open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM Mike Azariah for CSM 6
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.02.24 16:42:00 - [1]
 

Yes, I am running

Yes, I have a clue as to what this is all about.

Yes, I would be a good choice for some of you to vote for, but that is true of a lot of the candidates.

That last part is important. Even though you are getting one vote per account please remember that you are electing a COUNCIL, not a president. We need a team that can work together and manage to present strong messages to CCP. Some folks seem to be looking for 'their candidate', be it Null Sec, Faction Wars, whatever. If you are looking for someone who is only going to focus on one issue well then . . . move along, nothing to see here.

I have written digests of past csm meetings, I read the raw logs to see HOW things are done, not just WHAT was accomplished. I read the other peoples platforms and campaign messages but for a different reason than you might expect. I read them to see what the people I hope to work with are like. The CSM needs to be a team, not a set of individuals who each have their own personal axes to grind. If you asked I could point to folks I would like to see on the CSM council with me.

That is the key here. The council is supposed to represent the players and make decisions that make the whole game better. So we duke it out in forums and blogs and campaign slogans. We fight for our little piece of a woefully small active voting population. Some candidates are depending on their own alliances to propel them to the top. Others are famous enough that they have a fan-base that might do the same. Those are HOW they will be elected, fine. I am looking for what will happen after that. Will they get along? Will they try to reinvent the wheel and rebuild the CSM to make it more efficient (a common first topic of new CSMs, it seems) Will they listen to you, the voters and more importantly, will they talk to you (when they are allowed to)

Elect a team. Elect people who want the whole game to be better, not just ones who are sitting on one issue. Elect people who know that they are not going to do it all and they may not succeed every time. Ones who can go the distance and won't burnout.

Oh . . .

elect me, because I am one of those people.

honest, have I ever lied to you?

Mike Azariah . . . csm 6

Ok, I hope you will now ask questions about specific topics and keep on task.

(yeah, I dream a lot, it is the role-player coming out in me)

m


LimitedEdition T'amber
Posted - 2011.02.24 19:13:00 - [2]
 

This product and or service has been endorsed by me.

Goodluck Mr Azariah.







Mynxee
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2011.02.24 20:32:00 - [3]
 

Best luck in your bid for a seat, Mike. You have been an avid CSM supporter and in my view, have a very good awareness of what some of the key challenges are for the council.

How about your take on low sec... and how the CSM should approach bringing such complex, bigger picture issues to CCP?

Mechanoid Kryten
N0VA 5
Brainfarts
Posted - 2011.02.25 02:41:00 - [4]
 

Mike does all sorts of fantastic things. He got me a convo with Chribba that's still on my bio that I would never have gotten if Mike hadn't invited me to HelpMyMission channel at the right time. Mike just knows what's going on like that.

Then when I was organizing GrieferGeddon, a hulkageddon resistance contest where you win prizes by killing gankers, Mike gets The Hermit (Hulkageddon winner who we somehow manage to kill every year) and me into the same chat channel -- and TheHermit donates 50m for his own corpse. This was subsequently won by a person in local who was doing their own anti-hulkageddon fleet and didn't know about mine. They had to join our contest to get the prize, so the number of kills "we" have, have doubled on the spot once all of them posted to our kill board. All thanks the The Hermit's donation which is thanks to Mike Azariah's chat channel.
And then The Hermit offers to take me along on a drunken roam with them. I don't want more kills sitting there permanently corrupting my character sheet, but it seemed only good form to accept.
So Chribba-worshiping carebear ends up invited to a drunken roam with The Bastards thanks to Mike Azariah. That's the sort of thing that happens on a fairly regular basis with Mike around. (I wonder if they'll be drunk enough to let me fly a smart bomb fitted hulk -- i LIKE killing stuff in my Hulk...)

As to the burn-out issue, I can vouch for that. That lazy bum will never burn himself out in Eve :) (that was affectionate sarcasm for those of you who are getting ready to click "quote" on that bit there and trash it...)

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.02.26 01:39:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Mynxee

How about your take on low sec... and how the CSM should approach bringing such complex, bigger picture issues to CCP?



Now the answer to the first demands an answer to the second.

"Fix xxxxxxxx" has been a rallying cry for some folks and a lot of players. xxxxxxxx has, in its time, represented lowsec, nullsec, the UI, faction wars, lag, blobbing and the fact that someone else is having more fun than me (or making more isk)

Anybody who claims they will, if elected, fix any of the mega issues . . . is lying.

You, Mynxeee, and CSM 5 did the right start to crowd sourcing for suggestions AWAY from the forums. You also did not try to 'make one fix' but focused on smaller items that would improve things a little bit at a time. Sweeping changes sound all nice in the board room (until they are misquoted or misunderstood) but they often are exchanging one problem for another with the added benefit of alienating the customer even more. (we players being the customers)

Anybody who claims they will, if elected, work on fixing the mega issues . . . is more realistic.

Having someone in the CSM who will choose to champion a cause, as Mynxee did with lowsec, is a good thing as long as they keep in mind that there are other issues on the table as well. (Which Mynxee did). This would be along the lines of 'cabinet posts' Do not elect people to a specific seat but once the CSM is elected ask if there are any special projects that people want to take on. They would become the lightning rods for complaints in that area and might try to get more direct access to the CCP devs already assigned to work on them.

But this is all grand theory and you did ask for a specific answer.

So far I have liked the predator prey model that was floated in Your Making lowsec matter. What I DON'T want to do is make piracy harder, or illegal. It is a valid method of play and as such should not be damaged just because the pirates have over-hunted their territory. I also DON'T think adding more goodies to lowsec is going to bring in hoards of new targets for the pirates to kill. That is like taking food to the desert.

I think the answer is going to lie somewhere in another mechanic, be it bounty hunting, smuggling, or faction warfare becoming a militia/block watch.

Next question?

m

Lorna Sicling
Caldari
Helix Pulse
Posted - 2011.02.27 12:56:00 - [6]
 

OK, so I think that the current CSM have done a brilliant job. I haven't agreed with all their calls, but then I shouldn't as not everybody plays this sandbox how I do and if I agreed with everything, then be definition I think they' be doing a bad job.

So if you get elected, following on from the excellent work of CSM5, can I ask the following questions:

1. What 3 small things would you want to see fixed as a high priority. I'm talking about things like the recent quick wins such as dragging directly into cans (although is it just me insofar that you can't split a stack this way?)
2. What 3 long term things would you like to see (not on the broad scale of "fix low sec", but for example removal of jump bridges (I'm NOT in favour btw) or T3 frigates,
3. If you were elected to CSM6, have you thought of a strategy to avoid the "burn out" that seems to affect so many of the previous delegates, as it saddens me to see some of them affected in this way.

Keep blogging and best of luck for the elections.

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.02.28 06:22:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Lorna Sicling

So if you get elected, following on from the excellent work of CSM5, can I ask the following questions:

1. What 3 small things would you want to see fixed as a high priority. I'm talking about things like the recent quick wins such as dragging directly into cans (although is it just me insofar that you can't split a stack this way?)
2. What 3 long term things would you like to see (not on the broad scale of "fix low sec", but for example removal of jump bridges (I'm NOT in favour btw) or T3 frigates,
3. If you were elected to CSM6, have you thought of a strategy to avoid the "burn out" that seems to affect so many of the previous delegates, as it saddens me to see some of them affected in this way.


In reverse order . . . because normal sequential thought is for orderly people. Good question and I think it is hard to see the causes of burnout from the outside. I think some of it is along the lines of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington where they come in having very high hopes of 'making a big difference' and then slowly see those hopes erased. For others it is the border between this being a game and a hobby. When it begins to look like a full time job and all you get is grief from folks you cannot even tell the important things to because of an NDA . . . well, that would wear you down. I teach high school. I am used to doing a lot of work and hardly seeing anything come of it. I have dealt with bureaucracies and rules, confidential information and the frustrations of knowing what should be done but being unable to do it. Maybe that will protect me . . . but I think my real defense is that I am a stubborn old guy who has won and lost enough in his time to be able to take the good and the bad in stride.

Long term things? Now understand these are NOT things I promise to do, that was not what you asked me. These are things I would like to see worked on. i) Review destroyers, function and balance. ii) add more specialist ships, not one-off hanger queens but actual new ship classes. iii) CSM5 did a bloody excellent job of opening communications. CCP is beginning to come out of its shell but there is still a LONG way to go to make the lines of communication what they should be. I understand that business pl;ans need some measure of security but there also needs to be a bit more info flowing out about future plans.

Short term? Again. It is NOT a CSM members job to push through their own agenda. At least, not as far as I am concerned. But things I would like to see fixed? i) Rokh hanger ii) aggro mechanics cleaned up and a lot clearer in explanation iii) mailable bookmarks for swifter corp and WH use.

Next question?

m

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.02 08:45:00 - [8]
 

Should say a bit about the real me . . .

I am a teacher, have been for 20+ years.

Guess that makes me old . . . in my 50's now.

I have union rep experience, know Roberts Rules of Order, can run or participate in a meeting without derailing or sidetracking.

I am persuasive enough (and patient enough) to manage to teach science and math to teenagers.

I am young enough to enjoy this game in all its aspects, old enough to have realistic expectations of what can and cannot be done. I understand that this is a game to CSM but a business to CCP and that the meetings we have are always trying to bridge that great divide.

I think that one strong person in the CSM is not enough nor is one leader and a bunch of loyal sheep. We need a team to present a strong front, each member of that team willing to think and speak for themselves but all with a common goal of making this game better for all of us . . . for hi, low, and null, for pirates and carebears, for the bitter vets and the new guys just wondering if this game is worth trying.

If we want this game around for a long time we have to look to grow. We MUST be willing to try new things because in the market of games it is always grow or begin the slow decline into oblivion (and I do not mean a Bethesda product)

I take a long view of things and then try to find the short term actions to achieve distant goals.

You should vote for me because I am the right person to represent you.

m



Bleys Breighter
Posted - 2011.03.04 06:35:00 - [9]
 

Mike Azariah, Not just another bitter old veteran, rabid female pirate, famous rich player, or disgruntled third party software developer. Mike Azariah is a player, just like you. He loses ships, just like you. Vote Mike Azariah for CSM.



I know I will.

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.06 05:40:00 - [10]
 

I have flown with pirates, mined with the queen of the carebears, been in wars, and sat in gate-camps. I have raced in the death-race in a freaking mining barge. I have rescued the damsel so often I had my name tattooed on her butt, for easier identification. I have written for the tribune, been a guest host on a podcast, and interviewed for a previous CSM election.

I have a life and have a firm enough grasp of reality to know what is important and what is not.

This is a game . . . I enjoy it a lot.

I'd like to help make it better, but if I am not elected, I will continue playing. I don't have to be the chairman . . . I don't have to be part of a UNIFIED VOICE destined to cow CCP into submission. Like that is going to happen.

I want to help make it better by cooperatively finding solutions to problems the players ask us to set before the CCP. I do not think I am a game dev. I do NOT have solutions for every issue at my beck and call. I have the will to help find them, to say what is good and what is bad. I don know how to call bull**** if the occasion arises (and I expect it will.

I am a player of the game . . . just like you. I am not a godling, not a leader of an alliance, I write a blog . . . http://mikeazariah.wordpress.com I play with you, in the same game.

Help me make it better

Vote for me.

m



Quote:

"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe.
Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion.
I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
Time to die

Tantook
Posted - 2011.03.07 13:59:00 - [11]
 

You have my votes. All of them.

Ramma Lamma DingDong
Posted - 2011.03.07 17:11:00 - [12]
 

You have my all of my votes and the votes of my corp.

Helena Khan
Posted - 2011.03.09 03:39:00 - [13]
 

Hi Mike,

Where do you stand on the big stuff: sov, POS mechanics, force projection (supercaps + jump bridges)?
Whats the biggest single thing that bugs you personally in EvE?
You've mentioned destroyers (and I agree). What other hulls also need a good look at?

One last question: what are the various things have you done in EvE?

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.03.09 16:09:00 - [14]
 

I like your stance on lowsec. I really, really think it needs fixing, and I can see how difficult an issue it is. Every solution seems to backfire even as early as the planning stage. But more than anything, I like your stance as a whole. To represent the whole playerbase, and to focus on the big picture, that is what the CSM should do. I like that you aren't supporting individual little quibbles you have, that you plan to put forth your effort into making everyone else's gaming better; but also that you appear to have a keen understanding of how the game works and that helps you to spot potential problems within an issue.

That being said, I'd like to ask for your opinion on a handful of ideas I had to help fix lowsec. And I want to stress that I've already decided my feelings toward you being elected to CSM, and I'm merely asking out of both curiosity to hear your viewpoint and a hope that you can poke a few holes in my ideas so that I might better formulate them in the future.

Idea 1.) I think bot mining (AKA macro mining) is a big part of the problem with lowsec since they actively mine in it, bringing down the prices of those minerals (namely nocxium) and thus creating competition that real player miners can't compete with. So my idea is moreover to fix macro mining. I think that if the miner were to aim the mining laser at a slow-scrolling picture of "asteroid" in which the minerals and the empty rock would have the same color scheme and would look virtually identical to a computer but would be fairly easy to spot by a human player, that the bot mining would be far less lucrative and the player mining would be more engaging. I realize already that the first big problem with implementation is that these pictures would have to come fresh from the server and be updated frequently. I think that making them very low-quality is step one, as it not only reduces streaming bandwidth but also makes it easier to add in image artefacts that the human eye can detect and that computers cannot.

Idea 2.) I think the nocxium output of crokite (a major nullsec mineral) and pyroxeres (a major highsec mineral) should be reduced. Their current output is quite significant, even to the point of eliminating the need for lowsec minerals. Since there are no other minerals that come primarily from lowsec, making nocxium more exclusive to lowsec would increase the value of lowsec mining. And I know that's only one of many steps to solving the issue, but I think it's a valid one.

Idea 3.) make system security status more gradual. There should still be a hard boundary between "lowsec" and "highsec", but I think piracy should be much more difficult to get away with in higher security systems of lowsec. Ganking in 0.4 systems should be particularly dangerous to the pirates and should require substantial preparation; thus many of the more daring carebears will be willing to enter lowsec despite the (reduced) danger. Likewise, high security systems of lower security status values should have a greater difference between CONCORD response times, perhaps, thus allowing a suicide ganker more time to complete the "objective", and making the ganking cheaper in those systems. Perhaps in 0.5 or 0.6 systems it could even be possible (though definitely not easy, of course!!) to thwart CONCORD and actually manage to escape. Whatever fit allows you to do this, however, shouldn't be a very good gank fit. For instance, if it requires you to fit 5 warp core stabilizers on a battleship, then you're pretty much stuck with smart bombs as your weapon. This change would entice more pirates to highsec, and would blur the boundary between highsec and lowsec. With the "carebear" playerbase more spread out, lowsec would become a bit safer just from the presence of other non-pirates to help dilute the pirate population.

So those are my ideas. Curious to hear your input. I don't care if they never get implemented; I just want lowsec to be fixed.

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.03.09 16:16:00 - [15]
 

One final idea; not my own though I have ideas toward implementing it: Make pvp and pve fits identical. This goes in-line perhaps with making missions more fun and maybe even thwarting mission bots. If instead of fifteen puny ships, you encounter 1-2 powerful ships and MAYBE 1-3 flanking puny ships, you would want to fit ships similar to how you would in pvp. If you went up against 1-2 ships that were as powerful as a player ship, it would take some skill to run the missions. Perhaps the agent would tell you what you're going to be up against (ship types and faction) and in some cases it may be a good idea to bring a small ship to complete the mission. Now I'm not saying missions should be more difficult, just that they should be less hectic.

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.10 01:04:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Helena Khan
Hi Mike,

Where do you stand on the big stuff: sov, POS mechanics, force projection (supercaps + jump bridges)?
Whats the biggest single thing that bugs you personally in EvE?
You've mentioned destroyers (and I agree). What other hulls also need a good look at?

One last question: what are the various things have you done in EvE?


OK, taking them in order:

SOV and POS mechanics I have a common thought about. They are boring as all hell and test the patience of saints. I have taken down a pos through legal means and also taken one down the 'hard way'. I do not know what could be done toi make it better but something has to be done.

Force projection . . . no, I don't think the jump bridges need to be removed. Again this a a function of boredom vs playtime. In null the jump bridges were supposed to allow us to skip having to move through large patches of home territory just to get to the fight. The issue that seems to have developed is that larger alliances are using it as an omnipresence so one fleet fights on all fronts.

As I said . . . I think removal would be an extreme reaction to a minor problem. If you don't want the omnipresence there must be some mechanic that could keep a ship from leaping hither and yon without shiutting down the ability completely.

Single biggest thing that bugs me? The UI. From overview to the rigamarole of sharing bookmarks . . . the UI is the albatross that hangs around the neck of every damn player in the game. It scares new players away and frustrates the hell out of veterans

Aside from dessies there are ship classes I never see mentioned except as pretty hanger queens . . . black ops leap to mind. And with the recent modifications to the super carriers some of the old standards of the capital ships seem to also have fallen from grace. Dreadnaughts, for example.

But there is always room for more new shinies. I think T3 frigates would be an obvious first choice but I would prefer t3 dessies to get the nod first. It would give us a reason to skill them up and make those hulls the basis for new awesomenessity.( my own word)

What have I done in Eve? Damn . . . I started as a miner, moved on to run missions, joined corps for wars, explored, lived in a wormhole, run missions to 0.0, run races and events in low and null. I have helped manage a POS, I have interviewed and been interviewed. I have recruited people and been assistant FC. I have ganked in a gate-camp and been a dessie squad attacking a hulk. I have run plexes and scanned out anomalies. I have traded and I have built. I have been podded and I have podded other people. I have escaped with a thread of hull left and I have sat in shock as my ship blew up around me. I have done research and invention. Lived in lowsec, been in a renter corp in null.

Things I have yet to do Serve on the CSM. Go to fanfest. Huge fleet fight. Fly a cap ship of my own. Scam.

Things I won't do Lie to a friend (and yes, I think I have friends that I have never met.) Exploit a bug and risk removal from the game. Macromine.

I am a player of the game . . . like you

I would like the game to be better (I assume you would too)

I haven't done everything . . . but I am looking forward to the future . . . I do think walking is stations may be a tipping point for the game. I want to be on the highwire with it, trying to help tip it on the side of legendary.

Vote for me, please

Mike Azariah for CSM6

m

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2011.03.10 05:47:00 - [17]
 

Sorry mate, but from what I read on Vote Match your opinions on T2 BPOs. Of the ones that gave a written opinion to match it, yours was probably the worst. Your basic failure to understand the oppurtnity cost involved in T2 BPO ownership and describing it as "printing money" identifies you as a very dangerous person to put in any position of authority on market/industrial matters.

As a matter of fact, if you disagree strongly, maybe you could make your case here:

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1360780

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.10 06:13:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Reaver Glitterstim
I like your stance on lowsec. I really, really think it needs fixing, and I can see how difficult an issue it is. Every solution seems to backfire even as early as the planning stage. But more than anything, I like your stance as a whole. To represent the whole playerbase, and to focus on the big picture, that is what the CSM should do. I like that you aren't supporting individual little quibbles you have, that you plan to put forth your effort into making everyone else's gaming better; but also that you appear to have a keen understanding of how the game works and that helps you to spot potential problems within an issue.


Okay, taking your ideas in order (with the immunity from losing votes you promised)((*grins*))

I agree that bots are a major influence on the game as a whole, but It is my understanding that they tend to hang in the more distant corners of nullsec for a) better ores) and (b) fewer hunters wandering through Any idea to make botting more difficult or just down right non-profit is worth considering. Problem is, anything that we can imagine can be programmed around, if the programmer is patient and it is worth the effort. Right now rampant botting is reputed to earn multiple plexes worth of isk per month. It is worth it. Color shifts might be a way to make it more interesting and slightly tougher on the bots but i would bet dollars to donuts it would only delay them a week or so.

I have seen lots of folks suggesting fixes that all boil down to the same thing . . . making lowsec more tempting to bring more people into it. All of these have the same basic problem at the root of them. Better bait will only work until the pirates kill off all who come for it again.

Now this one is slightly more interesting . . . but would you consider a modification into it? Rather than just moving the border of where lowsec really begins, what if the border was fluid? As pc kills in an area increased . . . concord might respond with a stronger presence. If there were no pirates in the area concord might go elsewhere and the sec status would slip. This would mean the border would not always be in the same place from week to week. As you said, ideas are easy to come up with and you need a group who can consider them and find the obvious (to someone) flaws within them.

That is what the CSM is, not devs, they are a group who evaluate ideas put forward by the players, they take the best (as they see it) forward to the CCP. At the same time CCP brings ideas and plans to CSM and again, the CSM gives opinions. The NDA is the bidg fly in this ointment as some of the things the CSM sees is not reported back to us. But you have to see it from CCP's view. They are a business . . . giving away future plans is not always good for it AND we can be a rabid pack of dogs who take the slightest mention of something as eityher a promise of Nirvana or the voice of dooooooom. ((See the reactions to incarna, Captains Quarters and Jump bridges for examples))

I agree lowsec needs fixing but I am not sure that an economist is the right guy to consult for the repairs. Maybe a biologist or a psych major. Re-balance the predator prey or alter the perceptions af risk/reward.

m

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.10 11:33:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Tehg Rhind
Your basic failure to understand the oppurtnity cost involved in T2 BPO ownership and describing it as "printing money" identifies you as a very dangerous person to put in any position of authority on market/industrial matters.



Out of curiosity, how would you react to a proposal to bring back the -small- chance of inventing a BPO in modern research?

That would make the argument moot without the removal of anything . . .

And inviting me to argue for the removal in that thread where you said . . .

Quote:
This thread is simply so unfair. Tricking idiots into self identifying and then humiliating just seems mean...


Um, No. I am not prone to feed trolls more than their basic daily requirements.

m

Mara Rinn
Posted - 2011.03.10 11:37:00 - [20]
 

Thanks for standing for CSM, Mike!

Hope to see you reporting from Reykjavik some day soon :)

Reaver Glitterstim
Legio Geminatus
Posted - 2011.03.10 19:24:00 - [21]
 

Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim on 10/03/2011 19:24:16
Originally by: Mike Azariah
Now this one is slightly more interesting . . . but would you consider a modification into it? Rather than just moving the border of where lowsec really begins, what if the border was fluid? As pc kills in an area increased . . . concord might respond with a stronger presence. If there were no pirates in the area concord might go elsewhere and the sec status would slip. This would mean the border would not always be in the same place from week to week. As you said, ideas are easy to come up with and you need a group who can consider them and find the obvious (to someone) flaws within them.

I was talking about blurring the boundary, not moving it. But I like your idea too. Sounds harder to implement, but I'm almost certain I'd find it endlessly exciting to never know for sure what the security status of a system would be tomorrow. I'd definitely live out on a fringe world, just for the thrill of being hurled out into lowsec every now and then (without actually moving, too) but against my will. And I can see it now that the naysayers will claim over fire and brimstone that half of highsec space will become uninhabitable. But that's impossible, because the amount of "lowsec ganks" in any area will be limited.

If your idea were made real, I'd want what I said also applied, that the security status levels would mean a lot more from one number to the next. That could make systems averaging 0.5 security even safer than with my proposal, as any sharp-minded player can clearly see that that system doesn't have a lot of ganking going on in it if it's to remain at that security level for so long.

Perhaps CCP would chart out the average amount of ganks per day/week/month per pilot for each security status level increment and use those values to plot a graph that gives each system a number of ganks to expect, depending on the number of pilots in the system. Then, at downtime, each system will count up the average number of pilots throughout the day and the total ganks, and adjust its security status down if the gank total is under, or up if it's over. Systems close to the top or bottom of security status numbers would vary only slightly, while systems on the "fringe" would change rapidly on a day-to-day basis. Ah, but you got the ol' hamster wheel turning inside my head. Thanks for that.

Originally by: Mike Azariah
I agree lowsec needs fixing but I am not sure that an economist is the right guy to consult for the repairs. Maybe a biologist or a psych major. Re-balance the predator prey or alter the perceptions af risk/reward.

I find this quote interesting. I don't currently have any solutions to offer to that extent, but it'll likewise get me thinking.

Elizabeth D'Alembert
Posted - 2011.03.11 04:18:00 - [22]
 

One way to get a BPO (even a T2 version) could be dependant on getting your hands on a ship (by fair means or foul) and diassembling it. Fast and dirty, low percentage chance, slow and considerate, higher. Deconstruction times should at the very least be matched by the build time.

Way I look at is if you're prepared to sacrifice a ship (and up to multi-billion ones at that) to roll the dice on a BPO, why shouldn't you be able to? Certainly makes sense on an external to the game basis. The only downside as per usual, is that the massive null sec entities can throw iskies at an issue until they get what they want. Mind you, the same could be said of existing T2 BPOs.

Skills would also affect chance. Thoughts?

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.11 04:59:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Elizabeth D'Alembert
One way to get a BPO (even a T2 version) could be dependant on getting your hands on a ship (by fair means or foul) and diassembling it. Fast and dirty, low percentage chance, slow and considerate, higher. Deconstruction times should at the very least be matched by the build time.

Way I look at is if you're prepared to sacrifice a ship (and up to multi-billion ones at that) to roll the dice on a BPO, why shouldn't you be able to? Certainly makes sense on an external to the game basis. The only downside as per usual, is that the massive null sec entities can throw iskies at an issue until they get what they want. Mind you, the same could be said of existing T2 BPOs.

Skills would also affect chance. Thoughts?


Reverse engineering? I like that idea. The percentage chance could be modified by the relevant skills of the inventor. Tell me, aside from the possibility of the BPO, would the player get some of the materials back as well? Sort of a semi focused reprocessing.

It is NOT that I hate BPO's of the T2 variety . . . far from it. I just have a problem with awards from what has been thought to be a flawed original process (the lottery) still being in existence with no chance for a more equitable process working in a similar vein.

As for large organizations throwing isk at something till they get it? Why not? There should be some advantage to having a huge organization and lots of isk.

m

Elizabeth D'Alembert
Posted - 2011.03.11 06:55:00 - [24]
 

Minerals and/or components? I can't see why not, though it should again be skill and chance based. Probably better left to those people who have a better idea of in game balances... And CSMer's :)

As a side effect, it might be a carrot for those people involved in industrial espionage. If you can't sell the ship or move it, break it down and move the BPO...

Best of luck M!

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2011.03.11 07:03:00 - [25]
 

Edited by: Tehg Rhind on 11/03/2011 07:03:28
Originally by: Mike Azariah

Out of curiosity, how would you react to a proposal to bring back the -small- chance of inventing a BPO in modern research?

That would make the argument moot without the removal of anything . . .



No, their original introduction was a terrible idea and should not be repeated. Think of it like knocking up some chick you don't love. You shouldn't have done it, but that doesn't mean that your only remaining option is an 8th trimester abortion or knuckling down and spitting out another 100 bowel babies.


Quote:


And inviting me to argue for the removal in that thread where you said . . .

Quote:
This thread is simply so unfair. Tricking idiots into self identifying and then humiliating just seems mean...


Um, No. I am not prone to feed trolls more than their basic daily requirements.

m


You have to appreciate that to market folk like myself this is the equivalent of arguing that all PvE should be instanced or that titans should be handed out to all. Market folk generally keep to themselves. We are probably the single most solo-players in EvE because there is little reason to work with others. Consider us the EvE ronin. This means that we don't often make our desires heard. On the other hand, we have very strong opinions on matters we understand, and on a handful of positions we will go to the mats with anyone who disagrees because its not a matter of opinion, its a provable fact if you follow basic economic theory like time value of money and oppurtunity cost.

You should also appreciate that the MD crowd are some of the most cut-throat people in the game, and when someone makes a statement that we know is wrong-headed we will swarm over them like pirahnnas on a mildly ******ed donkey. So don't take it personally, I've done the same to most of the other people who have posted this stance. The Mittanni decided to ignore the issue and instead post pictures that prove he is an attractive man. Seriously. So, you at least are doing better than he is.

While I don't expect every CSM candidate to understand the complexities of the EvE economy, I do expect them to be willing to investigate complicated market issues. The threadnaught I linked is probably the single strongest set of arguments for why the removal of T2 BPOs is a terrible idea.

Elizabeth D'Alembert
Posted - 2011.03.11 08:12:00 - [26]
 

@ Tehg - as you've pointed out, not many have the fortitude (or willingness) to take part in Market PvP. It could be argued that the complexities mean that there are fewer opponents, meaning an easier road for those that do take it. Until your liquidity runs out of course... :)

What you haven't mentioned is the botting that occurs in the market place, from the .01 iskie bidders upwards. Whats your stance on that?

Also - if there is something you'd like brought up to the CSM regarding improvements to the market place, what is it/are they?

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2011.03.12 01:08:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Elizabeth D'Alembert
@ Tehg - as you've pointed out, not many have the fortitude (or willingness) to take part in Market PvP. It could be argued that the complexities mean that there are fewer opponents, meaning an easier road for those that do take it. Until your liquidity runs out of course... :)

What you haven't mentioned is the botting that occurs in the market place, from the .01 iskie bidders upwards. Whats your stance on that?

Also - if there is something you'd like brought up to the CSM regarding improvements to the market place, what is it/are they?


I don't want to derail mike's thread, but my previous issue aside I actually do support ho's campaign so I'll respond simply to bump his thread.

Your first comment is contradictory. Market is difficult to make money in which drives down competition which males it easy to make money in. The reality is that it IS difficult to male money in the market, bit that doesn't mean there isn't competition. The reason for this is that it's the single highest potential income source in EvE. There really is no limit to your earnings except for your abilitity.

Which brings me to the point about bots. I'm not convinced bots are as significant an issue in the market place as some people think. Consider the .01 concept which lead to the EvE001 tool. I can say that I only barely thought about picking this up, because real money making on the EvE markets doesn't have to involve updating all of your orders 24/7. Simply .01ing up to some limit is a really good way to get manipulated and see your profits cut apart.

That's why I question how a bot could work without getting easily manipulated. The worst thing about a bot is that it will keep doing stupid stuff if it's told to, which means it could be manipulated into bankrupting someone overnight. The botter could limit this risk by maintaining a limited wallet balance but that limits the effectiveness of the bot.

Also, @Mike, kind of wanted to apologize for the tone I took earlier. Just took a hellish midterm that I had been studying for and took the wrong path with how I stated this. I do hope that if you are elected and this topic comes up you will take another look at it and reverse you position.

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.12 02:03:00 - [28]
 

See, this is one of the differences in style you should be paying attention to. Yes, I may disagree with you about a subject but I do not depend on my 'cult of personality' to drive through it. I go and I read the thread you referenced. I listen to your opinion . . .

This is what you want . . . someone who will listen, is willing to learn about the things he doesn't know and maybe even be willing to change his or her mind if the arguments are valid.

The vote matching is a great concept but MORE than that you should not just look for a representative who agrees with you on 20 odd selected topics. You want someone who will listen to you when you disagree on some as yet unnamed topic in the future. Maybe they still will disagree after they listen to you, but you will know you had a chance to put your ideas out there and not get a picture of your candidate in return.

That is why I think I should stuill be considered a posibility for your vote even if you do think my original answer was just plain wrong.

m

Mike Azariah
Posted - 2011.03.12 02:07:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Tehg Rhind


I don't want to derail mike's thread, but my previous issue aside I actually do support ho's campaign so I'll respond simply to bump his thread.

Also, @Mike, kind of wanted to apologize for the tone I took earlier. Just took a hellish midterm that I had been studying for and took the wrong path with how I stated this. I do hope that if you are elected and this topic comes up you will take another look at it and reverse you position.


No worries, I appreciate being asked questions . . . and the bumps. As to midterms, I remember those . . . no offense was taken. I actually read it as you were doing serious consideration of a topic and gave me a chance to explain rather than just reading the vote match comment and writing me off as an idiot.

m

Tehg Rhind
Posted - 2011.03.12 03:29:00 - [30]
 

Your comment on the 'cult of personality' made me smile quite a bit because that is something I see as a huge problem with the CSM (and to be honest politics in general.). The sad fact is that the ability of the cult of personality to get someone elected is inversely proportional to how useful they will actually be in a collaborative group.

A CoP (cult of personality) will build on someone because they are charismatic, dogmatic, strong and/or entertaining. These aren't inherently negative attributes, however for many people being a recipient of a CoP will lead to arrogance. That is where the problem comes from. CoPers mistake adulation for moral authority. Celebrities commenting on politics IRL is a good example of this, but it can be seen anywhere. Heavily published PhDs often have problems working together for the same reason.

Ultimately the 2 most important qualities for a leader in a collaborative setting are:

Humuility - The ability to accept that you *may* be wrong, which leads to better listening and independant research.

And

A self sufficient ego - Anyone who has read Raynd understands the difference betweenarrogance and ego. Ego is important because to be a decision maker you have to be able to male your final decision indendantly of others views at the end of the day.

That may seem contradictory, but it's not. Humility allows for listening, ego allows you to make the decision you think is right, and not live and act for others. A leader must have ego. A cult of personality is not built on either of these. They gain a feeling of self worth and a belief in their skills through the eyes of others, which ends up keeping them from actually ever learning anything, or realizing that they don't know what they are talking about.

The main reason that term made me smile is because I just used that exact phrase to describe the Mittani's authority.


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