These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A voice of reason in the Wilderness CSM7 candidate.

First post First post
Author
Gloomy Gus
Deep Core Mining Inc.
#61 - 2012-02-12 16:49:49 UTC
Anastasius Steiner wrote:
trolling for Mittani, to get him in CSM


yes we only troll for good causes at other times we remain silent

"DIE N***ERS1 DIE!!!" - EVENEWS24's Riverini "Gloomy Gus is literally a pocket" - Krixtal Icefluxor (former EVE Online player)

entroncas
Perkone
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-02-13 18:52:56 UTC
Gloomy Gus wrote:
Anastasius Steiner wrote:
trolling for Mittani, to get him in CSM


yes we only troll for good causes at other times we remain silent


Soll is our good cause, but we don't need to troll to defend it.
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#63 - 2012-02-15 07:57:03 UTC
Other have there views, as always.... this does not mean I have to agree with them, But if they are good for the universe then so beit.

I am not a member of a Large gamer society.

NRDS is a way of life, accepting neutrals who wish to progress, who wish to experience 0.0 without extreme ganking.

CCP said before dominion, that it wanted to build a system very much like providence in 0.0, but with no NRDS representatives on the council, it showed that CCP did not have a clue on this style of game play.

Vote for me and NRDS will get a voice
JEFFRAIDER
THIGH GUYS
#64 - 2012-02-15 08:00:13 UTC
Sollana wrote:
The general perception of 0.0 space, is lawless and those with the bigger guns take what they want. In most aspects you would be correct, But there are other options.

My name is Sollana, and I announce myself as a candidate for the upcoming CSM elections.

I live in Providence, and I am an Amarrian fighting for a cause greater than that of war, conquest and riches. I am Fighting for the future of our Empires.

0.0 space does not have to be war ridden and constantly changing, In the past year we have seen the fall of the Northern Coalition, We have seen the mighty powerblocks, stumble and fall. All because greed and power overcame them all.

I propose that not all 0.0 pilots think this way, as part of CVA and its allies, we aim to build something greater, something more permanent something that will live on after we have turned to dust. We build a civilisation, we build infrastructure and we build for the capsuleers who have nothing, but the will to succeed.

But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.

Concord are allowed to have station and gate guns, so why is that not possible within 0.0. This would promote a reason to SBU a system and needing to do it covertly. currently there is no risk to SBUing a system, where the only defense is to use super capitals or grind them once they have been placed.

Having armaments in position on gates and station, can be increase with upgrades in the Ihub and be based on sov level (1 battery per gate per level for instance, double that for the station). this would also add a new dynamic to gate camping reds blockading a system, as currently there is no risk in 0.0.

0.0 space does not allow for coalitions to have fully agreed charters, I propose the idea of presenting a charter. which will have many options and can be voted upon buy directors of many alliances, which will give automatic standings, standing updates (i.e if someone is turned red by 1 alliance./corp, the rest in the charter are notificed automatically of the change).

0.0 is the future of EVE, but not in the way most people see.

If you feel I can represent you, then "like" this post, and If you have questions, Please feel free to post them here.

Update: My stance is 0.0 space should have more defence against the mighty powerblocks.

Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.

Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.


So basically to summarize you're an idiot.

Regards,

Jeff R Aider
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#65 - 2012-02-15 20:36:29 UTC
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#66 - 2012-02-15 20:58:39 UTC
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#67 - 2012-02-15 21:01:18 UTC


k, i see nothing relating specifically to the subject, does this mean you have no specific view?
OrangeRed
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#68 - 2012-02-15 21:24:14 UTC
How would you see gate guns working in tandem with bubbling in gates? Would this not remove all small ships from 0.0? Would this not create a true entry level for new players in that they must now be able to tank gate guns before they can participate in 0.0 pvp? Is this your intent?
SeerinDarkness
Vetus Custodes
Golden Shield
#69 - 2012-02-16 03:29:15 UTC  |  Edited by: SeerinDarkness
no not if they use the already well established pos modules small guns= all ships med guns = cruiser+ Lg guns BS + with apropriate tracking tweaks and as far as i know no location can have more than 6 guns anyway...and if small ships want to operate then they will have to adapt to old school anti-pos gun tactics agian. and on deadly ground Fight!

and really if you want a off te top of my head breakdown on anchored gun battery sizes
7% or less will mount small guns
13% or less will mount large guns
80% or more will mount all medium guns..all for already well established pos gun setup reasoning .
and sig tanked AF's just got a huge boost.
the guns still need ammo perodicly as well perhaps the local object gate/station should have a fuel block bay by type of gate thru the usuall corperate access management tree for gun power.
there should be a slot for local corperation system managent if there is no station
by definition station manager is also system manager already.

why would anyone ever play and believe in dead end stagnation-izm called NBSI ie beyond me....today Providence as a region lives ...does yours?
OrangeRed
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#70 - 2012-02-16 04:32:56 UTC
All that gate guns would accomplish is to deter small gang fights and would make the region no easier to defend against invaders as six guns on a gate will be easily incapped by a large fleet. It's a broken idea.
SeerinDarkness
Vetus Custodes
Golden Shield
#71 - 2012-02-16 13:03:45 UTC  |  Edited by: SeerinDarkness
orangered and the rest of you commenting thatr are all npc corp man up and post with your mains or join a 0.0 alliance and play the real eve before you even start on anything sollana has to say npc knownothings need to go stand in the corner and be quiet because you KNOW NOTHING!
SPOON VICTOR! :]
and grumpy you have a valid point about bounty hunting..that is not a know knothing topic and is actually interetsing..why not in a corp? you at least seem to think a bit.
Trenc Amaroem
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#72 - 2012-02-16 14:07:16 UTC
SeerinDarkness wrote:
orangered and the rest of you commenting thatr are all npc corp man up and post with your mains or join a 0.0 alliance and play the real eve before you even start on anything sollana has to say npc knownothings need to go stand in the corner and be quiet because you KNOW NOTHING!
SPOON VICTOR! :]


Posting with my main. Do we still get to have a conversation about my objections? The idea of adding gate guns to 0.0 is still broken.
SeerinDarkness
Vetus Custodes
Golden Shield
#73 - 2012-02-16 14:49:41 UTC  |  Edited by: SeerinDarkness
sure we can have conversations about it
its a broken mechanic before it even gets off the ground because

1 it is an "Annoyance" from npc space or is it OMgoash what a PITA thats going to be with providence fleets mixed in hmm?
2 its broken broken just because OMgosh its a well thought out idea that is easile implemented with minmal changes from the meddling jovian scientists.
3 Change is BAD! paticularly any kind of change that might be of benifit to those PESKY Providencians! sheesh my cats are better at this chuckles
4 fleets will just kill them off and they will be useless is that not what remote repeprs are for and logistics?
5 All Of The Above.


i think that about covers it

Sollana for CSM!

Having to tank empire! gate guns is already a non hi sec entry level requirement and those do omni-damage. talking about entry level is just mis-direction
Trenc Amaroem
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#74 - 2012-02-16 15:28:21 UTC
SeerinDarkness wrote:
sure we can have conversations about it
its a broken mechanic before it even gets off the ground because

1 it is an "Annoyance" from npc space or is it OMgoash what a PITA thats going to be with providence fleets mixed in hmm?
2 its broken broken just because OMgosh its a well thought out idea that is easile implemented with minmal changes from the meddling jovian scientists.
3 Change is BAD! paticularly any kind of change that might be of benifit to those PESKY Providencians! sheesh my cats are better at this chuckles
4 fleets will just kill them off and they will be useless is that not what remote repeprs are for and logistics?
5 All Of The Above.


i think that about covers it

Sollana for CSM!

Having to tank empire! gate guns is already a non hi sec entry level requirement and those do omni-damage. talking about entry level is just mis-direction

I'm assuming you want to set it up so that it aggros based on the sov holders standings so not the same as npc null. My point is that it is a minor annoyance to a gang with logistics and no fast tackle but ruins the game for frigates in roaming gangs.
SeerinDarkness
Vetus Custodes
Golden Shield
#75 - 2012-02-16 15:47:14 UTC  |  Edited by: SeerinDarkness
there would be no point to NOT set it up hooked into sov holders standings, and i would object to having some kind of special gun modules made over using standard pos gun battery modules and codeing for a fuel bay on 0.0gates and outposts with fuel block useage for power by type of gate or outpost.
as for your frigate roaming gang objection the last 100 man AF fleet i saw in providence just after the AF changes got their butts handed to them in ywso by a batleship fleet i think it was or maby hac's
roaming fleets i see daily are cruiser sized targets and above in the main. sometimes frigs but not often.

i still dont see any real obstical to the idea....
but wait there is something...this would iterrupt allkinds of current stupidity, paticularly alt scout jumps in dumps probes gets 100% warp to lock in 5 seconds annnnnnd BLAMMM he's now toast while the fleet warps off instead of being around to constinue his perfidy! instead now has to get someplace off grid before probing.....this is the core of your objections , cotis inttruptus solois.
Trenc Amaroem
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#76 - 2012-02-16 16:33:04 UTC
Here is my specific objection so that you can stop getting sidetracked on things that I am not talking about: I enjoy flying in frigate roams with new players. Adding gate guns to a region and anchoring a few bubbles around each gate would mean that I would lose 1 - 2 rifters to gate guns as they burned out of bubbles each jump. That is what I believe is broken.
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#77 - 2012-02-16 22:43:53 UTC
OrangeRed wrote:
How would you see gate guns working in tandem with bubbling in gates? Would this not remove all small ships from 0.0? Would this not create a true entry level for new players in that they must now be able to tank gate guns before they can participate in 0.0 pvp? Is this your intent?


Gate guns was just spit balling, Gate guns I can see as an Issue and a detriment to gate camps.

Stations and Pos's being a harder nut to crack with an extensive and effect arsenal, are not. And in my opinion be a benefit to the game.
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2012-02-16 22:47:35 UTC
Trenc Amaroem wrote:
Here is my specific objection so that you can stop getting sidetracked on things that I am not talking about: I enjoy flying in frigate roams with new players. Adding gate guns to a region and anchoring a few bubbles around each gate would mean that I would lose 1 - 2 rifters to gate guns as they burned out of bubbles each jump. That is what I believe is broken.


Please accept an apology from Seer, his brain is broken and bitter .

With the lock times of pos modules as a base line for proposed gate/station guns, frigates would have no issue escaping unharmed.

This could be infact a reason to use small fast movers, rather than slow bulky battleships. Bring back the nano age ??
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2012-02-16 22:48:48 UTC
OrangeRed wrote:
All that gate guns would accomplish is to deter small gang fights and would make the region no easier to defend against invaders as six guns on a gate will be easily incapped by a large fleet. It's a broken idea.


I agree all initial Ideas tend to seem broken, but with a sound minded CSM working with CCP, a via method of increasing system defences can be thought through.
Saracha
#80 - 2012-02-16 23:12:00 UTC
Er I have a have a few issues that if you could address it be great.

Sollana wrote:

But Civilisation is not perfect, currently EVE does not allow us to protect our homes, unless we use ships?? Although this can produce some great fights, the old system before Dominion gave the defenders a chance, and I propose that as part of Sovereignty upgrades Station and Gate defenses should be onlined.


Could you clarify this for me? It seems like you want to be able to just win fights without showing up for them? And what are you talking about wen you reference Dominion, "Dominion gave defenders a chance"? In sov warfare the greatest power is in the hands of the defenders.

Sollana wrote:

Having armaments in position on gates and station, can be increase with upgrades in the Ihub and be based on sov level (1 battery per gate per level for instance, double that for the station). this would also add a new dynamic to gate camping reds blockading a system, as currently there is no risk in 0.0.


So let me get this straight, your solution to add risk to 0.0 is to add station and gate guns? There is a little problem with this in that it would discourage small gang warfare. Currently a large part of the risk of 0.0 is the small fast roaming gangs. These gangs frequently engage on either gates or stations. Adding guns would just hinder this.


Sollana wrote:


Another example of my issues is Time Dialation. although this is a great Idea, why is TD taken from populated systems.

Last night a section of Providence was down to 10% TD, all because of a battle in Branch, There are issues here, especially when you can travel through delve, catch and cure aand have completely empty constellations.


You appear to be dangerously misinformed. TiDi operates on a node basis, these nodes tend to be clustered, typically in the same constellation, if there was TiDi in providence it is because someone in providence caused it. The reasons for this are technical, Tidi would not function on a per system basis.