These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Meissa Anunthiel for CSM 7 - (longest CSM member to date, for a reason)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Yugo Reventlov
Keeping Up Appearances
#101 - 2012-02-27 23:18:11 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:

And alcohol resistance IV after downing half a dozen Chimay Bleue like I did yesterday. At least I wasn't hungry after that (those who know the beer will understand)


Excellent choice :)
Jozzie
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#102 - 2012-02-29 12:07:10 UTC
You got my vote. Keep up the good work. o7
Raif Severance
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
#103 - 2012-02-29 16:46:42 UTC
You got my vote m8!
Mesh Marillion
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
#104 - 2012-03-02 01:22:14 UTC
Its rare to meet people like Meissa that are not only very competent but also very friendly. I hope you get the chance to have another successful period in the CSM.
Jonathan Ferguson
JC Ferguson and Son Ltd
Ferguson Alliance
#105 - 2012-03-02 03:29:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonathan Ferguson
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
8. I agree it's an issue, the way I proposed it be changed is to make the clone cost be a rent instead of a buy, the base price of which is the current value of a clone divided by its average "life expectancy". So it wouldn't be a cost on podding, yet the cost should still increase over time as you get more skills.


Meissa comes off as very sensible when he's campaigning but then comes off as arrogant and aloof once he gets elected.

Anyway, clones should be insurable. That would solve the problem so that vets who PVP regularly will have a cheaper option while more risk averse vets who hardly ever PVP will still pay a significant cost for their hundreds of millions of sp.
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#106 - 2012-03-02 12:03:16 UTC
Jonathan Ferguson wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
8. I agree it's an issue, the way I proposed it be changed is to make the clone cost be a rent instead of a buy, the base price of which is the current value of a clone divided by its average "life expectancy". So it wouldn't be a cost on podding, yet the cost should still increase over time as you get more skills.


Meissa comes off as very sensible when he's campaigning but then comes off as arrogant and aloof once he gets elected.

Anyway, clones should be insurable. That would solve the problem so that vets who PVP regularly will have a cheaper option while more risk averse vets who hardly ever PVP will still pay a significant cost for their hundreds of millions of sp.


I beg to differ on the arrogance. I'm elected to defend and promote ideas and objectives, and that's what I do. I will defend any idea I hold true tooth and nails, but will also never shy away from admitting I am wrong when I am, or admit I don't know when I don't. Neither do I disparage opposing ideas as invalid/stupid because I happen to disagree with them, but will instead explain why I disagree.
That can be perceived as arrogance, but it's not, it's me doing what I'm elected to do.

Either way, onto your question/comment.
Clones are currently one of the big money sinks in Eve, makin things cheaper than they are now would be detrimental, yet preventing vets from flying small ships is detrimental too. insuring clones would decrease the sink, which is not really a good thing.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Morium Blue
Fairlight Corp
Rooks and Kings
#107 - 2012-03-02 15:21:08 UTC

Lost In Eve podcast
Franklin D Roosevelt
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2012-03-02 20:29:43 UTC
I can't vote for men that play female eve dudes sorry :(
frk Kaat
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2012-03-03 02:00:32 UTC
+1 from me!

Doing a great job, m8! Keep it up.
Bemir
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2012-03-03 17:26:28 UTC
some people argue that GCC is too long and as such is a deterrant to casual PvP
whats your opinon on this?
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#111 - 2012-03-03 22:37:16 UTC
Support, for a better Eve for everyone.
Batharis
Doomheim
#112 - 2012-03-04 21:11:47 UTC
Morium Blue wrote:

Lost In Eve podcast


good stuff
Tehg Rhind
Atlantic Innovations
#113 - 2012-03-04 21:40:49 UTC
Meissa, I heard your debate/interview on LIE today. First off I just wanted to share my sympathy with you having to debate Riverini. No one should have to be exposed to that.

But aside from that, I wanted to make a comment about two things you said.

1) Increasing the number of copy slots in high sec to improve access to invention BPCs. There are three major problems with this. The first is that there are already relatively simple routes to get BPCs for invention even without a POS. You could buy them from a POS owner that grinds out BPCs on the side, or you could use the 15-18 day wait stations that exist in highsec and create copies with your alts (will make ~300 copies a month per character.)

The second issue is that you are equating station copy slots with POS copy slots, saying that they should be equally accessible. However you are ignoring the fact that POS copy slots require a significant monthly fuel cost to maintain. By putting station copy slots on an equivalent footing (in terms of speed) with POS slots you are invalidating POS copy slots as a profitable avenue, since they will be competing wth an alternative that has zero maintenance.

This is particularly problematic when you look at copying of higher value non-invention BPOs like Maelstroms or Capital Components etc etc. By opening up a higher volume of BPC flow from stations you will absolutely hammer the profitability of copying these in POS's, to the point that there will be no justifiable reason to do so from within POS's.

Basically the advantages you get from copying in POS's is offset by the increased maintenance cost of fueling the POS.

The third issue, and arguably the most problematic, is that while this would increase the flow of BPCs for invention you would still have a supply chokepoint in datacores. This change would skyrocket the price of datacores as more demand for them built up due to the excess supply of BPCs. Now, as someone who generates quite a lot of datdacores this would be pretty cool, but as an inventor I think that this would ultimately increase the costs of invented items substantially (as the BPC cost is relatively negligible in module items.)


2) I have always had concerns about any talk about increasing industry in Null Sec by making it inherently more profitable (say through improved invention chances.) I do believe it should be more accessible (more slots more slots more slots!), but doing things that create an inherent price advantage of operating in null sec will only serve to create Null Sec manufacturing cartels that will severely crush high sec manufacturing.

This is because there is negligible risk involved in manufacturing or inventing in null sec. You have jump freighters that will quickly and safely deliver the materials/products between the high/nullsec. The price of fuel will be negligible when compared to the price of items transfered (how many billions in modules or T2 BPCs can you deliver in a jump freighter.)

Basically there is no real barrier between the null sec manufacturing centers and the high sec markets beyond membership in the Alliances that have stations. So if there is a material bonus given to one set of manufacturers they will be able to price all of the other manufacturers out of the market completely. It's like Production Efficiency 5, you simply don't manufacture without it. This would set the stage for the major Null Sec alliances to completely dominate the high sec industrialists.


That said, on the latter, I do agree that Null Sec needs it's unique "bonus". I would argue that the two best things to do to sort this would be to remove Ice from High Sec and only allow it to be supplied from low/null sec (while adjusting POS and Capital fuel requirements to avoid a massive fuel spikes), and also to remove high end minerals (mega/zydrine) from drone goo entirely. This would make mining a viable option for null sec alliances in terms of profitability, and would allow the local production of ship hulls (one of the most difficult things to handle in Null Sec due to the volume).

Anyways, I enjoyed your interview.
WilliamMays
Stuffs Inc.
#114 - 2012-03-05 07:49:56 UTC
I like the way you think through a subject, and present your opinion in a reasonable way. I was going to ask questions about one particular area, but reading through the thread gave me some other questions and suggestions


On destructable outposts, I agree with you that asset security is very important in EVE. At the same time, there should be greater signifigance to having someone pop holes in your 25 billion isk home.
Would adding PI components and minerals to the repair process (similar to when building the station) be too extreme? Perhaps increasing materials, and restricting some percentage of assets with each level of reinforcment. I think this would result in people actually considering mounting a defense to the initial attack.


What are your thoughts on the current situation with isk faucets and sinks? Should we have more isk creation, or should CCP start adding more PVE activities that provide other forms of income, such as items/LP/materials to sell?


What direction do you forsee for 0.0 industry, mining in particular?
Should minerals from hidden belts be adjusted?
Should ice be moved from the current static belts?
-where to?
Should mining be the only source for actual minerals?
-what would you suggest other current sources change to in place of their current drops?
Are cloakers cutting down on mining (and other playstyles) to much?
-what other forms of griefing could be better in place of cloaking?
What would make people want to put effort into doing what is required to mine in null sec?

the intel tool we deserve, the intel tool we need
Grey Stormshadow
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#115 - 2012-03-07 00:29:23 UTC
+1 bump

Get classic forum style - custom videos to captains quarters screen

Play with the best - die like the rest
Aura Naoko
Battered Gentlemen and Extreme Decadence
Rooks and Kings
#116 - 2012-03-07 02:36:36 UTC

+1 for Meissa
Laura Marhsal
The Echo Underground Project
#117 - 2012-03-07 14:03:12 UTC
Just voted on your with all my accounts in the hopes that u will fix the paper cuts of being an indy Roll
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#118 - 2012-03-07 14:27:33 UTC
+2 votes 4U

I must say that a lot of stuff as been done lately, I only hope you will not show the same arrogance level Mittani did witch is the only point that made my decision turn in your favour.

Also: Hybrids rebalance -finished and properly done some day?
Colonel Astor
Doomheim
#119 - 2012-03-07 16:41:53 UTC
A lot are around in election time but Meissa is someone I could convo any time during the year and got an answer/response from.
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#120 - 2012-03-08 07:17:01 UTC
Tehg Rhind wrote:
Meissa, I heard your debate/interview on LIE today. First off I just wanted to share my sympathy with you having to debate Riverini. No one should have to be exposed to that.

But aside from that, I wanted to make a comment about two things you said.

1) Increasing the number of copy slots in high sec to improve access to invention BPCs. There are three major problems with this. The first is that there are already relatively simple routes to get BPCs for invention even without a POS. You could buy them from a POS owner that grinds out BPCs on the side, or you could use the 15-18 day wait stations that exist in highsec and create copies with your alts (will make ~300 copies a month per character.)

The second issue is that you are equating station copy slots with POS copy slots, saying that they should be equally accessible. However you are ignoring the fact that POS copy slots require a significant monthly fuel cost to maintain. By putting station copy slots on an equivalent footing (in terms of speed) with POS slots you are invalidating POS copy slots as a profitable avenue, since they will be competing wth an alternative that has zero maintenance.

This is particularly problematic when you look at copying of higher value non-invention BPOs like Maelstroms or Capital Components etc etc. By opening up a higher volume of BPC flow from stations you will absolutely hammer the profitability of copying these in POS's, to the point that there will be no justifiable reason to do so from within POS's.

Basically the advantages you get from copying in POS's is offset by the increased maintenance cost of fueling the POS.

The third issue, and arguably the most problematic, is that while this would increase the flow of BPCs for invention you would still have a supply chokepoint in datacores. This change would skyrocket the price of datacores as more demand for them built up due to the excess supply of BPCs. Now, as someone who generates quite a lot of datdacores this would be pretty cool, but as an inventor I think that this would ultimately increase the costs of invented items substantially (as the BPC cost is relatively negligible in module items.)


2) I have always had concerns about any talk about increasing industry in Null Sec by making it inherently more profitable (say through improved invention chances.) I do believe it should be more accessible (more slots more slots more slots!), but doing things that create an inherent price advantage of operating in null sec will only serve to create Null Sec manufacturing cartels that will severely crush high sec manufacturing.

This is because there is negligible risk involved in manufacturing or inventing in null sec. You have jump freighters that will quickly and safely deliver the materials/products between the high/nullsec. The price of fuel will be negligible when compared to the price of items transfered (how many billions in modules or T2 BPCs can you deliver in a jump freighter.)

Basically there is no real barrier between the null sec manufacturing centers and the high sec markets beyond membership in the Alliances that have stations. So if there is a material bonus given to one set of manufacturers they will be able to price all of the other manufacturers out of the market completely. It's like Production Efficiency 5, you simply don't manufacture without it. This would set the stage for the major Null Sec alliances to completely dominate the high sec industrialists.


That said, on the latter, I do agree that Null Sec needs it's unique "bonus". I would argue that the two best things to do to sort this would be to remove Ice from High Sec and only allow it to be supplied from low/null sec (while adjusting POS and Capital fuel requirements to avoid a massive fuel spikes), and also to remove high end minerals (mega/zydrine) from drone goo entirely. This would make mining a viable option for null sec alliances in terms of profitability, and would allow the local production of ship hulls (one of the most difficult things to handle in Null Sec due to the volume).

Anyways, I enjoyed your interview.


I agree there is a simple way to get BPCs, the way I do it is anchor a highsec POS, stick 10 labs in it and churn out copies like there's no tomorrow, the standings requirement make this difficult for many corporations however.

I agree that POS slots and outpost slots should not be treated equally. However POS slots also have a time bonus, which changes things, and 0.0 outpost represent (well, should have represented) a significant investment. I don't want outposts to produce BPCs as fast as POSes, my concern there starts with number of slots.

I am also aware of the issue of datacore cost and their relative valuation in the price of T2 items, which is why I'd like 2 changes with them. A decreased volume and a gradual increase in amount that drop from radar sites.

I understand and agree with your concerns about 0.0 manufacturing cartels crushing highsec, which is why I'm not really in favour of solutions that include greter invention chances or better ME. better production time (both manufacturing and BPC) and more slots should already provide a buff. The idea is not to make highsec unprofitable for invention, but to give people who take the risk of moving to 0.0 an extra advantage.

Also, while hauling has been made relatively easy/safe with jump freighters, having production in 0.0 would help create local markets that wouldn't require the need to haul everything back & forth to Jita all the time, to an extent.

Either way, I agree with the things you said, and thanks for listening

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7