These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
7 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

DJ FunkyBacon for CSM9

First post
Author
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2014-02-20 17:29:16 UTC
Allow Dics/Hics to abilty to drop bubbles in lowsex and your problem with tackling supers/titans is solved. why recreate the wheel when you dont have to. pros/cons?
Spaceship Bebop
#22 - 2014-02-20 21:09:38 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Another issue on the minds of many FW leaders, is the issue of income for FW corps and alliances.

What sort of ideas would you give CCP on this issue? Maybe a corp LP pool based on the corp tax percentage?

YouTube: kds119 Twitter: @realkds119 Blog: derptw.blogspot.com

Monkeys with Guns.
#23 - 2014-02-21 00:45:05 UTC
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
I think you missunderstood the question about force projection. It is not about LS entities being able to field caps or being able to run with supers (altough i agree with your thinking on this theme). It is about that smaller entities can not run their politics within this world with this kind of force projection. Smaller LS entities can not even go to **** in peace without getting dunked by bigger LS ones and every single LS entity and even combined can't do nth because of nullsec ones.

We want LS politics, nerf force projection.


Alright, I think i see what you mean now. FW mechanics have actually done a good job of limiting the ability of large nullsec (or even other large lowsec) entities of being able to interfere too much with system captures due to the gated complexes. Bullrushing a system with the biggest baddest fleet you can muster does nothing to contest a system. The lack of bubbles and doomsdays and bombs also plays a role in limiting nullsec force projection.

Outside of FW, you have a point. If BALEX/Snuff wants to have fun with caps, it has to be looking over it's shoulder constantly because while you guys will likely have an edge on a mid sized militia fleet, PL or some other large null group could be lurking around the corner waiting for the opportunity to to escalate on you as well. I'm not sure in eve there will ever be an answer that the devs or game mechanics can provide that can keep you safe from a bigger fish dropping on you and having it's way in the context of a fight.

We all have to deal with it when considering how much to commit to a fight, and I think until lowsec space is valuable enough for people outside of FW to actually make a decent living while actually living there, we're never going to have the resources or numbers to truly be able to push back on nullsec force projection in our space. Part of my goal on the CSM will be to try and sway perception away from lowsec being the "kiddie pool" of PVP and living without Concord protection, and shine the light on it for what it REALLY is, and that is a diverse part of the community, not taking it's first steps toward the nullsec "endgame", but trying to carve out a living in it's own right. We're not null lite, we're different entirely.

All you have to do is look at that destruction in eve graphic. Lowsec is a fraction the size of nullsec, yet we account for such a huge chunk of the ISK destroyed in space fighting it's not even funny.

Thead Enco wrote:
Allow Dics/Hics to abilty to drop bubbles in lowsex and your problem with tackling supers/titans is solved. why recreate the wheel when you dont have to. pros/cons?

I'd be ok with this ONLY if the bubbles in question were jump drive interdiction and did not affect the warp capabilities of subcaps. The lack of bubbles is something that makes lowsec PVP and force interdiction unique. I have proposed the idea of giving dictors a second bubble ammo useable in lowsec that would be a jump drive interdiction sphere instead of warp interdiction.

BAJRAN BALI wrote:
What sort of ideas would you give CCP on this issue? Maybe a corp LP pool based on the corp tax percentage?

I think the simplest solution is to allow FW corps to tax LP income, and give those corps the ability to transfer LP to the executor corp. But then, I'm not a programmer, and I have no idea if this would be even remotely easy to implement. I'm fully open to what CCP thinks our options are in this case providing the issue of income for corps and alliances can be solved.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2014-02-21 02:29:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Thead Enco
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Zloco Crendraven wrote:
I think you missunderstood the question about force projection. It is not about LS entities being able to field caps or being able to run with supers (altough i agree with your thinking on this theme). It is about that smaller entities can not run their politics within this world with this kind of force projection. Smaller LS entities can not even go to **** in peace without getting dunked by bigger LS ones and every single LS entity and even combined can't do nth because of nullsec ones.

We want LS politics, nerf force projection.


Alright, I think i see what you mean now. FW mechanics have actually done a good job of limiting the ability of large nullsec (or even other large lowsec) entities of being able to interfere too much with system captures due to the gated complexes. Bullrushing a system with the biggest baddest fleet you can muster does nothing to contest a system. The lack of bubbles and doomsdays and bombs also plays a role in limiting nullsec force projection.

Outside of FW, you have a point. If BALEX/Snuff wants to have fun with caps, it has to be looking over it's shoulder constantly because while you guys will likely have an edge on a mid sized militia fleet, PL or some other large null group could be lurking around the corner waiting for the opportunity to to escalate on you as well. I'm not sure in eve there will ever be an answer that the devs or game mechanics can provide that can keep you safe from a bigger fish dropping on you and having it's way in the context of a fight.


All you have to do is look at that destruction in eve graphic. Lowsec is a fraction the size of nullsec, yet we account for such a huge chunk of the ISK destroyed in space fighting it's not even funny.

[quote=Thead Enco]Allow Dics/Hics to abilty to drop bubbles in lowsex and your problem with tackling supers/titans is solved. why recreate the wheel when you dont have to. pros/cons?

"I'd be ok with this ONLY if the bubbles in question were jump drive interdiction and did not affect the warp capabilities of subcaps. The lack of bubbles is something that makes lowsec PVP and force interdiction unique. I have proposed the idea of giving dictors a second bubble ammo useable in lowsec that would be a jump drive interdiction sphere instead of warp interdiction."

Well this is the sandbox and sometimes the "little guy" gets stepped by someone that's a little bigger, any change in that basic philosophy runs the risk of damaging that core game play. With regards to bubbles in lowsex, your suggestion defeats the whole purpose now does it. Secondly bubbles already inhibit jump drives. Third your idea is not balanced at all. "Bubbles that only inhibit jump drives and not sub cap warp drives" wow ok o?
Monkeys with Guns.
#25 - 2014-02-21 03:21:50 UTC
I'm fairly open with this stuff. We don't have bubbles in low now, and there's no reason to add them. It's part of what makes our style of fleet combat unique from nullsec. What we need is another way to pin down a super that isn't a HIC with infinipoint. We have plenty of ways to pin down every other ship.

We now have mobile cyno jammers, which you could argue fixes some of the issue of power projection in lowsec, but the issue of supercap interdiction immunity is a growing concern. The whole thing could be as simple as removing the total immunity from ewar supers have and limiting the types used against them instead. there are probably 10 ways to fix this issue.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

#26 - 2014-02-21 06:17:12 UTC
nice to see a lowsec candidate who is active in FW for this years CSM elections. I am glad you mention the plex farming problem however i don't agree that WCS rebalancing would change anything. Stabs and cloaks are only the symptom.

The root of the problem is that the contesting progress persists if you run away or hide. This makes running very efficient (doesn't matter if stabbed or not). Plexing should force you to be in space and hold the line for a certain amount of time - i am pretty sure this was the initial intention of the mechanic. The current mechanic works perfectly in strongholds where many people live, but is sadly broken for 90% of the remaining space, where the warzone is controlled via farming alts - which can make progress while running away.

Some form of timer reset would fix the problem at its core and make running away inefficient. If you run or cloak, you safe your ship but your contesting progress is gone. Stabs are suddenly no longer so interesting, people are incentivised to fight and can still run if they choose to if they want to protect the ship but have deal with the consequences. Do timer lengths and plex payouts have to be changed after this core mechanics fix? maybe. But stabs and cloakes are IMO not the problem FW currently has, the plexing mechanic at the core is the problem.

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Spaceship Bebop
#27 - 2014-02-21 06:28:04 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
Plexing should force you to be in space and hold the line for a certain amount of time - i am pretty sure this was the initial intention of the mechanic.
Maybe you could do like an ESS style bubble that does not affect pods? That would make em stay in the contested area with a buffer.

YouTube: kds119 Twitter: @realkds119 Blog: derptw.blogspot.com

Caldari State
#28 - 2014-02-21 13:07:21 UTC
The Mittani for CSM9

http://hugelolcdn.com/i/267520.gif

#29 - 2014-02-21 14:40:13 UTC
BAJRAN BALI wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
Plexing should force you to be in space and hold the line for a certain amount of time - i am pretty sure this was the initial intention of the mechanic.
Maybe you could do like an ESS style bubble that does not affect pods? That would make em stay in the contested area with a buffer.


no need for a mechanic to force people on grid (it wouldn't even fix cloaks or the fact that farmers don't even care abut the very cheap T1 frigs). All what is needed is to make leaving inefficient. If you leave the timer resets and you have to start again. If you stay, fight and survive the timer continues if you leave, hide or die, all progress is lost. Thats how offensive plexing should be - you shouldn't be able to make progress if you run away (and come back or decloak later if the dscan is clear).

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value

Monkeys with Guns.
#30 - 2014-02-22 05:29:53 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
BAJRAN BALI wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
Plexing should force you to be in space and hold the line for a certain amount of time - i am pretty sure this was the initial intention of the mechanic.
Maybe you could do like an ESS style bubble that does not affect pods? That would make em stay in the contested area with a buffer.


no need for a mechanic to force people on grid (it wouldn't even fix cloaks or the fact that farmers don't even care abut the very cheap T1 frigs). All what is needed is to make leaving inefficient. If you leave the timer resets and you have to start again. If you stay, fight and survive the timer continues if you leave, hide or die, all progress is lost. Thats how offensive plexing should be - you shouldn't be able to make progress if you run away (and come back or decloak later if the dscan is clear).


Timer rollbacks are something that's been asked for since Hans's day, as well as system wide visible button timers. I'm pretty sure he was close to getting it, but with no representation on CSM8... eh. You can expect that I will be renewing the call for plex timer rollbacks within minutes of being elected should I get the votes.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

Monkeys with Guns.
#31 - 2014-02-23 18:22:58 UTC
I would like to thank Tyrant Scorn from Legacy of a Capsuleer for a great sit down interview a short time ago. I'm looking forward to it's release!

For those of you who run blogs or podcasts, I'm open over the next few weeks for interviews and such if you would like to talk to me about anything Eve/CSM9 related. For others with just a couple questions, you can feel free to post them here still.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

#32 - 2014-02-24 02:29:44 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
I would like to thank Tyrant Scorn from Legacy of a Capsuleer for a great sit down interview a short time ago. I'm looking forward to it's release!

For those of you who run blogs or podcasts, I'm open over the next few weeks for interviews and such if you would like to talk to me about anything Eve/CSM9 related. For others with just a couple questions, you can feel free to post them here still.


I will contact you by evemail when the episode is ready to be released, I will also post it here in the forum thread... Since Funky likes to talk a lot I will need some time to edit P
Hello Monument Visitor
#33 - 2014-02-25 14:49:43 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
I would like to see more consistent attention given to both lowsec and FW. More specifically, lowsec is not null lite, nor is it necessarily a stepping stone for people to get out into nul sec

This has already gotten you my votes. Far too many nullsec candidates fail to see this. A lot even fail to differentiate between low and FW. Anyway...

DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Another issue on the minds of many FW leaders, is the issue of income for FW corps and alliances

I do not want to preempt what you say here, but I haven't seen this as much of an issue (maybe my corp is too small). Could you please give us more details of this issue.

What potential fixes do you have in mind?
Will the fix encourage larger corps within FW?
Would encouraging larger corps into FW be a good thing in your opinion?
#34 - 2014-02-25 15:47:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Freelancer117
Hey Funky,

as an eve radio listener it's good to see you representing a small portion of the community.

On occasion I do rewind your show, sadly the time zone I'm in makes it hard to tune in live.


You seem to have discovered Epic Music, that is awesome, please have a listen to this to Cool

https://soundcloud.com/anttimartikainen


PS: most of my votes have been decided but I kept one in reserve, IF Trebor does not run it will be yours o7

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Spaceship Bebop
#35 - 2014-02-25 19:06:22 UTC
If the lobby for Timer Rollbacks fails would you support dual timers as an alternative?

Would you push for .4 lowsec to stop being baby lowsec (no moon mining, etc.)?

I think I'm a bit more concerned with force projection within lowsec atm than you are. If an alternative to moons/pocos were available for a decent amount of corporate funding to lowsec groups I would jump for joy.
Goonswarm Federation
#36 - 2014-02-26 00:25:09 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
I think I'm a bit more concerned with force projection within lowsec atm than you are. If an alternative to moons/pocos were available for a decent amount of corporate funding to lowsec groups I would jump for joy.


What's stopping you from doing that now?
Monkeys with Guns.
#37 - 2014-02-26 01:02:52 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ FunkyBacon
Hello Monument Visitor wrote:

I do not want to preempt what you say here, but I haven't seen this as much of an issue (maybe my corp is too small). Could you please give us more details of this issue.

What potential fixes do you have in mind?
Will the fix encourage larger corps within FW?
Would encouraging larger corps into FW be a good thing in your opinion?


One example I gave in a recent interview of the income issue is that for the corps in our alliance to have an office at the station in our home system, it costs around 80 million per month. In the grand scheme of things, that's not really a lot of money, but through taxes I don't think we pull in even 5 million per month. there's just no ratting or missioning going on. A corp that runs incursions on the other hand, can pull in money hand over fist even with a small tax %. Highsec corps doing most forms of PVE can do well, especially with people running missions, and nullsec boys relying on ratting income, plus with higher value real estate like moons and better PI returns (not to mention being able to rent space, build capital ships etc etc etc) have lots of income options.

Most FW lowsec groups by comparison have to run off of donations from their members to do anything at the corporate, let alone alliance level.

I'm not a programmer, so I will preface this with the fact that my potential solution may be nigh undoable with the code of the game, but I think the simplest way to solve the income issue would be to allow corps to tax LP gains in some way. In this way, FW corps/alliances could pull in money like any player doing the activity can, through LP store purchasing and selling, or could have a faction ship SRP or any number of things.

As for corp sizes, I think this will help both large and small corps. Obviously larger corps with more members will likely pull in more LP, but they will also have more mouths to feed so to speak. I do not see successful nullsec alliances taking much advantage of this, as the income gained from null activities will still likely outstrip what a corp could make in FW. I do see more null entities getting kicked out of their space giving FW a try, but as history shows, they don't tend to dominate FW as people once feared they might.

Thanatos Marathon wrote:
If the lobby for Timer Rollbacks fails would you support dual timers as an alternative?

Would you push for .4 lowsec to stop being baby lowsec (no moon mining, etc.)?

I think I'm a bit more concerned with force projection within lowsec atm than you are. If an alternative to moons/pocos were available for a decent amount of corporate funding to lowsec groups I would jump for joy.

I think with the right amount of pressure and attention, timer rollbacks will not fail. My perception of the issue at this point is that this is more an issue of a lack of developer resources than CCP resistance to the idea. As we've seen before with CCP, a good lobby, and wide spread pressure go a long way to getting resources assigned to an issue, particularly if it's not going to take a ton of those resources. If we all get behind this, and have a voice close to CCPs ear, I think we can make this a reality.

I would definitely like to see .4 lowsec given more of a role in the grand scheme than it presently has. It's just as risky and dangerous on the PVP side as any other part of lowsec, often moreso as many systems tend to be bordering on highsec and are more heavily trafficked. As any of us who live there knows, the risk and danger in lowsec has almost nothing to do with NPCs and everything to do with the people who live there. I've never heard of anyone refusing to come out to play in lowsec because the NPCs might kill them.

As for force projection, it's just a complicated issue. You and I have flown together many times, so you know I am aware of our concerns when deciding how much of our own force to project. I think that the part of my platform to get some income flow to lowsec corps and alliances will go some distance in evening some of the odds, and giving us the tools we need at the upper levels to be able to encourage people to risk more if we as corps and alliances can help replace, or even initially purchase some assets. Also, giving lowsec some extra tools to pin and trap supers will give pause to those with the ability drop them now with near impunity.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter

Shadow Cartel
#38 - 2014-02-26 15:15:07 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Hello Monument Visitor wrote:

I do not want to preempt what you say here, but I haven't seen this as much of an issue (maybe my corp is too small). Could you please give us more details of this issue.

What potential fixes do you have in mind?
Will the fix encourage larger corps within FW?
Would encouraging larger corps into FW be a good thing in your opinion?


One example I gave in a recent interview of the income issue is that for the corps in our alliance to have an office at the station in our home system, it costs around 80 million per month. In the grand scheme of things, that's not really a lot of money, but through taxes I don't think we pull in even 5 million per month. there's just no ratting or missioning going on. A corp that runs incursions on the other hand, can pull in money hand over fist even with a small tax %. Highsec corps doing most forms of PVE can do well, especially with people running missions, and nullsec boys relying on ratting income, plus with higher value real estate like moons and better PI returns (not to mention being able to rent space, build capital ships etc etc etc) have lots of income options.

Most FW lowsec groups by comparison have to run off of donations from their members to do anything at the corporate, let alone alliance level.

I'm not a programmer, so I will preface this with the fact that my potential solution may be nigh undoable with the code of the game, but I think the simplest way to solve the income issue would be to allow corps to tax LP gains in some way. In this way, FW corps/alliances could pull in money like any player doing the activity can, through LP store purchasing and selling, or could have a faction ship SRP or any number of things.


I like this idea a lot, although I think rather than just treating it the same as a players LP pool let alliances do more high level stuff with it as well, either donating LP directly to the faction for a reward or maybe even allowing them to add LP to friendly systems up to a certain distance from their offices and get rewards that way.

Pirates - The Invisible Fist of Darwin

you're welcome

Spaceship Bebop
#39 - 2014-02-26 16:12:11 UTC
Really like the LP tax system; it would allow corps to make some income and possibly enable things like SRPs for FW corps. It would also make it a lot easier to do tier pushes, since it could be done more from the corp / executive level. Might reduce leeching to some degree.

It would also let you have a tax for NPC militia corps...

Some other thoughts I'd like your comments on:

1. How would you solve the negative aspects of timer rollbacks? Especially with regards to how it penalizes an attacker? How are rollbacks better than a dual timer setup?

2. How would you incentivize deplexing? At the moment it's a massive chore that's not worth doing to PvP focused FW pilots. Siting in a novice plex for 19 minutes to get 800 LP at the end is just a massive time suck with crap risk / reward. (Risk here being that's 19 minutes you could be out roaming looking for fights, not the risk of getting one). Fixed LP payouts not scaled to contested percentage? Automatic "LP tax" sent to the iHub to prevent tier drops?

3. What would you change to incentivize actually living in the warzone and upgrading systems? At the moment there's a huge imbalance between the folks who have the ******* to live and work in the warzone, and who contribute to system upgrades - and the mission alts that leech off the higher tier LP payouts.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."

Spaceship Bebop
#40 - 2014-02-26 18:05:30 UTC
One incremental solution to farmer problem. Increase gate activation range to 2500m

Support this and you have my vote. Big smile (You have my vote anyways)
7 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump