open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Eurogamer CSM Article
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:46:00 - [31]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Oh don't get me wrong. I'm sure a big fat manifesto has its place. My only point being that by being overly long winded you can run the risk of minimizing your audience. I haven't read everything everyone's written because to be frank, I'm not sure the CSM candidates job is to write manifestos and I don't find it to be a constructive use of my time. Personal preference. If you want to write a book it's certainly not my place to insinuate that you shouldn't. I'm merely expressing that I wouldn't do it, nor if I did would I take offense to people not reading it because it's long.


Yeah, its not about taking offense really, end of the day people can read or not as their preference. The brief Q/A stuff has a significant role definitely.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:47:00 - [32]
 

Well, being more vulnerable to destruction (having less HPs, less defenses, etc) could be a valid tradeoff for being mobile.

Hidden bases that can pull up stakes and move to another system, but that provide a staging ground for a small force (be it pirate, insurgent, claim-jumping miners, etc) would be extremely cool, and I'm pleased some of you candidates are interested in the idea.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:48:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Well, being more vulnerable to destruction (having less HPs, less defenses, etc) could be a valid tradeoff for being mobile.

Hidden bases that can pull up stakes and move to another system, but that provide a staging ground for a small force (be it pirate, insurgent, claim-jumping miners, etc) would be extremely cool, and I'm pleased some of you candidates are interested in the idea.


Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS?

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:58:00 - [34]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON


Changing the face of the game yes. Breaking it no. Context. I was referring specifically to changing it in a bad way due to lack of proper foresight.


Understandable. It just didn't come across as such

Quote:

I think the idea may be that when in motion they're different than when they've been anchored. Think transformers. POS's are destroyable yet persistent. Where's the conflict?


POS's are a corp asset and not flown by a player. POS's have set times for defense which is an onus on a group of players and not a single player.

I suppose you could make them different when anchored, but why then not just not have it as a corp/alliance asset that is movable by a specific ship?

That has other problems too[like what happens when you kill a titan or kill a station]. But just looking at it at a glance i don't think the transformer model to work as well as other options.

Dionisius
Gallente
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:59:00 - [35]
 

In 13 replys we can already observe the "success" of the council of stellar puppets... Rolling Eyes

Originally by: Nallen

3 year playing vet with multiple accounts here. I don't know anything about any of the candidates other than their forum personas and I wont be voting. I can't help feeling CCP have gone to far to pandering to the forum superstars tbh, they made the game, they know the issues and they should fix them. Now a few people with personal bias will have influence on what the rest of us do? No thanks.


And another

Originally by: ps3owner

haven't played EVE actively, but some other less spectacular MMOG's

http://www.ogame.org for example.

I must agree with Nallen. Some forum trolls are more equal than others... and the once the post the most (even if it's utter ****) get to represent the masses.

not a good system.

the producer of the game should fix the known issues (whatever they are in this case) and that's it. the community will always vote with their feet.


Another

Originally by: Nallen
I think if they are to do this sucessfully, the forums should not even be included and everything should be done through the ingame.

Yes. Big Yes.

I knew Hardin from when he was one of the founder members of PIE with me and a few others. Im tempted to reactivate just to vote for him. Hes a top bloke.

I on the other hand don't know anything about him, and the alliance I'm in have been going on fleet ops with CVA for over a year and working with them from before we even were an alliance. Just goes to show that even the most 'famous' of eve players can be total unknowns for almost everyone. Same goes for Jade, fought wars against him for months, know almost nothing about him.

Here's another thing to consider, these people are big in Eve because of what they've done in the dark underbelly of Eve, 0.0. If memory serves correctly the first QER stated only 9% of the Eve player base actually exists in 0.0, the rest are in empire (secure space). So now the loudest shouters of just 9% decide content changes for the other 91%?

It doesn't work for me, very 95% of the wealth, 5% of the population. There was enough of that with T2 BPO's :)

On the other hand it's those very same people that kick off after every change and it is a rare thing indeed that the screaming gets much done. Perhaps CCP's sole intent is to allow that screaming before changes go in, asses if that very slim change of a change being acted upon exists and then implementing things with the caveat that the screaming should have already been done.

I think there is a place for player driven development in MMO games, it is after all basically a huge ongoing QA process on a regularly patched piece of software. However I think it should be limited to the hard facts, god knows Eve players can be somewhat hardcore with their stats and maths. If a balance issue can be proven then players have every right to shout and be heard. Developers should make a change. However when it comes to opinions of how things should be done I think you're going to far to take the opinion of one as the opinion of many and act on it.



Oh a personall favourite...

Originally by: DaemonB

3 year vet here also.

Had enough of corrupt politics :P


Very productive for CCP as this arcticle gives free publicity to the game.

Usefull for CCP, yes, to the players? Not really.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:00:00 - [36]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Originally by: Kelsin
Well, being more vulnerable to destruction (having less HPs, less defenses, etc) could be a valid tradeoff for being mobile.

Hidden bases that can pull up stakes and move to another system, but that provide a staging ground for a small force (be it pirate, insurgent, claim-jumping miners, etc) would be extremely cool, and I'm pleased some of you candidates are interested in the idea.


Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS?


Its not really, which is probably why the idea was scrapped in the first place. [Other than the part that stuff comes with the station and not as part of a separate anchorable module]

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:01:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS?


In my imagination, not too different from a mobile, less defended POS. Something for the small corp that can't invest in fixed territory, but wants to be able to bring some level of logistic support with them as they roam.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:10:00 - [38]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Let me take that one step farther and ask how it's different from a POS?


In my imagination, not too different from a mobile, less defended POS. Something for the small corp that can't invest in fixed territory, but wants to be able to bring some level of logistic support with them as they roam.


Ok, so how's that different from a small POS? You can bring it with you, anchor it to base from, then take it away after. Use motherships or carriers to carry ships... etc.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing just trying to make sure I understand.

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 18:23:00 - [39]
 

Edited by: Hardin on 13/05/2008 18:24:19

Quote:
The election still has 6 days to run so please get out and vote and maybe just maybe we can stop the big alliance fat-cats dominating the show and voting more defensive powers for their Outposts and Towers! :)


Just interested Jade - who exactly are these big alliance fat cats you refer to in your comment?

As far as I am aware no one standing for CSM is campaigning for increased defensive powers for POSes. Indeed we are all calling for changes in relation to Sov warfare.

Nor is there a likelihood of big alliance 'fat-cats' dominating the show when the VAST majority of candidates do not even represent big alliances. Hell we don't even have a BoB candidate!

Keep spreading the myth though! I am sure using emotive language about 'fat cats' and trying to present big alliances as scary bogeymen will get you far.

Just like RL politics Sad

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:12:00 - [40]
 

Edited by: Arithron on 13/05/2008 19:12:47
Quote:
Doesn't follow, I'm actually opposed to POS being used for Sovereignty warfare


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).

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? Can I ask you how big of a percentage of players you think this will affect? Additionally, what benefit to new players and younger players (ie, less than a year old) will these changes bring about? How will it affect Empire (apart from possibly disrupting the rarer moon mineral supplies, which will go down a treat with manufacturers)?

I’d ask these questions of any player that posted such ideas in the CSM forums. I like to hear constructive arguments, both the pros and cons, before making up my mind about such issues.


Quote:
I guess that’s 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.


Actually, since these ideas are in the public domain, you should expect comment and questioning about them. I never said you shouldn’t be talking about specific issues. I said I don’t believe it is a candidates place to be bringing issues to the CSM. I won’t be proposing any topics in the CSM topic threads, as previously stated elsewhere. This is because I believe firmly that an open-mind, without preconceived ideas or agendas, is going to be the best thing for being a CSM member. That’s not to say I don’t have opinions on things, just that I think I should put aside those opinions when deciding on PLAYER ideas.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:27:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 19:36:54

(Posted reply for Arithron on my CSM Q/A thread again :)

Follow-up to Arithron



Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:44:00 - [42]
 

Quote:
how Sovereignty gets determined and what it should actually do in the future - thats another discussion and quite complicated in its own right.


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.

Quote:
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.


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

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?

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

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 19:59:00 - [43]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Ok, so how's that different from a small POS? You can bring it with you, anchor it to base from, then take it away after. Use motherships or carriers to carry ships... etc.


Not terribly different - I could see it being like a small POS that is cyno-jump capable, or a Rorqual/Mothership with manufacturing and hangar bays, but less offensive capability. It's true that the tools are almost there, but they're undeveloped and unwieldy.

Additionally, I think it's a perfectly valid point to say that players invested in territory holding alliances won't be as interested in asking CCP about options for small corp nomadic style gameplay as an alternative to fixed infrastructure. Everyone has their particular area of interest in the game and it would be nice if the CSM consisted of people with knowledge of and passion for different aspects of the game.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:00:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 20:01:02

I think you know where to look for my reply by now Arithron ... Q/A sessions for the Q/A thread please.




Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:07:00 - [45]
 

For the benefit of voters, who are started to get annoyed with the thread hopping to follow Jade's replies, I have posted my follow-ups on her thread...

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 20:58:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: Arithron
For the benefit of voters, who are started to get annoyed with the thread hopping to follow Jade's replies, I have posted my follow-ups on her thread...

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)


It's a way to bump the thread within the rules I imagine. I'm a fat cat though just tryin' to keep the little guys down.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:00:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Ok, so how's that different from a small POS? You can bring it with you, anchor it to base from, then take it away after. Use motherships or carriers to carry ships... etc.


Not terribly different - I could see it being like a small POS that is cyno-jump capable, or a Rorqual/Mothership with manufacturing and hangar bays, but less offensive capability. It's true that the tools are almost there, but they're undeveloped and unwieldy.

Additionally, I think it's a perfectly valid point to say that players invested in territory holding alliances won't be as interested in asking CCP about options for small corp nomadic style gameplay as an alternative to fixed infrastructure. Everyone has their particular area of interest in the game and it would be nice if the CSM consisted of people with knowledge of and passion for different aspects of the game.


I'm actually a territory holding alliance CEO and I'm extremely interested in alternatives to high volumes of fixed infrastructure. Your assumption is incorrect. Simply because large spaceholding alliances have the CAPABILITY to hold large sections of space, doesn't mean we want to. I've seen the end game, that doesn't mean I enjoy it.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:49:00 - [48]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
I'm actually a territory holding alliance CEO and I'm extremely interested in alternatives to high volumes of fixed infrastructure. Your assumption is incorrect. Simply because large spaceholding alliances have the CAPABILITY to hold large sections of space, doesn't mean we want to. I've seen the end game, that doesn't mean I enjoy it.


Fair enough, but that still doesn't make it unreasonable for a voter to identify with a candidate who shares their playstyle - or for that candidate to make his or her pitch to those same players.

But I didn't mean to derail the derail - I'm happy to see candidates talking about these ideas, and hope that alternatives to fixed infrastructure make it onto the discussion table at the CSM.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 21:57:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
I'm actually a territory holding alliance CEO and I'm extremely interested in alternatives to high volumes of fixed infrastructure. Your assumption is incorrect. Simply because large spaceholding alliances have the CAPABILITY to hold large sections of space, doesn't mean we want to. I've seen the end game, that doesn't mean I enjoy it.


Fair enough, but that still doesn't make it unreasonable for a voter to identify with a candidate who shares their playstyle - or for that candidate to make his or her pitch to those same players.

But I didn't mean to derail the derail - I'm happy to see candidates talking about these ideas, and hope that alternatives to fixed infrastructure make it onto the discussion table at the CSM.


I would simply like to add that I wouldn't assume that because a candidate belongs to a large alliance they play the way you think they do. Goonfleet at least has groups within the corporation who serve different needs and operate the way they prefer. Some of those groups exist specifically for small gang fights.


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