These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Simo for CSM.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha
Vigilante Carebears
#41 - 2013-03-16 19:56:09 UTC
"Maybe it's best if you go back to pretending you dont have opinions of your own."

It is best that you divert your energies to improving gameplay for EvE instead of wasting your time slandering another player.

Your are not special. Perform your job and work for the players. Propositioning to improve EvE is why you are on CSM, that is your job, and that is all that needs to be heard from you.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2013-03-17 11:33:30 UTC
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
Suicide ganking in high sec.

Suicide ganking is, and always has been, a predominent issue with industrialist. Ganking for profit is still a method of money making that encourages a subgroup of players to wage open war on mining ops in high sec, while damaging the economy and driving miners away from systems and away from mining.

Ganking an exumer and having an alternate account that loots and salvages the wreck creates an oppertunity to make high sec ganking a profitable and dominant form of exploitation. Eliminating the profit margin, by making illegal combat non profitable would remove the insentive for suicide ganking in high sec. By making it impossible to loot or salvage wrecks in high security space that have been illegally destroyed would limit ganking further into an even smaller subgroup that will perform ganking for no other reason but entertainment.

Performing illegal attacks in high sec space should not have a dollar sign attacted to it.

By fixing this, it would encourage more players to use mining to accrue the isk they need for other profitable ventures, such as exploring and delving into lower security space, and would provide a more secure enviroment for miners to operate under, while enriching the economy further.

You can still get ganked, but they would be doing it, while losing their isk, and gaining nothing in return with the exception of bounties being collected, which is an acceptable form of law enforcement. This, of course, would not apply to low or null sec operations.

Please leave and stop trying to ruin our game. Just get out.
Simokon
The Steelborn
#43 - 2013-03-22 07:22:03 UTC
Your name is to similar to mine I now dislike you!Lol
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha
Vigilante Carebears
#44 - 2013-03-25 03:41:50 UTC
Bump. Big smile
Ile Disco
The Tax Men
#45 - 2013-03-25 12:12:12 UTC
Why do think that people who use piracy as a valid form of isk generation in hi-sec shouldn't be rewarded for their efforts?

Why do you think industrialists in hi-sec should be immune from forms of economic warfare?

I sincerly hope you get no where near the CSM, people like you will ruin this game.
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha
Vigilante Carebears
#46 - 2013-03-26 02:47:53 UTC
I never said Piracy is not a valid form of isk generation, you implied that. I don't view ganking, which is totally different, as a valid form of isk generation. Illegal high sec actions should not have a dollar value attached to it.

I never said they should be immune to ganking either, once again, you implied that. Ganking should be allowed, with no monetary gain attached to it.

I sincerely hope I can count on your vote this election season.

Fly Safe.
Borlag Crendraven
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-03-26 08:11:02 UTC
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
Also, to clarify on ideas concerning WH space and to explain what I would propose.

1.) Expansion would include players being capable of mapping wormhole space, to make it easier for explorers to use wormholes to travel all over new eden, this would require a new type of WH program for EvE.


Every single wormhole corp worth a damn is already doing this for themselves. Please at least try to investigate further into things before spouting such nonsense.

Quote:
2.) Players would be able to establish space stations without sovreighty. And also be able to construct stargates that could link with other WH systems. The process and time it would take would be extensive, most likely requiring weeks and a great deal of player effort to make it possible, the gates would be destroyable.


And why on earth would we want to have that? Do you have the slightest idea what would happen if we would make this? I'll give you a hint, it involves bears like you, and a whole bunch of guys like me, followed by you finding yourself back in high sec in your meclone. This would make evictions laughably easy and as such it shows that you've clearly not thought things through at all.

Quote:
3.) Markets would be able to be constructed, and Ice/fuel would be able to be exchange and refined and used in WH space, and transfered through stargates. The idea of adding a new type of, very limited, ice that is able to be discovered through exploration would also be an interesting idea, but would only provide so much.


The game needs more dependencies between the different areas of the game, not less. By introducing ice to wormhole space, you're taking away one of the biggest reasons why us wormhole dwellers even bother with high sec, in short, your suggestion would go a long way into making us completely self sufficient.

Quote:
4.) The WH themselves, and the entrance into them from foreigners change yes, but the idea I wanted to propose would make it possible (through weeks of building a stargate in open space) it would be possible for alliances to link WH space together.
Example: 2 C4, 6 C5, and 3 C6 and they can connect their own WHs with gates to be mobile within their own space, and if they connect another WH with static high, they can get fuel whenever they need, everytime.


We can already do that, ever heard of rolling? Again, what this would accomplish is the big wormhole corps and alliances driving out literally all carebears like you out of w-space, as well as the smaller corps that have yet to grow big. In otherwords, it would create yet another part of space where the biggest and baddest rules it all, and in time it would most likely lead into yet another space controlled by another big blue donut.

Wormhole space is fine as it is, we don't need any radical changes like what you are suggesting to break it.
Ile Disco
The Tax Men
#48 - 2013-03-26 10:22:40 UTC
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
I never said Piracy is not a valid form of isk generation, you implied that. I don't view ganking, which is totally different, as a valid form of isk generation. Illegal high sec actions should not have a dollar value attached to it.

I never said they should be immune to ganking either, once again, you implied that. Ganking should be allowed, with no monetary gain attached to it.

I sincerely hope I can count on your vote this election season.

Fly Safe.


Attacking a freighter in hi-sec is an illegal action (as the ships involved in the ganking are then destroyed by concord), this is an isk generation method for the pirates as they then scoop the loot for re-sale. You imply that they should not be able to carry out an illegal act for monetary gain.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#49 - 2013-03-26 11:42:16 UTC
Borlag Crendraven wrote:


We can already do that, ever heard of rolling? Again, what this would accomplish is the big wormhole corps and alliances driving out literally all carebears like you out of w-space, as well as the smaller corps that have yet to grow big. In otherwords, it would create yet another part of space where the biggest and baddest rules it all, and in time it would most likely lead into yet another space controlled by another big blue donut.

Wormhole space is fine as it is, we don't need any radical changes like what you are suggesting to break it.


Well said. it is EXTREMELY important that we don't let this happen. I'd rather see nothing done for W-space at all than risk this happening.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha
Vigilante Carebears
#50 - 2013-03-26 16:00:32 UTC
Apparently, it has been poorly understood, that when I said I will represent the players interests and not my own, that puts and personal views or agendas I have into the toilet.

Many Ideas will be present by players to the CSM, in which turn there will be oppertunies for all, to vote on them. If they are found lacking in support, the idea will not be presented to CCP.

This cannot be made anymore clear. If you think CSM has any authority, then it is being misused and abused in the first place. Their job is to represent what the players feel is most relevant and would be the best improvement for EvE.
Lyth Terrask
Miner Assistance Society
#51 - 2013-03-26 17:30:07 UTC
As far as I can tell, all this guy does, in game, is afk-mine/bot with several accounts, and spam Nakugard local with either miner fleet requests or whine about 'trolls'.

Typically, by copying and pasting the same tired local spam.

Over and over again.

A vote for this guy would be a vote against the ideals of the New Order, against EVE being an interactive game, and a vote against miners having anything more than a "click and alt-tab" game experience.

I am biased, generally. I'll admit that. The only thing this guy has done for others, as far as I can tell, is provide a bit of mining bonuses while he's doing his thing.
Vlish
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#52 - 2013-03-27 01:22:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Vlish
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
Allow me to first clarify, that CSM (if it is unclear as to their function) does not make decisions in game development, they are merely a sphere of influence that respesents the voices of the community within EvE. I, myself, have no say other then to present the ideas and suggestions of EvE players relating to what they would like to see happen in their community and respected places within the game. While I may propose a concept to be changed in the game, it has no weight beyond what the players believe would be best. In other words, I would represent the players. My own opinion and beliefs would not matter, as it is up to the majority to decide what changes would be best to implement, and it is only my place to mediate between the players and CCP. My personal opinions do not matter as a CSM rep, it would only be the opinion of the players that I would represent.


Ok, let's put this to the test. Let's vote on if he should be ganked, all those in favor say 'aye' and all those who are not, say 'no.'
And remember Simo-Hayja, if there's a good amount of people in favor, you have to go through with being ganked, even if you don't like it. If a lot of people are in favor, you'd have to represent them and your opinions don't matter as you stated, only the players.

And by the way, I do not support this candidate since he doesn't really seem to know what he's talking about, and probably since he just wants a free trip to Iceland in the first place.
Merlin Sotken
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2013-03-27 04:09:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Merlin Sotken
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
"So you are running on the blank canvas ticket?"

I have already represented what I am running on. Please reread the thread if you did not understand, or lack the adequet skill level in the english language, to comprehend the text I have posted.


You sir are a joke. You expect people to have enough trust in you to vote for you, yet you speak down to anyone you get the chance to. Keep talking down to people buddy, I heard thats the way to get elected..........



Aye to the ganking.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#54 - 2013-03-27 07:57:19 UTC
Aye
Phlum Ary
Spreadsheet Heretics
#55 - 2013-03-27 16:28:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Phlum Ary
Quote:
cause high security space to be nearly indistinguishable from null.

The two already are indistinguishable for the most part, this is why null is broken. Just try joining a big ass alliance and you would figure that out.

Quote:
It is best that you divert your energies to improving gameplay for EvE instead of wasting your time slandering another player.

Umm, this is EVE, what do you expect?

-so you don't like ganking, would you prefer that you were bumped?
Veronica Vogel
Doomheim
#56 - 2013-03-27 19:59:09 UTC
And he also wants Nakugard to be completely safe to where he can't get ganked or bumped. He mines there, and this character, is in an orca with T2 rigs, and T2 mods. So, an orca costs around 700mil plus about 500mil or more on the fit, and I'm sure he's got some good implants in as well. Also, what he really wants is no risk and all reward.

And aye to the ganking as well.
Pound Cakeee
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2013-03-28 17:35:14 UTC
Born and raised in Florida and in the Army myself(2.5 Years in the Army, Spc. with the 1/11 ACR going EOD...) Can you present an ERB (PII nullified of course)

Thanks
- Pound
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha
Vigilante Carebears
#58 - 2013-03-29 03:11:06 UTC
Yes, I have my ERB on file and could pull it up if neccesary.
Leo Zetkin
Space Barracudas
#59 - 2013-03-31 01:41:13 UTC
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
Suicide ganking in high sec.

Suicide ganking is, and always has been, a predominent issue with industrialist. Ganking for profit is still a method of money making that encourages a subgroup of players to wage open war on mining ops in high sec, while damaging the economy and driving miners away from systems and away from mining.

Ganking an exumer and having an alternate account that loots and salvages the wreck creates an oppertunity to make high sec ganking a profitable and dominant form of exploitation. Eliminating the profit margin, by making illegal combat non profitable would remove the insentive for suicide ganking in high sec. By making it impossible to loot or salvage wrecks in high security space that have been illegally destroyed would limit ganking further into an even smaller subgroup that will perform ganking for no other reason but entertainment.

Performing illegal attacks in high sec space should not have a dollar sign attacted to it.

By fixing this, it would encourage more players to use mining to accrue the isk they need for other profitable ventures, such as exploring and delving into lower security space, and would provide a more secure enviroment for miners to operate under, while enriching the economy further.

You can still get ganked, but they would be doing it, while losing their isk, and gaining nothing in return with the exception of bounties being collected, which is an acceptable form of law enforcement. This, of course, would not apply to low or null sec operations.


Thanks for your candidacy. At least one respectable candidate. Someone who will represent the mass of eve players, not only the few but well organized big alliances. I will vote for you exactly for what you've said about suicide ganking. Just ignore those New Order guys and friends in here. They say you will ruin the game... you will only ruin their game probably. So what? This is not their game. Thumbs Up!
madpsychc0killer
Solutis in Sanguis
#60 - 2013-03-31 08:54:27 UTC
Leo Zetkin wrote:
Grand Admiral Simo-Hayha wrote:
Suicide ganking in high sec.

Suicide ganking is, and always has been, a predominent issue with industrialist. Ganking for profit is still a method of money making that encourages a subgroup of players to wage open war on mining ops in high sec, while damaging the economy and driving miners away from systems and away from mining.

Ganking an exumer and having an alternate account that loots and salvages the wreck creates an oppertunity to make high sec ganking a profitable and dominant form of exploitation. Eliminating the profit margin, by making illegal combat non profitable would remove the insentive for suicide ganking in high sec. By making it impossible to loot or salvage wrecks in high security space that have been illegally destroyed would limit ganking further into an even smaller subgroup that will perform ganking for no other reason but entertainment.

Performing illegal attacks in high sec space should not have a dollar sign attacted to it.

By fixing this, it would encourage more players to use mining to accrue the isk they need for other profitable ventures, such as exploring and delving into lower security space, and would provide a more secure enviroment for miners to operate under, while enriching the economy further.

You can still get ganked, but they would be doing it, while losing their isk, and gaining nothing in return with the exception of bounties being collected, which is an acceptable form of law enforcement. This, of course, would not apply to low or null sec operations.


Thanks for your candidacy. At least one respectable candidate. Someone who will represent the mass of eve players, not only the few but well organized big alliances. I will vote for you exactly for what you've said about suicide ganking. Just ignore those New Order guys and friends in here. They say you will ruin the game... you will only ruin their game probably. So what? This is not their game. Thumbs Up!




If he gets in, I'm holding you personally responsible. Pirate

Eve is a harsh place, you can't have your cake and eat it.

Want to mission in your 3 billion loot pinata? there should be a risk involved.
Want to haul billions worth of materials, mods and ships through hi-sec, you should not be able to do this afk and without help.

Hi-sec is the easiest form of Natural Selection, for only the really dumb will fail and not learn.

But even they need to be given the chance to improve, the already few precautions required will keep you safe, the game does not need the few tactics left in Hi-Sec removed to try and teach these lessons. You want to be taught a lesson, don't you? And also why should the teachers not be paid for their efforts.