an opportunity to make certain someone takes a close look at the changes players want to make. The "let's keep everyone's head screwed on" slogan stems from having run countless meeting where emotions are high, people are passionate about changes they want to see implemented, and ultimately everyone's pride is one the line.

What we, the CSM, do from here may impact the game for the remainder of its life, let us do everything we can to ensure those changes make EVE a better game.


 

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