These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

Daehan Minhyok for CSM8

First post
Author
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2013-01-23 06:38:05 UTC  |  Edited by: CCP Dolan
Greetings fellow citizens of New Eden,

For those of you who don't know me, I am Daehan Minhyok. I currently Fly with the LI3 Federation which is part of the HBC coalition in 0.0 space. I have been playing EVE since Dec 2009, days after Dominion was released. I began life in high-sec where I lived for over a year as a miner/mission runner, spent some brief time in wormholes and faction warfare, and moved to null sec first as a renter, then as a member of sov holding alliances. I have been involved in the community as the co-host of the podcast WTFWIT for a year and a half, and for the last 8-9 months as a producer on the PODSIDE podcast.

At this time I am refining my platform, but the basic principles I plan to stick to are;
Improving Customer Relations:
Improving Nullsec
Improving the New Player Experience
Saving High-sec
Integrating and supporting Dust 514
Re balancing Risk Vs. Reward

For more information about my ideas, ideals, and info about me, check out my blog (link below) .

I look forward to answering your questions and hearing/reading your critiques, and discussing topics with anyone who cares to do so.

You can find me in eve as Daehan Minhyok,
facebook as Daehan Minhyok,
twitter as @Daehan_minhyok
youtube as Minhyok1
my blog http://shadowintheblack.blogspot.com/
at http://www.crazycasters.com/#news
and at http://s8.multiplexgaming.com/ forums
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#2 - 2013-01-23 16:07:59 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:

At this time I am refining my platform,


Um, I would think this step would come before posting a thread.

I do love this quote from your blog:
Quote:
Many of those who run as candidates for CSM who decide to label themselves for a part of the game such as Nullsec, wormholes, lowsec, or faction warfare representatives tend to talk of high-sec as a bad place for simple people to live.


I agree, highsec is a bad place.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#3 - 2013-01-23 17:26:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
You say that you're going to improve some things. That's great, but how do you intend to do it? What especially needs changing?

Edit; I see from your blog that your solution for nullsec involves making PVE compulsory to maintain sov. You've lost my vote, but perhaps you'd like to elaborate on some of the other things that you're going to improve?

Edit 2: I'd particularly like to hear about 'saving highsec' and what you're going to save it from? Perhaps you should focus on this one, because I doubt you're going to get many votes from null.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#4 - 2013-01-23 17:29:04 UTC
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
You say that you're going to improve some things. That's great, but how do you intend to do it? What especially needs changing?


Oh, you should read his nullsec sov proposal: http://shadowintheblack.blogspot.com/2013/01/fixing-null-sec.html, I'm sure that is the "fix" that every 0.0 person wants.

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

mynnna
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#5 - 2013-01-23 17:29:55 UTC
Some snippets I'd like to comment on from your blog.

Quote:
grow the “isk sink” that is PVP warfare.

PvP is not an isk sink outside of isk paid to insure ships, and that winds up a net faucet anyway, and fees paid by the person who built your ship, which are miniscule. "Sink" means "removed from the game" not "removed from your wallet." Just a minor nitpick.

As to your ideas for "fixing nullsec", their general approach mirrors what the dude in this thread proposed, and so it should not surprise you that I find them pretty dumb. I commented on my own views for accounting for player activity in the thread, but the long and the short of it is that player activity would actually have a measurable contribution to sov (but not be the only contribution, there would be passive gain up to a certain level.) You hold your space because your players actually use it, not because you jump through arbitrary combat oriented PvE hoops.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#6 - 2013-01-23 17:32:03 UTC
Two step wrote:
Kainotomiu Ronuken wrote:
You say that you're going to improve some things. That's great, but how do you intend to do it? What especially needs changing?


Oh, you should read his nullsec sov proposal: http://shadowintheblack.blogspot.com/2013/01/fixing-null-sec.html, I'm sure that is the "fix" that every 0.0 person wants.


I read it. Just no.
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#7 - 2013-01-23 18:12:42 UTC
Thank you all for your comments thus far,

As to my ideas towards nullsec, they are one set of ideas based around a similar principle. I appreciate being pointed towards a similar discussion and will consider the ideas discussed there as well. However, it is still just one idea and the issue of making null sec a place for both large groups and small is a tricky one. Many suggested fixes make it far too easy to bot, and others make it too tedious for players interested in PVP. Finding a balance between requiring the mundane and requiring the presence of actual human intelligence is the key. I believe the CSM should know the pulse of the community and be able to accurately provide CCP with information on how much tedium the player base as a whole are willing to put up with.

As both a long time PVE-er, mission runner and ratter, as well as PVP pilot, I feel I can accurately represent the players' willingness to perform such tasks.

As for improvements I would like to make across the board:

In terms of customer relations, I would like to help increase transparency to the players about processes within CCP. This could include increased communication by, or about, Dev's reasoning for pursue some projects over other, at least in the case of projects already disclosed.

It is somewhat of a running gag on Podside to tease one of our other producers about his views on customer service. However, the pettition process is one that causes many players to feel slighted. The phrase, "The logs don't show anything" has come to be known, as a cop-out for lazy GMs. Sometimes the logs don't show anything, but a players experience seems to depend more on which GM responds more so than which solution is prudent.

As a member of CSM 8 I would push for transparency in the petition process in making sure that players knew When they should expect a response, and what sorts of factors/rubrics are used to determine the eligibility for the solution the player desires, be it reimbursement or a hotfix. Dev's have demonstrated the vast amount of data collected in logs of player activities, there is still some misunderstanding whether GM's don't have access to the same logs, can't read the information properly, or choose not to read them. I would do what I can to make sure that concrete rules were laid down and enforced to ensure taht GM's were properly evaluating each and every petition.

Another issue I would like to address are faction standings. I believe that there are many players who are displeased with their current standings but feel unable to do anything about it. This ranges from mission runners who can't go to trade hubs in other regions "safely", or faction warfare pilots with the same problem. Sometimes, faction warfare pilots even want to switch sides.

A quick solution would be to let pilots run the cosmos agents multiple times, as long as their faction standings were below 0, but without gaining the corporate standings also provided by the same agents.

When and if CCP addresses the issue of faction standings during the time CSM 8 would work with them, I believe I would be able to provide them feedback about how the community feels about the solutions CCP would like to implement.

I look forward to sharing my other thoughts and responses with you in the coming weeks,

Min



Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#8 - 2013-01-23 18:27:26 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:

As to my ideas towards nullsec, they are one set of ideas based around a similar principle. I appreciate being pointed towards a similar discussion and will consider the ideas discussed there as well. However, it is still just one idea and the issue of making null sec a place for both large groups and small is a tricky one. Many suggested fixes make it far too easy to bot, and others make it too tedious for players interested in PVP. Finding a balance between requiring the mundane and requiring the presence of actual human intelligence is the key. I believe the CSM should know the pulse of the community and be able to accurately provide CCP with information on how much tedium the player base as a whole are willing to put up with.


Given the response of nullsec pilots to your ideas right here in your thread (plus on twitter), do you think you actually "know the pulse of the community"?

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#9 - 2013-01-23 19:13:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
And highsec? What do you think of its current state? How do you intend to 'save' it?
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#10 - 2013-01-23 20:39:27 UTC
Yes two-step, given the conversations I am having with people in null, I do feel I have the pulse, and as the discussions increase so does my knowledge of what the player base wants.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#11 - 2013-01-23 20:41:47 UTC
People in nullsec actually approve of your blog post about improving nullsec?

Or you mean you know that everyone thinks it is a terrible idea and you're just ignoring that fact?
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#12 - 2013-01-23 20:57:00 UTC
nope, talking to people to see the pros and cons of the idea and what may be usable to create a viable solution. No idea is perfect from the get-go, and never will everyone be happy with a final decision.
Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#13 - 2013-01-23 21:01:09 UTC
Welp, good to hear that you're discussing it. You should post here when you've written a new blog post or updated the old one with a new idea. I look forward to reading it.

DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Saving High-sec

In the meantime, I'd love to hear more about this!
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#14 - 2013-01-23 21:34:10 UTC
Sure, High sec is an important part of space. It's where every toon starts, and for many its where they spend the majority of their time in eve. The constant struggle of those wanting to be safe in high-sec and those wanting to prove no one is safe in high sec is of great importance to many. Beyond this, there used to be a much larger community of high sec PVP pilots who engaged in such activities as mercenary work and war-dec campaigns. Both of these, and other communities have been growing smaller lately.

I would like to see high sec thrive more, as a place for peaceful pilots who mine or run missions etc. to exist, as well as mercs, war-dec corps, gankers, and others.

Some ideas include sending new players to low-sec and explaining better the difference between high/low/NPCnull/player-ownedNull to new pilots.

I believe the mission structure could change to make missions fun for groups and individuals and make them desirable to be completed in their entirety, rather than just being somethign to blitz through.


I have heard from others, and agree, that Incursions from groups other than Sansha would be a nice change, and believe a change in this area could be connected to the balancing faction ships, adding caldari-minmatar and amarr-gallente faction ships and creating other faction carriers.

Kainotomiu Ronuken
koahisquad
#15 - 2013-01-23 21:39:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Kainotomiu Ronuken
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Sure, High sec is an important part of space. It's where every toon starts, and for many its where they spend the majority of their time in eve. The constant struggle of those wanting to be safe in high-sec and those wanting to prove no one is safe in high sec is of great importance to many. Beyond this, there used to be a much larger community of high sec PVP pilots who engaged in such activities as mercenary work and war-dec campaigns. Both of these, and other communities have been growing smaller lately.

I would like to see high sec thrive more, as a place for peaceful pilots who mine or run missions etc. to exist, as well as mercs, war-dec corps, gankers, and others.

How would you suggest that CCP balances between those pilots who don't want to be disturbed when they mine and run missions and those pilots who want to disturb people who are mining or running missions?

DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Some ideas include sending new players to low-sec and explaining better the difference between high/low/NPCnull/player-ownedNull to new pilots.

Surely this would just make it easier for people to leave highsec? Sure, that's a good thing, but it doesn't help highsec expand and 'thrive'.

DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
I believe the mission structure could change to make missions fun for groups and individuals and make them desirable to be completed in their entirety, rather than just being somethign to blitz through.

How should CCP do this?
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2013-01-23 22:00:09 UTC
Assuming that the majority of pilots who make their money off mission running would prefer lvl 3 and 4 missions, I think that those missions should take place in the.5 and .6 systems where there is more risk of disruption. Likewise, more seperation by security status of Ore to the lower end of high sec systems would increase the risk. This increased risk should decrease the number of pilots willing to accept it. Along with this, to intice pilots to bring the risk, changes to concord may need to be made so that pilots can afford to add risk through ganking, attempted ganking, and other disruptive actions. This may include delaying concord response time more the lower the sec status, and/or changing sec lost based off of whether or not the "victim"'s ship is destroyed or just chased off. In PVP the name of the game is to stop your target from fleeing, through the use of scrams and warp disruption mod s, but if risking losing your target means you can chase more targets some may find this acceptable.

The recent debates over whether orca corp hangers should be scan-able is a perfect example of the balance between risk. The orca pilots don't want the risk of anyone knowing what they may have in their ship, and the gankers don't want the risk of nothing being in there, or the item being invaluable. Fortunately, in this case safety can still be achieved by double courier-contracts.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#17 - 2013-01-24 13:10:41 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:

Saving High-sec

From what.... from it being high sec ShockedLolRoll

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Tom JBrokaw
Doomheim
#18 - 2013-01-24 17:58:52 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
As both a long time PVE-er, mission runner and ratter, as well as PVP pilot, I feel I can accurately represent the players' willingness to perform such tasks.

please explain for our viewers why pigeon-holing everyone into missions, regardless of what their actual preference may be, is a preferable option to all? everyone, even pvpers, has to make money after all, so whats wrong with making space compelling to use and drawing on their "usage" instead? and please note that our analysts indicate that one "ccp sreegs", head of security for ccp, has done an excellent job at cracking down on botters, thus our viewers would like a more thought out answer than 'its too easy to bot'.

thank you.
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2013-01-25 00:11:48 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Yes two-step, given the conversations I am having with people in null, I do feel I have the pulse, and as the discussions increase so does my knowledge of what the player base wants.

Would the people be better off voting for someone who already knows his stuff?
DaeHan Minhyok
Sub--Zero
Goonswarm Federation
#20 - 2013-01-27 04:37:32 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Yes two-step, given the conversations I am having with people in null, I do feel I have the pulse, and as the discussions increase so does my knowledge of what the player base wants.

Would the people be better off voting for someone who already knows his stuff?


Actually you will find I am quite qualified and indeed an ideal candidate.

thank you for your comment
123Next page