These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#541 - 2013-03-11 18:49:35 UTC
Xearal wrote:
Thanks for the reply Malcanis! :)

Aside from outposts, what I personally would like to see is POSses getting a good upgrade.
Get rid of the forcefield, put every thign you anchor now inside the POS as modules, and let people dock up into one.

The biggest benefits of this would be, you'd no longer have the hassle of moving stuff from one bay to another, or corp hangar to manufacturing bay and such, it would allow for setting up a more personal space for a corp member in a POS by allocating part of the general corp bay to personal use. Personal POSses woudl also be possible, giving the power of an individual to setup a manufacturing empire anywhere at the price of using a POS.
Also, it would make leaving BPO's and such at a POS a less risky proposal, as right now, if your POS goes into reinforce when you have stuff in it, you can't take it out until it's repaired ( modules are offline etc. )

As for the docking bay itself, it would be a limited bay, with X m3 hangar bay for ships and Y M3 for other stuff, possibly with additional room implemented by Silo modules for moongoo and such. As a corp pos, part of this could be allocated to individual players so they have their 'own' little space inside the POS to do their thing.

Anyway.. I'm rambling on.. if you want to hear more about my silly ideas on POS revamps, Mail me ;)


I'd be over the moon ( BlinkBlink to see POS getting a proper rework, but it has been made clear to us that this isn't going to happen any time soon, alas.

If I get the opportunity, I will certainly advocate to CCP as strongly and passionately as I can that even if it takes a whole expansion to do POS "right", then that would be an expansion cycle well-spent. So many things that are broken or imbalanced about EVE come back to POS. Added to that, even the "little guys" would just like a little patch of vacuum to call their own - enabling players to build their own place in space would be an amazing feature for player engagement and retention.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Robert Tables
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#542 - 2013-03-11 22:11:36 UTC
Crossing from Trebor's thread...
Malcanis wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Since you gentlemen have invited yourselves over and gotten comfortable, how about you demonstrate your applied CSMing skills by explaining how you'd go about persuading CCP to increase the differentiation between (or granularity of) player vs. NPC corps?


I'd start by taking a leaf from your book, Trebor, and going back to first principles: what are NPC corps supposed to be for? The current mode of "unelected choice of undifferentiated dumping ground for people who aren't in a player corp" seems to me to be... suboptimal.

I'd like to see players able to choose their own NPC corp, and I'd like to see that choice actually mean something wrt to game mechanics - advantages, disadvantages, bonuses, penalties, drawbacks and opportunities. This NPC corp should be a natural choice for people who like mining, that NPC corp might attract haulers, and so on. As this would encourage people with similar interests to be in contact with each other, they'd be forming communities with a common outlook, and this in turn would also provide a good solute for more player corps to crystallise from


You are so getting my vote...
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#543 - 2013-03-12 12:44:59 UTC


Never voted for CSM before. However, you Sir will be getting both of my votes this year.

You view on so many things (high sec, null and POS’s being the big 3) are so close to mine as to be slightly unnerving.

Best of luck with your candidacy Malcanis, its about time you did this!

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#544 - 2013-03-12 12:55:59 UTC
Anunzi wrote:


Never voted for CSM before. However, you Sir will be getting both of my votes this year.

You view on so many things (high sec, null and POS’s being the big 3) are so close to mine as to be slightly unnerving.

Best of luck with your candidacy Malcanis, its about time you did this!


I always knew that cortex tap I had installed in you when you had your tonsils out would pay for itself. Please continue to think up good ideas so I can download them.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Anunzi
Solace Corp
#545 - 2013-03-12 13:02:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


I always knew that cortex tap I had installed in you when you had your tonsils out would pay for itself. Please continue to think up good ideas so I can download them.



Well that explains the headaches...

"It was the way she said it, Rimmer, to rhyme with scum"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#546 - 2013-03-12 13:16:11 UTC
Sorry bout those, here, let me turn down the gain a little...

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#547 - 2013-03-12 21:47:20 UTC
Haven't chimed in much but I've been keeping an eye on your thread. I'm going to have to make an unreserved declaration of support of you to my corpies in our csm8 thread.

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#548 - 2013-03-12 21:54:45 UTC
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Haven't chimed in much but I've been keeping an eye on your thread. I'm going to have to make an unreserved declaration of support of you to my corpies in our csm8 thread.


That would be very much appreciated, Ms Kinnes.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Asuri Kinnes
Perkone
Caldari State
#549 - 2013-03-12 22:31:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Asuri Kinnes wrote:
Haven't chimed in much but I've been keeping an eye on your thread. I'm going to have to make an unreserved declaration of support of you to my corpies in our csm8 thread.


That would be very much appreciated, Ms Kinnes.

Well, since they never do anything I tell them to, what that amounts to is that I endorse *EVERYONE ELSE*!

(You should be a shoe in!)

Bob is the god of Wormholes.

That's all you need to know.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#550 - 2013-03-13 14:36:32 UTC
Alas, what should be often isn't.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#551 - 2013-03-13 16:17:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
...If I get the opportunity, I will certainly advocate to CCP as strongly and passionately as I can that even if it takes a whole expansion to do POS "right", then that would be an expansion cycle well-spent. So many things that are broken or imbalanced about EVE come back to POS. Added to that, even the "little guys" would just like a little patch of vacuum to call their own - enabling players to build their own place in space would be an amazing feature for player engagement and retention.
That sounds very good.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#552 - 2013-03-13 16:41:32 UTC
I have just read your manifesto for high-sec and must say that it isn't worthy of consideration. Just more nul-centric diatribe of which we have far too much of coming from the CSM as it is. Personally I feel it would be better if the CSM was dropped done to two sets of six members with two members from each half GENUINELY representing the issues and residents from the nul, low, & high-sec communities. Then we might get some fairness and move away from the fallacy that nul-sec is the end game of EVE Online and the best place to be which it isn't and nor should it be so.

EVE Online is a sandbox within which people are free to do what they like and enjoy without having the shallow views of one community forced upon the entire playbase.

I strongly suggest you cut the ****, affix the Goons badge to your lapel and be honest with yourself and to others. You'll feel much better for doing so. Smile
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#553 - 2013-03-13 16:57:41 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:

Malcanis wrote:
Yes I would absolutely like to see a smoother gradient between the restrictions in a 1.0 and those in a 0.1 system. The precise mechanics would be up to CCP to set; the list you quoted is an example of the kind of incremental change, although not necessarily the specifc set that I'd choose.

Operating in a 0.5 vs a 0.9 should matter way more than it does now.
Big smile

As a new player (+5 months), I see a deep chasm around Highsec… the drop of is both sharp and deep, but change that by modifying the risk and things will change… for most in both High and Low Sec.

A miner in 0.5 space is fairly safe… easy money and usually death for the pirate. A miner in 0.4 is nuts. An easy kill for the pirate. Modify the risk/reward for both by blurring the line and the game has gotten a whole lot more dynamic.



There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.

There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#554 - 2013-03-13 17:01:49 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
...I strongly suggest you cut the ****, affix the Goons badge to your lapel and be honest with yourself and to others. You'll feel much better for doing so. Smile
What? I thought he was a TEST stooge… damn I need a player score card.

I don’t agree with Malcanis on some or many issues, and he sometimes falls back on nerf highsec, but I think there is more to him than simple label you wish to attach.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#555 - 2013-03-13 17:05:22 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:

How? Alliances which would move some (or all) their industry into nullsec would be more vulnerable to interference, as opposed to today's situation where it's ... not.
Are you saying this would be bad for Null? If, so ... then would they just ignore this change and continue with Highsec production? Why make the change at all, unless it improves EVE?


Alliances which are good at protecting their productive activities will benefit. Those that aren't will lose out. Where's the problem?


Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec.
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#556 - 2013-03-13 17:08:55 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.

There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees.
I don’t gank. It seem fairly boring to me. I use to mine… now I run missions. Altering the way Concord/Faction Navies respond… down into .3 space, would add to the game.

It shouldn’t be in 0.4 the pirate knows he can always kill a miner… make it dynamic. He will most likely get that untanked retriever, but that Skiff?

In 0.3, four Skiffs and some escorts means any pirate will not only have to fight the escorts, but get it done or flee before the Faction Navy arrives. Dynamic for both pirate and miner.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#557 - 2013-03-13 17:10:05 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
...I strongly suggest you cut the ****, affix the Goons badge to your lapel and be honest with yourself and to others. You'll feel much better for doing so. Smile
What? I thought he was a TEST stooge… damn I need a player score card.

I don’t agree with Malcanis on some or many issues, and he sometimes falls back on nerf highsec, but I think there is more to him than simple label you wish to attach.




Hmm. It's like when you could buy blue or pinkish-red parafin (fuel for lamps,greenhouse heaters etc.) in the UK years ago. Some people would swear the blue or the pink version was better. But in actual fact they were exactly the same bar the different colour. Blink
Bi-Mi Lansatha
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#558 - 2013-03-13 17:10:45 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:

Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec.
Nullsec is broken... it sucks... it is dead. That is why they are in highsec.

It doesn't mean that high and low couldn't use some change.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#559 - 2013-03-13 17:17:36 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
There is no need to change anything regarding CONCORD response times and protection in 0.5 to 1.0 systems inclusive. For those that are into suicide ganking all you do is have an alt,preferably with positive sec status, doing ratting and salvaging and scan the mining ships in the belts. A high proportion of hulks & macks are STILL being flown with little or no tank and can be taken down with a catalyst reasonably easily. Bring your main in and do the gank then get your alt to salvage the wrecks. Simples.

There is absolutely no need to make it easier to suicide gank as even post the mining barge changes which were seen to be making these vessels stronger in most cases they will still be easily ganked even in 0.5 systems. Alternatively go and bumping and demand 'mining license' fees.
I don’t gank. It seem fairly boring to me. I use to mine… now I run missions. Altering the way Concord/Faction Navies respond… down into .3 space, would add to the game.

It shouldn’t be in 0.4 the pirate knows he can always kill a miner… make it dynamic. He will most likely get that untanked retriever, but that Skiff?

In 0.3, four Skiffs and some escorts means any pirate will not only have to fight the escorts, but get it done or flee before the Faction Navy arrives. Dynamic for both pirate and miner.


Aye I also feel low sec needs something done to it to improve it but I'm not sure what or how that should be done. I don't feel it was a good idea to have datacores coming from Factional Warfare and it has indeed turned out to be a bit of a mess. Would have been far better to leave datacores just coming from research agents as before. I hope that once DUST 514 is officially released it can be fully integrated with FW to help make low sec much better.
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#560 - 2013-03-13 17:20:07 UTC
Bi-Mi Lansatha wrote:
Bethan Le Troix wrote:

Even a blind man can see where this is heading. We will end up with one or two alliances in nulsec.
Nullsec is broken... it sucks... it is dead. That is why they are in highsec.

It doesn't mean that high and low couldn't use some change.


Nul sec is for large fleet battles and sovreignty. Working for 'the man' in enlarge allaince territory etc. I'm not sure it's broken.