These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

James 315's "CSM Platform" May Begin The Decline Of the New Order
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Winchester Steele
#21 - 2013-02-07 18:30:16 UTC
Lord Ovuld Feish wrote:
Mira Robinson wrote:
Bing Bangboom wrote:
There are a lot of players who think that Highsec means safe. That it means they can do what they want, prosper greatly, and never be bothered by other players. www.minerbumping.com has succeeded in showing the true colors of these players. They are numerous. They do NOT want to fight for what they get. The do NOT want to have to change what they do. They do NOT want to have to actually pay attention to their game. Frankly, they just want to make the most amount of ISK they can without taking any risk. They have been vocal, they have been threatening to CCP and they have been catered to. And its ruining Eve.


I have highlighted what I have found provable in your reply.

Yes, they are numerous.

Do you think CCP is going to risk alienating these numerous players? And please, be honest with yourself, and try to see things from their perspective as a developer whose decade-old game is still miraculously paying for the electricity in their building.

Our population numbers have pretty much stayed the same the past few years. The only reason they've "increased" was because they opened that Chinese server.

I pretty much agree with this.

Does lowsec need work? Yes. Does nullsec need work? Yes.

Do you make them work by pulling a 180 with highsec? Hardly.

And that is something CCP is never going to do based on the whims of one trigger-happy, piracy-loving, tear-gathering CSM rep.

If you nullbears want conflict, here's a suggestion; stop blue-ing each other.

It doesn't take a genius, or even an idiot, to see that your agenda is just to push unwilling players toward a gatecamp for more kills. Give me a ******* break.


I'm not a nullbear. Ratted a bit in Providence, spend some time soloing in lowsec but at the end of the day I'm a high sec dweller. I've been on both ends of a gatecamp, but I'm no gatecamper. In fact I am mostly a PVE player. Yet, I see the bigger picture here. Hi-Sec is boring as hell. It's broken as hell. Something is very very wrong when I can make more isk being afk in hi-sec than I can being at the keyboard in low or null. For the health of the whole game, this needs to change.
Do I think James has all the answers? No I don't. I disagree with his platform on several key points. I like scanning and explo. I would rather see 5 degree D-Scan give warp ins than have probing removed. I also would like to see some revamped and expanded solo content in NPC null. These are minor quibbles though. Overall, I think the trajectory of James' platform makes a much more interesting game than those who would see this game become AFK-Miner Online.
For years now the carebear voice has been loudly whispering in CCP's ear. Nerf after to nerf to awesome gameplay styles like can flipping, ganking and ninja looting have rendered the Hi-Sec landcape bleak and boring. It's time that CCP hears another perspective from players who like a dangerous, risky gameplay style. James, in a lot of ways is the voice of the belligerent undesirable and in my opinion his platform advocates an unmitigated pure form of sandbox gameplay. I for one would like this position to be heard loud and clear by CCP.

...

Vin King
State War Academy
Caldari State
#22 - 2013-02-07 18:34:15 UTC
I've only been playing a week or so, and I can tell you already I fully support some of the ideas put forward by James. Taking risk is something that needs to be encouraged. Right now, I'm doing mining and industry to get myself started. Floating safely from one rock to another is, well, boring. Last night, I decided to mix it up a bit. I took my poor little underfit Venture out into LowSec to get me some ores that would refine into things I need, and can't get in HighSec unless I buy them. I took a risk. I got podded for my efforts. Does that make me break out into tears? No. It makes me start to think about what I need to do to get away with a little LowSec mining here and there to keep my operations going.

So already, I'm looking to see what I can do to increase my reward, because sticking to just HighSec mining trit is boring. Having more people who are willing to go into LowSec after some of these rewards ends up making LowSec safer and more desirable for people. Instead of some bored pirate waiting in a system to pop any little miner that shows up, industrials will have reason to either band together or hire muscle to discourage these types of easy ganks. Player involvement increases, the market goes through a minor adjustment, LowSec doesn't become completely lawless, and the entire game benefits as a result.

The nerfs proposed to HighSec can't be pointed to on their own. They have to be taken hand in hand with buffs to LowSec, and even then, you have to look past initial fears and look to the actual effect these proposals have. HighSec remains safe-ish for new players, but with reduced desire to stay in a pillow fort and cry anytime someone actually ganks or bumps you. LowSec becomes much safer, due to the fact that's where most of the players are now. People work together more, get to know their neighbors.

This constant demand for a risk free environment is confusing to me. I joined this game right after internet news broke regarding the loss of a couple Titans. The draw was the risk. I can see how it's easy to start in HighSec and then be afraid of the big bad LowSec, but the trick is to avoid complacency. The only way that can happen is if there's an incentive. Right now, there is no incentive to leave the hugbox. Getting podded on your first trip to LowSec can make someone want to stay in the hugbox longer, which means you have incentive to not leave.

These proposals shift the equation. They provide the incentive. They provide incentive to avoid a one-man corp where all you do is not watch your ship mine ice while you're AFK.

As a new player, I fully support these proposals.

315 4 CSM 8

Proud member of the New Order of HighSec
Lady Ayeipsia
BlueWaffe
#23 - 2013-02-07 18:50:09 UTC
You can't expect people to take more risk for the same reward they currently make. People will feel cheated and desert eve. Minor changes over time, maybe. But moving all mission agents of 3 or high to low sec, with no buff to reward? Why would people continue to play? You have to make low sec and null attractive and a better balance of more reward for the elevated risk.

If I told you, hey you have to work twice as hard to earn your current pay check, would you do so? Would you if there are other games/jobs out there? Most people I know would leave.

So sorry, nerfing hi sec into oblivion will accomplish nothing more than reducing eve's player base, not make it a better game.
Vin King
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-02-07 18:53:52 UTC
Lady Ayeipsia wrote:
You can't expect people to take more risk for the same reward they currently make. People will feel cheated and desert eve. Minor changes over time, maybe. But moving all mission agents of 3 or high to low sec, with no buff to reward? Why would people continue to play? You have to make low sec and null attractive and a better balance of more reward for the elevated risk.

If I told you, hey you have to work twice as hard to earn your current pay check, would you do so? Would you if there are other games/jobs out there? Most people I know would leave.

So sorry, nerfing hi sec into oblivion will accomplish nothing more than reducing eve's player base, not make it a better game.


We're talking about making the game better for people who want to be bothered to play the game. If they lose some bot accounts, I don't see the problem.

Proud member of the New Order of HighSec
Bing Bangboom
DAMAG Safety Commission
#25 - 2013-02-07 19:00:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Bing Bangboom
Mira Robinson wrote:
Bing Bangboom wrote:
There are a lot of players who think that Highsec means safe. That it means they can do what they want, prosper greatly, and never be bothered by other players. www.minerbumping.com has succeeded in showing the true colors of these players. They are numerous. They do NOT want to fight for what they get. The do NOT want to have to change what they do. They do NOT want to have to actually pay attention to their game. Frankly, they just want to make the most amount of ISK they can without taking any risk. They have been vocal, they have been threatening to CCP and they have been catered to. And its ruining Eve.


I have highlighted what I have found provable in your reply.

Yes, they are numerous.

Do you think CCP is going to risk alienating these numerous players? And please, be honest with yourself, and try to see things from their perspective as a developer whose decade-old game is still miraculously paying for the electricity in their building.

Our population numbers have pretty much stayed the same the past few years. The only reason they've "increased" was because they opened that Chinese server.


But what if we who like conflict and danger in Eve are numerous too? Has nerfing ganking and other forms of highsec pvp over the last two years made the game better or just easier? Do we now have a population who is so risk adverse that they would quit if we went towards a more conflict driven game? Would they quit because they don't like it or just can hack it? Or do we have a combination of these carebears and veterans from the "bad " days who just haven't got around to moving on yet?

What drew me to Eve was the wide spread notion that Eve is different from other games. That there is more danger, more conflict, that loss has REAL meaning, that Eve is actually harder to succeed at than other games on the market. Maybe that was true once. The New Order of Highsec has shown that it still can be in extraordinary circumstances. An intense, coordinated, massive effort by a group of dedicated individuals CAN bring danger and conflict to places where it had become extinct. For this we have been petitioned, pillaried in this forum as well as our own, been the subject of our own special investigation by CCP, and now, when James 315 decides to stand for CSM, are told our ideas have no place in New Eden.

Well, when the day comes, and we are moving towards that day, that people like us are pushed out of Eve, then Eve is gone. People are AFK mining in 200 million ISK ships with 1 billion ISK of implants. Read that line again and really think about what it means. THAT is what highsec has become. How can anyone who loves Eve for what its supposed to be stand up and support THAT?

In any case, we may win yet. All the arguments in this thread and on www.minerbumping.com where several individuals seem dedicated to telling us why we, or at least our ideas, are terrible, just terrible are not going to be the thing that stops us. What will stop us is if the naysayers are correct and the players who just want to afk in peace actually outnumber the players who still believe in Eve as its advertised. I have to say if they massively outnumber us because, hey, we are all going to vote all our accounts for James 315 and most of them probably don't even know there IS a CSM.

And if he wins the election, Eve might still go the way you want it to. But at least there will be one person on the CSM representing those of us who want the game to be better, not just easier.

315 4 CSM8

Highsec is worth fighting for.

BBB

Highsec is worth fighting for.

By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.  www.minerbumping.com
Agent Eunoli
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2013-02-07 19:04:05 UTC
Mira Robinson wrote:

The CSM are not decision makers. They do not decide development direction. James, even as a highsec miner, I was entertained by your crusade, but now that you've turned your blog into a political pile of poo, I wouldn't be surprised if your followers begin to wane.

You are correct, the CSM are not decision makers. They are decision influencers.

CCP uses the CSM as a focus group for ideas and for sanity checks on what they are planning on doing. CCP makes the decisions. The CSM provides a feedback mechanism.

For EVE to continue to improve the CSM needs to be able to speak with a large variety of voices when dealing with CCP. The CSM -needs- the voice of someone who wants to make Highsec interactive, dangerous, and limited. Does that mean anything that James 315 is putting forward on his platform will happen? No, it doesn't. It would be foolish to think that it would.

But, it does mean at the voice will be heard and this voice will add a sanity check to ideas going forward. I don't want to see Highsec become a zone that is totally safe. In fact, I want the messaging around Highsec to become clearer as to what it is: a potentially dangerous place. Too many players don't realize that Highsec is NOT safe. They are surprised, upset, and even mad when they lose ships in Highsec thinking that it is against the rules. That's a failure on CCP's part and it needs to be brought to the forefront of discussions.

James 315 can, and will, provide that voice.

As it stands now, the members of the CSM either want Highsec to be safer or they just don't really care. James 315 cares and wants to make Highsec more dangerous. That's a great voice to be heard when discussing the future of EVE - it will make CCP pause and reflect. Does that mean we'll get James 315's vision? No, it doesn't. But it does mean that the final result will be more thought out and better because of that.

Will James 315 negatively impact the New Order of Highsec's operations? Nope. I haven't seen any kind of downward swing in activity. There are more people active in the New Order of Highsec today than there were a week ago. The Order continues its momentum of spreading out and gaining followers.

The objective of the New Order of Highsec hasn't changed either. Given that, the initial response to James 315's announcement has been a greater surge of activity and enthusiasm. So, the opposite of your post's title.



Cinematic HD EVE Movies: http://www.youtube.com/user/EveEunoli/
Alonzo Harris
Feminist Vegan Riot Squad
#27 - 2013-02-07 19:47:32 UTC
most of you seem to not be able to recognize the difference between "buffing low/null" and "killing highsec"!

stop beating around the bush. you cant kill highsec for new people. and you cant deny people a playstyle they like. we are talking about a sandbox here after all. people do whatever the **** they want to do.
i am hardly on just one side here but i do realize that about anything that jamessomething suggests will shut the game down forever.

Power to the People! http://freehighsec.wordpress.com/
Vin King
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2013-02-07 19:52:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Vin King
Alonzo Harris wrote:
most of you seem to not be able to recognize the difference between "buffing low/null" and "killing highsec"!

stop beating around the bush. you cant kill highsec for new people. and you cant deny people a playstyle they like. we are talking about a sandbox here after all. people do whatever the **** they want to do.
i am hardly on just one side here but i do realize that about anything that jamessomething suggests will shut the game down forever.


QQ moar.

None of the proposals suggested would shut the game down. It does sound like you'd probably be happier playing Minecraft on Peaceful, though.

Proud member of the New Order of HighSec
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#29 - 2013-02-07 19:52:42 UTC
Alonzo Harris wrote:
most of you seem to not be able to recognize the difference between "buffing low/null" and "killing highsec"!

stop beating around the bush. you cant kill highsec for new people. and you cant deny people a playstyle they like. we are talking about a sandbox here after all. people do whatever the **** they want to do.
i am hardly on just one side here but i do realize that about anything that jamessomething suggests will shut the game down forever.

You're hardly on one side? Your rebellious blog says otherwise.

I'm at a loss as to how James' propositions would alter the sandboxy nature of EVE. In EVE's current iteration, you mine Kernite (for example) in Highsec. After James' changes, you mine Kernite in Lowsec. The sandbox has not lost sand - it has only been moved around.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#30 - 2013-02-07 19:54:09 UTC
Vin King wrote:
None of the proposals suggested would shut the game down. It does sound like you'd probably be happier playing Minecraft, though.

Minecraft? Minecraft has risks! You go AFK in minecraft, and some creeper will come along and blow up you AND your house!

I'd suggest WoW, where you have to pay 50 coppers or something to repair your **** every time you die.
Vin King
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2013-02-07 19:55:50 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Vin King wrote:
None of the proposals suggested would shut the game down. It does sound like you'd probably be happier playing Minecraft, though.

Minecraft? Minecraft has risks! You go AFK in minecraft, and some creeper will come along and blow up you AND your house!

I'd suggest WoW, where you have to pay 50 coppers or something to repair your **** every time you die.


Good point. Let me fix my post a little.

Proud member of the New Order of HighSec
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#32 - 2013-02-07 19:58:08 UTC
That's more like it.
Wescro
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#33 - 2013-02-07 19:58:27 UTC
Alonzo Harris wrote:
most of you seem to not be able to recognize the difference between "buffing low/null" and "killing highsec"!


I hope that was ironic sarcasm.

Quote:

stop beating around the bush. you cant kill highsec for new people. and you cant deny people a playstyle they like. we are talking about a sandbox here after all. people do whatever the **** they want to do.


Did you even read his platform? He said leave level 1 and 2 missions in high sec, and leave the two basic ores there. No new player I know runs level threes. Electing James won't destroy high sec, just like electing Obama didn't destroy America, despite similar demagoguery being thrown around.

You have a mistaken conception about what a sandbox is. A sandbox isn't a magical wonderland where everything transforms to meet your expectations. It is simply an area where you define what you want to do, and crucially, you do this while others also define what they want to do. Then everyone attempts what they want, some succeed and some fail. A game where everyone gets to play the way they want isn't a sandbox. It isn't even a game at all, since there is no losing.

Quote:

i am hardly on just one side here but i do realize that about anything that jamessomething suggests will shut the game down forever.


Yep, and vote for Kerry was a vote for Al Qaeda.

http://crossingzebras.com/2013/02/17/csm8ripardteg/
Nathalie LaPorte
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2013-02-07 20:17:09 UTC
Mira Robinson wrote:
Intar Medris wrote:
One thing they could do is give Null Sec and low sec ores a serious buff. In theory you should make 40+ mil an hour mining ABC ores, but that isn't the case.

Spud is one of the worst ores in the game. Despite being a null only ore, it will net you less profit per hour then veldspar. Leave high sec ores as they are, but seriously boost the yield of low and Null sec ores too the point that they almost guarantee 50 mil an hour in low. 70-150 an hour in null. Tell me that wouldn't lead to miners leaving high sec for low/null.

Ratters/Missioners for them triple the bounties on low/null rats. Remove insurance for low sec/null sec losses, and you an adequate ISK sink to offset the increased flow of the faucet

It's an entirely player-driven economy. The only way to make Spud more profitable if it's more in demand. If it's less than Veld, clearly, it's not needed very badly.



No, it's not entirely player driven. The mineral content of ores, their spawn locations and amounts, for example, are all set by CCP. What you didn't understand about Intar's post is that he is suggesting that CCP alter the mineral content of ores, to make them actually match their intended value and ingame descriptions. Pretty simple, and yet way over your head.
Mhax Arthie
Doomheim
#35 - 2013-02-07 21:01:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Mhax Arthie
Winchester Steele wrote:
Mhax Arthie wrote:
Hope you guys already know that James is a goon, rite? A funny one, but still goon. And goons will aways have their own agenda. So nothing new here, like or dislike, simple as that.


And if he is? You know that goons are just people right? Some goons are good, some are bad. Some are smart, others total f'ing morons. You know, just like the rest of the player base. Sorry, having conversed with a fair number of goons I just flat out don't buy into 'goonspiracy' theories. The ones I met have kids, jobs, lives and seem to have a pretty balanced and fun attitude towards the game. The funny part is that the most intolerant, hateful and judgemental people I have met in this game have all been carebears. Go figure.

Of course, who knows? Maybe we are all alts of The Mittani.

I agree with you. Actually I'm neutral toward the goons just because the hate/love meter is at middle. I have no respect for their their leader, the wasted dude from fanfest. But I have a huge respect for all those brilliant minds whom run their economy, industry and .. scamming. I hate how arogant and selfish the goons are now, just because I loved their past when they were just a bunch of noobs picking up on those mofo elite veterans whom ruins every game in this world with their elitist crap. I hate the brute weak minds whom live only for violence and extreme hate, but I love DBRB who started the epic Asakai incident \o/ Cheers.
Tallian Saotome
Nuclear Arms Exchange Inc.
#36 - 2013-02-07 21:10:51 UTC
Mira Robinson wrote:
Our population numbers have pretty much stayed the same the past few years. The only reason they've "increased" was because they opened that Chinese server.

I just want to point ut that Serenity is not run by CCP, and so they do not count the numbers from serenity for EVE stats.

Oh, and serenity is more than a couple years old, its been around for longer than that. We have population statistics for it going back to 2007.

http://eve-offline.net/?server=serenity

Might wanna get yer facts straight before making wild claims about how EVE is dying.

Inappropriate signature removed, CCP Phantom.
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
#37 - 2013-02-07 21:34:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Vegine
Well, here's one thing James could try. Take a fleet down to low and simulate a mining fleet and mining defense fleet give it a week or two and see how it holds up, see if you are able to get your "food chain reaction" going, and if continuously running such fleets is attractive enough for people to stay.Then, based on your actual results, things will be more clear.



Basically, mining and indy aspects of the game are the hardest to incorporate into a true ~pvp~ sandbox, because inherently they are quiet passive activities. Trying to jam a risk/reward/danger into it and makes it still work while is quiet innovative thinking by itself, its not easy and I've seen numerous failed attempts in the past.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#38 - 2013-02-07 21:36:30 UTC
Vegine wrote:
Well, here's one thing James could try. Take a fleet down to low and simulate a mining fleet and mining defense fleet give it a week or two and see how it holds up, see if you are able to get your "food chain reaction" going, and if continuously running such fleets is attractive enough for people to stay.Then, based on your actual results, things will be more clear.

Why would PvPers want to mine in lowsec or highsec? I don't see how this would prove anything.
Xanthe Isgar
Doomheim
#39 - 2013-02-07 21:47:39 UTC
I cringe every time James whats-his-name gets a new thread.

It only adds to the undeserved publicity of this ridiculous "movement" and the idiots involved with it. They aren't effecting any real change in hi-sec, and their fearless leader won't either.

If you minerbumpers want to be taken even semi-seriously, form a corporation so that you can be wardecced. Otherwise, you're just a bunch suicide gankers and scammers who target ships that can't fight back.
Vegine
Sphere Foundation
#40 - 2013-02-07 21:48:09 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
Why would PvPers want to mine in lowsec or highsec? I don't see how this would prove anything.

because James himself stated he wants to enchance the "sandbox" statues of this game, and in this sandbox there are indy and mining aspects thats quiet essential to the success. I'm just taking James up to task to prove to us how viable these two aspects of the game would become for all the theoretical stuff he proposed to us. I'm actually quiet interested in the outcome really.