These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

[CSM 8] Anya Klibor

Author
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2013-03-06 19:56:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Anya Klibor
Since its inception, EVE Online has been touted by both the creators of the game and the community as a sandbox game, where every decision one makes has an impact in the actions and in-game lives of other people. CCP has dubbed this “The Butterfly Effect” and even put out a promotional movie detailing such a concept as being the fundamental basis of the game. When one makes a decision to blow up someone else’s ship, it cascades as we have seen. Smacking in local has an effect, and the more willing will likely shut that person up via a free trip back to their station of origin.

My name is Patrick. My in-game characters most people know me on are Anya Klibor and Azelor Delaria. I have played the game for several years, rarely finding fault in it aside from some hiccups in programming, or like many others the decisions based around income generation at the expense of the playerbase that CCP has advocated before. I am 26-years old, a United States Marine Corps “mustang” officer coming from the lowest ranks of the enlisted, sitting at the rank of Captain and not looking to go any further in my reserve life (once you hit O-4, its politics more than leading troops). I’m an abrasive sort, the kind people can find to be annoying and hard to get along with, but at the same time loyal to a fault, which many friends both in-game and out of it have come to know and respect. In a game where backstabbing, treachery and outright deceit happen, I value honesty and loyalty from those I have come to know and value their input.

My achievements are few, but noticeable. I have operated as an intelligence officer in many corporations, as well as a diplomatic officer. As a player, I have advocated the concept of “tactics before brawn”. I do not want my enemies to feel safe in numbers; numerical superiority is a strong tactic I will agree to, but overall the smart pilot who can think for himself and act on his own initiative, doing his best to whittle his opponents’ forces down to maximize efficiency is a far more effective tool that the brainless sheep people have come to expect. Many of my wars have been fought in engagements where we should not have won, but came out on top because of superior tactics and planning. Knowing one’s enemies can decide the fate of a single battle, and I have worked hard to show the power of such a concept. I have been threatened by people with being reported to the FBI for cyberterrorism, and also to have me reported to CCP for cyberbullying and griefing. I have reported myself on several occasions to show that what I do is not illegal or even a breach of the EULA, ending sometimes with laughs from players and GMs alike.

In short, I want people to HTFU and play the damn game.

To that end, I am running for CSM—something I had not considered because I do not feel I deserve such a space—because I do believe there is a trend going right now. Now, more than ever, high security space needs to be able to band together and show that it wants to be heard on the CSM. It needs to place more than one person there, and tell the null sec blocs that we are not sitting around with our thumbs up our asses. For too long we have accepted that we cannot change what is going on, because the high sec blocs are working together, while we sit here and stew in our own anger. We ***** and moan constantly on the forums about changes coming down the pipe to how war decs happen, or how carebearing in high sec space is becoming more and more like a single-player version of EVE.

There is only one server. It is a PvP server. Get over it or get out.

With details emerging—admittedly early in the course of events—that CCP is looking at how to make high sec “safer”, the time for those of us who enjoy PvP in 0.5 to 1.0 space to band together is now. This isn’t an issue for griefers only; this is for the good of EVE itself! To fundamentally affect an area of the game so broadly as to essentially remove PvP entirely is a travesty in a game where PvP happens whether you like it or not. To say, “These spots are not free for PvP” is saying that one must “flag up” as the term is used in other games like World of Warcraft. In this, I feel safe in saying that all dections of the game agree barring those who want this to be a single-player experience. This is a massively multiplayer online game.

I’ll say it again for the visually-impaired and mentally ********: THIS IS A MASSIVELY MULTIPLAYER ONLINE GAME. If you cannot accept that, then the problem is not those of us having fun; the problem is you, the player whining about PvP not being fair to you.

Time and again we tell the new players to “put together a Rifter and go have some fun”. They ignore us. They want to take out those shiny faction ships and do their repetitive missions in safety. Some of them, months or years later, enter PvP for a change of pace and fall in love. With the trend going as-is, they will not have that luxury.

I am looking, therefore, to be there for those of us in high sec space who want a voice, and to work alongside CCP and the CSM in order to bring true fun back into the game for those of us in high sec. I want to provide [b]options[b] to people, to broaden their gameplay experience. I won’t advocate for the fixing of null sec: I don’t live there so it’s not my place. But low sec space and high sec I have lived in, and I have come to see some of the problems faced by pirates and faction warfare. Obviously should I be elected alongside pirates and faction warfare, I will work to help them in their missions as well, but allow them to take the reins since that is their expertise.

My mission is to make high sec viable again. I want people to look at high sec and go, “Man, that looks legitimately fun.” I will express my views in another post, and my plans.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2 - 2013-03-06 19:57:11 UTC
Reserved

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2013-03-06 19:57:26 UTC
Reserved

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2013-03-06 20:28:55 UTC
How do you differentiate yourself from similar candidates (ie those who want to advance the cause of PvP in Highsec) such as James 315 or Psychotic Monk?
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2013-03-06 20:54:38 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
How do you differentiate yourself from similar candidates (ie those who want to advance the cause of PvP in Highsec) such as James 315 or Psychotic Monk?


In many ways, I look down on James 315. I posted in one of his threads that what he is doing maybe PvP in the most basic sense, but other than that he is no better than many carebears. He is harassing people--intentionally, I might add--who do not have the ships at the time to fight back. I do not subscribe to this theory; in fact, as I mentioned before I was threatened with being reported to the FBI for cyberterrorism by a guy whose main corporation "prided" itself on being an "exclusive high-sec mercenary corporaiton" but refused to fight. We found his alt Indy corp and dec'd it in order to lure out fights form his main corporation. Now, I will also admit that I have not paid much attention to James 315 for this reason.

In short, my intent is not to harass and grief industrialists for ***** and giggles. I want challenges, and people who shoot back!

With Psychotic Monk, I see much of myself in him (or maybe I should say much of him in myself? But that sounds gay!). We both strive for very similar ends, and use somewhat similar means. I think the main difference between us is that while he's found a home I have not, and it mainly stems, once again, from the attitude I sometimes bring. I hold myself to a higher standard, and I hold the people I fly with to a similar standard. I don't accept excuses from myself, I don't accept them from other people. I think in many ways we could compliment the direction together that we want to bring high sec towards, and ultimately we could see a solid change in things if more than one person is involved from high sec PvP on the CSM.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

High Sec Dan
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2013-03-06 21:47:50 UTC
Your response seems to be directed at James 315's in game activities, not so much his CSM platform.
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2013-03-06 22:10:00 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
Your response seems to be directed at James 315's in game activities, not so much his CSM platform.


Which I haven't read over; once again, I don't pay him much mind. I will read it over and address it when I have the opportunity to.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Dyvim Slorm
Coven of the Morrigan
#8 - 2013-03-06 22:49:41 UTC
I have had some interesting discussion with Psychotic Monk regarding methods of balancing the unfair advantages that NPC corps have over player corps. I don't want to type the whole thing over again, but I would be interested in how you would address this issue.

For example, a player corp may have a tax rate of 5% and is subject to all potential risks, whereas for an extra paltry 6% NPC corp members enjoy total immunity form wardecs and awoxers. The one and only risk they face is suicide gankers, which player corp members have to face as well.

What is your view on this?
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#9 - 2013-03-06 23:08:35 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
I have had some interesting discussion with Psychotic Monk regarding methods of balancing the unfair advantages that NPC corps have over player corps. I don't want to type the whole thing over again, but I would be interested in how you would address this issue.

For example, a player corp may have a tax rate of 5% and is subject to all potential risks, whereas for an extra paltry 6% NPC corp members enjoy total immunity form wardecs and awoxers. The one and only risk they face is suicide gankers, which player corp members have to face as well.

What is your view on this?


I am not completely sure we can rectify this problem. I think possible solutions are the following:

1.) A player may remain in an NPC corporation upon character creation for a period of three months. This allows ample time to begin building a financial base for the player, and allows them to experience multiple walks of life in the game, be it mining, industry, missioning, or PvP. At the end of that three months, if the player has not moved to a player corporation, the player is immediately moved by the game itself to a new NPC-run corporation with a flat 20% tax rate, which can be dec'd like any other player corporation, and the fee is a flat 50-million ISK/week, regardless of the amount of members. An NPC corporation should be used to teach and train, not for shedding war decs and the like. Once a player leaves the NPC corporation (if it is before the mandatory three-month eviction), they may not re-enter an NPC corporation.

2.) War dec shedding is an issue. The mechanics should be modified so that a person leaving the corporation at war is treated as an enemy combatant for the duration remaining on the war. When they leave, they should not join the original NPC corporation, but rather be placed in the same one that they are moved to if they do not leave the initial NPC corps with-in three months. This will prevent wasted ISK, it prevents people from being able to evade PvP indefinitely, and it encourages people to harden themselves up and learn to fight. Far too much time is spent by people wondering how they can avoid wars (perfect example: EVE University) rather than how they can make the aggressing corporation rue the day they considered them targets.

In short, NPC corporations should be treated as a place for new players only. Beyond that, no one should be in them. Create a new NPC corporation with a high tax rate that everyone joins at the end of the three months, and if people drop to avoid war decs, allow the war dec to transfer for the remaining duration and put them in that same NPC corporation. Encourage people to be social with other players and to defend themselves, do not coddle them.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2013-03-06 23:38:47 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
High Sec Dan wrote:
Your response seems to be directed at James 315's in game activities, not so much his CSM platform.


Which I haven't read over; once again, I don't pay him much mind. I will read it over and address it when I have the opportunity to.

Please so so, otherwise we might not pay you much mind.
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#11 - 2013-03-07 07:11:14 UTC
Singular Snowflake wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
High Sec Dan wrote:
Your response seems to be directed at James 315's in game activities, not so much his CSM platform.


Which I haven't read over; once again, I don't pay him much mind. I will read it over and address it when I have the opportunity to.

Please so so, otherwise we might not pay you much mind.


I'm hesitant to respond before he can answer the following.

I remember the original owner of James 315. Can he provide an actual forum post where he sold the character legitimately?

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2013-03-07 21:23:35 UTC
What is your stance on AFK skill training?
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#13 - 2013-03-08 01:20:53 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
What is your stance on AFK skill training?


Would you mind providing a brief explanation of what you mean, because I'm thinking you're talking about, "Don't log in but still train skills".

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Lin Suizei
#14 - 2013-03-08 02:58:16 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
I'm hesitant to respond before he can answer the following.

I remember the original owner of James 315. Can he provide an actual forum post where he sold the character legitimately?


What does this have to do with James 315's CSM platform?

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.

Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#15 - 2013-03-08 03:19:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Anya Klibor
Lin Suizei wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
I'm hesitant to respond before he can answer the following.

I remember the original owner of James 315. Can he provide an actual forum post where he sold the character legitimately?


What does this have to do with James 315's CSM platform?


Aside from the fact that he's not owned by the original player and he doesn't have a thread set up? I'd like to make sure someone I am responding to didn't violate the EULA to begin with and is worth being on the CSM.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#16 - 2013-03-08 03:20:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Anya Klibor
Deleted, double post.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Lin Suizei
#17 - 2013-03-08 03:56:52 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
Aside from the fact that he's not owned by the original player and he doesn't have a thread set up? I'd like to make sure someone I am responding to didn't violate the EULA to begin with and is worth being on the CSM.


File a petition if you believe there has been a violation of the EULA. Posting in your CSM thread questioning the validity of other CSM candidates, does you no favors - and highlights you as someone willing to discredit other CSM members on the grounds of something other than their platform.

In any case, I don't see how this prevents you from responding to his policy platform. As a potential voter, I want to know how you stand on the suggestions put forth by James 315, regardless of the validity of his character ownership.

Are you willing to state your opinion on this?

Lol I can't delete my forum sig.

Ariadne Invictus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#18 - 2013-03-08 07:26:38 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
2.) War dec shedding is an issue. The mechanics should be modified so that a person leaving the corporation at war is treated as an enemy combatant for the duration remaining on the war. .


I'd like to ask you the same question I put to Psychotic Monk, or part of it anyway. If a person were to leave a corp whose leadership had demonstrated that they were unwilling or unable to handle being wardecced, is it an acceptable outcome for that person's war target status to be determined by those incompetent leaders despite leaving the corp in disgust to find a better home? As you have a military background, I can assume that you would not fault a squad of troops for following bad orders that came from up the chain of command. Yet what you're proposing would seem to do just that. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but it seems like such a system would allow powerful corps to identify corps with poor leadership, break them up, continue to do so repeatedly, all the while expanding their legal target list to individuals who long ago washed their hands of the whole mess. Would joining a new, player controlled corp, wipe previous wardecs?
Anya Klibor
Dromedaworks inc
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#19 - 2013-03-08 07:54:51 UTC
Ariadne Invictus wrote:
Anya Klibor wrote:
2.) War dec shedding is an issue. The mechanics should be modified so that a person leaving the corporation at war is treated as an enemy combatant for the duration remaining on the war. .


I'd like to ask you the same question I put to Psychotic Monk, or part of it anyway. If a person were to leave a corp whose leadership had demonstrated that they were unwilling or unable to handle being wardecced, is it an acceptable outcome for that person's war target status to be determined by those incompetent leaders despite leaving the corp in disgust to find a better home? As you have a military background, I can assume that you would not fault a squad of troops for following bad orders that came from up the chain of command. Yet what you're proposing would seem to do just that. I'm not sure there's a right answer here, but it seems like such a system would allow powerful corps to identify corps with poor leadership, break them up, continue to do so repeatedly, all the while expanding their legal target list to individuals who long ago washed their hands of the whole mess. Would joining a new, player controlled corp, wipe previous wardecs?


Let me requote the entirety of the post itself:

Quote:
2.) War dec shedding is an issue. The mechanics should be modified so that a person leaving the corporation at war is treated as an enemy combatant for the duration remaining on the war. When they leave, they should not join the original NPC corporation, but rather be placed in the same one that they are moved to if they do not leave the initial NPC corps with-in three months. This will prevent wasted ISK, it prevents people from being able to evade PvP indefinitely, and it encourages people to harden themselves up and learn to fight. Far too much time is spent by people wondering how they can avoid wars (perfect example: EVE University) rather than how they can make the aggressing corporation rue the day they considered them targets.


My original point was that war dec shedding happens. You can't control it. NPC corporations allow a player to avoid war decs indefinitely for a slightly larger tax placed on them for that relative safety. The suggestion you quoted ties into my first suggestion rather neatly: I want to have two seperate and distinct forms of "NPC corporations". I want new players to have safety from griefers and PvP if they so desire. I want to make it so that for three months they can learn the game in the current suite of NPC corps available to them. However, after that three month period they will be moved into a new corproation with a 20% tax rate that can be dec'd like any other corporation in EVE for a set amount of 50-million ISK. I will go further and say that if they leave that corporation, any decs that start because they joined that corporation do nto carry to their new corporation.

Whether you have bad leaders or not is irrelevant. Some people do not want to PvP, and I understand that. Doesn't it suck, though, that they are in a game where the premise is "All PvP, All The Time"? We see people post about ho they want all high sec PvPers to be declared "griefers". We see people creating threads asking for immunity to war decs ("I didn't consent, I shouldn't be forced to fight people!").

What we do not see is a slew of threads about PvP in high sec except from carebears. Think about that for a second. PvP in high sec space is fine. A few glitches maybe that need to be handled, but people enjoy the PvP! They are enjoying the game and having fun, and that's important, right?

People have come from World of Warcraft and Rift expecting that they have the option to PvP. We have shown time and again they do not have that all the time. Why should we start now with creating the "flagging" system?

If you drop corporation to avoid a war dec, you will still be a target for the week it's legal. After that, it's not like they can be dec'd immediately as an individual. They cannot. We need to find a balance, but a balance must exist. It cannot be skewered in the direction of either the carebears or the PvPers.

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.

Ariadne Invictus
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
#20 - 2013-03-08 08:18:50 UTC
Anya Klibor wrote:
If you drop corporation to avoid a war dec, you will still be a target for the week it's legal.

Ah, I misunderstood your first post. My reading was as long as your former corp was under wardec (as in, the aggressor intended to renew indefinitely) the player would be too. I see you've limited to the week of departure. So that's good. On the other hand, your idea of putting all other players into an NPC corp that could be dec'd for 50Mil a week seems like it would provide an endless list of easy war targets for large and/or high skill high sec crops. Hell, for 20 dollars you could wardec the NPC corp for a month. It would certainly encourage people to get into play controlled corporations though.

Not sure we agree on the points, but I do appreciate your response. In and of itself it indicates a willingness to listen and that matters in a CSM.
12Next page