These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Office of the Chairman: A ~chill place~ for constituent issues

First post
Author
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#361 - 2011-12-08 15:05:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Which is why I advocate changing the Titan jump bridge mechanism such that the Titan jumps to the cyno and takes any ships within, say, 5000m with it. Remote DD was ridiculously OP because it allowed the Titan to have a massive effect on the battlefield without committing anything except a disposable cyno ship, and remote bridging is OP in exactly the same way.


Only if it works with all ships, friend or foe.

*warps supercap into middle of enemy fleet*
*opens bridge*
*sucks enemy fleet to bubbled cynogen on friendly deathstar*

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#362 - 2011-12-08 18:21:29 UTC
Arkanon Nerevar wrote:

3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null.


These are ****** corps, but it should be their choice to be ****** corps and your choice to join said ****** corps if you want to.
Krios Ahzek
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#363 - 2011-12-08 21:12:19 UTC
Yeep wrote:
Arkanon Nerevar wrote:

3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null.


These are ****** corps, but it should be their choice to be ****** corps and your choice to join said ****** corps if you want to.


I replaced every ****** in your post with ''smurf'' and it still didn't even make smurfing sense.

 Though All Men Do Despise Us

Arkanon Nerevar
UK Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#364 - 2011-12-08 22:06:12 UTC
Yeep wrote:
[quote=Arkanon Nerevar]
These are ****** corps, but it should be their choice to be ****** corps and your choice to join said ****** corps if you want to.


Very eloquantly put, i must say

Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter

Uma Uma
Furnace
Thermodynamics
#365 - 2011-12-11 11:12:42 UTC
Post-Crucible, what sucking chest wounds are you still trying to bandage? You'll say Sov, what else? Did the super nerf go far enough for you?
Derkata
#366 - 2011-12-12 05:49:54 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Tbh I'm not convinced that's really the way to go. If any ship should do the whole jump to cyno to deliver fleet maneuvers, it would be the mothership, and for that to happen pilots would have to dock with it prior to jumping.

Actually, I just had an idea. Why not make it so you need two titans to initiate bridging? Source and destination titan. It can be argued that everything else which is bridging other ships than themselves needs a source and destination structure, why not titans. Bridging equipment is huge and requires a lot of fuel and power etc and all that jazz. That way you make it more dangerous to hotdrop something, and you avoid the problem where CCP would invariably just suck up everything in a radius of 5000m, including POS structures or the POS itself, and move it to the cyno system, along with AFK people. Otherwise you'd have a hell of a time taking a titan into POSes or station undocks and bridge AFK people into hostile space and leave them there just because you can.

Tbh I think the whole movement possibilities of fleets is less a problem the whole SOV system is, and I'd much rather CCP put effort into making that better, more dynamic and actually strategic with the possibility of feints and surprise attacks etc.



Fleet movement is an issue because of the SOV. Fix the SOV system and that movement wont be an issue. If they cant fix the system though, limiting movement would be a nice bandage for the gunshot that is the SOV system.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#367 - 2011-12-12 10:24:39 UTC
Derkata wrote:
Fleet movement is an issue because of the SOV. Fix the SOV system and that movement wont be an issue.

Huh? Elucidate.
Derkata wrote:
If they cant fix the system though, limiting movement would be a nice bandage for the gunshot that is the SOV system.

Again, huh?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

Derkata
#368 - 2011-12-13 04:43:04 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Derkata wrote:
Fleet movement is an issue because of the SOV. Fix the SOV system and that movement wont be an issue.

Huh? Elucidate.
Derkata wrote:
If they cant fix the system though, limiting movement would be a nice bandage for the gunshot that is the SOV system.

Again, huh?


Basically the only reason projection of power is an issue right now is because of the sov mechanics. The sov mechanics are the issue, but by making titan bridges shorter distance or some other caveat you can bandaid the issue until an appropriate solution and overhaul can be implemented.

It sounds right in my head.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#369 - 2011-12-13 09:17:15 UTC
How would shorter titan bridges bandaid in any way, shape or form over the shittastic SOV mechanics?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat

The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#370 - 2011-12-13 16:37:49 UTC
Wolodymyr wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Gunmining in the drone regions is entirely the reason why mining has been devalued as a profession/

What about botting? (Either drone ratting bots, or regular mining bots) Fixing the drone rats would definitely help, but do you think that being more aggressive with bots would help miners more?


I think that there needs to be more emphasis from CCP on policing botting, yes. This is not a unique or controversial position.

~hi~

The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#371 - 2011-12-13 16:42:19 UTC
Blake Zacary wrote:
My question is mainly about blobs.... The game seems to be heading in a direction again where we have no counter at all to massive blobs.With Time Dilation and the way sov works it will end up like it did a little while back,where null eventually settles down and becomes very static and boring with space being held for years by Alliances with no real way to challenge their sov.

Personally I would love the end game to be epic.Where skills, imagination and tactics play a more important role than having loads of characters with average skills who only need to press F1 when told to do so.Imagine if you can wars,instead of being based on single focal points at a time are run over massive battle lines.Where you have both large battles and small battles raging along the 'battle front'.Using different tactics like guerrilla warfare, interception of enemy supply lines,disrupting the industrial side of the enemy(moons,pi) etc,etc.The potential list is endless and would open up some epic gameplay.

Now as I said the game is getting pushed towards massive blobs again and the old 'bring more' or 'you need more friends' isn't a valid argument to let the game go this way.Is the CSM really pushing for null to be this way or are positive steps being looked at to improve gameplay in null so it encourages more people to partake in it and lets all Alliances and Coalitions have a chance to play a role without having to piggy back onto a large blob just to play.


This would be the CSM's 'Farms and Fields' initiative, to provide new small targets in 0.0 for non-bloc entities to target and interfere with; POCOs, for example, or moving moon harvesting arrays outside of POS shields so they can be disabled by small gangs, etc.

Your post is somewhat confused because it conflates two separate complaints - 'blobs' in fights, and 'something for smaller entities to do outside of station timer battles'.

~hi~

The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#372 - 2011-12-13 16:45:07 UTC
Dunbar Hulan wrote:
Can you outline why you would be worth voting for in the next election ? Outline what you feel you have achieved for the EVE community in your role as a CSM.
And as a follow up, can you outline what your thoughts are on the future role of Null sec and in particular, NPC null (Where I live.)


This isn't election season. I'm not running a campaign in this thread, I'm answering constituent issues. Make up your own mind.

There's already a ton of posts itt about nullsec and it's role. Specifically re: NPC nullsec, I'd like to see disableable station services on NPC null stations that regenerate fairly rapidly (within a day or two) if not repped by a player. Right now there's a major strategic imbalance between NPC nullsec, particularly in 'pocket NPC space' compared to conquerable null.

~hi~

The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#373 - 2011-12-13 16:48:12 UTC
Arkanon Nerevar wrote:
Dear Mittens, a few questions regarding Null life in general, as always i leave it to you to answer as you see fit.

1.On a number of occasions when talking with friends/aqquaintences about playing eve, i pitch the sandbox pvp as the main point (null-sec) to subscribing, this leads to the claims that eve endgame is controlled by giant douchebag conglomarats, that are united by the fact that they are all by nature, complete and utter ass-holes, im never quite sure what to say to that, so i ask the (in)famous Mittani for guidance.


That's a selling point. We ran our most successful newbie drive ever based on the fact that in EVE, and only in EVE, can you be complete and utter assholes to other players.

Quote:
2.Null corps have in general a VERY bad rap when it comes to a non multi-year vet applying, storys are abound of endless scams and dashed hopes, do you belive this rap is justified, that it is truly hard to "break into" Null and what impact it has on the state of Null life today.


Maybe among terrified hisec mission runners or conspiracy theorists. Most blocs take anyone with more than 5m sp as long as they can fly the right ships in fleet. Most null blocs don't scam.

Quote:
3.Null corps have (il admit rather old) rap for being highly dominering, most people do understand the concept of following the chain of command but there are limits to this (ultimately fictional) concept, Example: a player wishes to become a soldier in a null corp to participate in null battles, he will follow his superiors orders and fly the appropriate ship/fit/broad skill plan, but say he is told he must dedicate his skill training to some hyper specific plan for the next 6 months to fulfill the a extremely specific role as dictated to him with no deviance, do you support this philosophy and belive it is affecting the desire for people to plunge into Null.


Doesn't matter to me: I can't control or decide what random corps do or do not do in null. Most organizations don't micromanage like that as it's dumb.

~hi~

The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#374 - 2011-12-13 16:50:26 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
Uma Uma wrote:
Post-Crucible, what sucking chest wounds are you still trying to bandage? You'll say Sov, what else? Did the super nerf go far enough for you?


Titan tracking is still ludicrously OP, as I've said for a while. They can smack subcaps out of the sky with alaming impunity, as anyone who's fought a Titan blob recently will know.

Supercarriers seem better, though I'd like to see an outpost upgrade added that would allow them to dock like a regular ship, but only in outposts with the additional hangar, not NPC space.

Most of the sucking chest wounds are being addressed in Crucible. We're mostly at the 'fix neglected features' zone now - farms and fields, risk/reward balance, faction warfare tweaks, etc.

~hi~

Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#375 - 2011-12-13 17:53:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Salpun
Thanks for the updates and this thread should have been started months agoBig smile

If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.

Gilbaron
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#376 - 2011-12-13 20:48:55 UTC
so, did you like what you saw at the csm december summit ?
Dunbar Hulan
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#377 - 2011-12-13 21:16:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dunbar Hulan
The Mittani wrote:
Dunbar Hulan wrote:
Can you outline why you would be worth voting for in the next election ? Outline what you feel you have achieved for the EVE community in your role as a CSM.
And as a follow up, can you outline what your thoughts are on the future role of Null sec and in particular, NPC null (Where I live.)


This isn't election season. I'm not running a campaign in this thread, I'm answering constituent issues. Make up your own mind.

There's already a ton of posts itt about nullsec and it's role. Specifically re: NPC nullsec, I'd like to see disableable station services on NPC null stations that regenerate fairly rapidly (within a day or two) if not repped by a player. Right now there's a major strategic imbalance between NPC nullsec, particularly in 'pocket NPC space' compared to conquerable null.



Thanks for the response, you have helped to make my mind up.

 ** Manchester United - Paul Scholes= Genius**

Sara XIII
The Carnifex Corp
#378 - 2011-12-13 22:03:24 UTC
What's a good first step a new player can take to break up/destroy a big corporation or alliance?

Keep up the good work!
Between Ignorance and Wisdom
Camios
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#379 - 2011-12-13 22:15:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Camios
A question for the chairman about sov warfare.

For some people the holy grail of game design for sov warfare would be a system that encourages both military entities to split their forces over many objectives. This would mean that each one of current huge fights would be replaced by a number of concurrent, smaller fights that can be handled more fluidly by our hardware, are more interesting (because )and are more fun.

In my opinion this goal should not be unreachable since, actually, wars in history have always been about striking in different places at the same time, usually along a wide frontline; in real life it does not sound so awkward to strike at the same time and fight over many objectives. A good game designer should be able to understand if, why, and how much EVE fails at replicating the conditions for these "distributed" fights to happen.

In conclusion, is CCP is researching along these lines for the future of sov warfare, and is CSM interested in this perspective?

P.S.: as a captatio benevolentiae (but also because it's due), I would like to say: good job CSM!
J Kunjeh
#380 - 2011-12-16 05:35:13 UTC
Oh Mittens, you're such a pretentious douchebag. But I must say, this is a mighty fine thread you've created here. Now if only the rest of the CSM weren't so damn lazy and would do at least half of the outreach their Chairman does...

I also must say, as much of a douche as you are, you've been a rather effective Chairman and I'm happy to hear you'll be running again for CSM7.

"The world as we know it came about through an anomaly (anomou)" (The Gospel of Philip, 1-5)