These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mike Azariah ---> CSMX

First post
Author
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-12-05 21:20:23 UTC
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
Another canadate has mafe issue of acessablity of Eve for the visually impaired and those with hearing disabilitys. In CSM10 what would be. Your ideas on addressing this issue?


As you have said, I do make an issue of trying to make Eve accessible. I talk to folks with borderline cases and forward their suggestions to appropriate UI folks.

-insert obligatory ;Eve has sound?' joke here-

I try to remind UI and art teams about people with colour-blindness and visual acuity issues. Hell I usually wind up cranking the chat font up about 5 steps.

If elected to CSM10 I would continue what I have been doing all along.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-12-05 21:30:04 UTC
You are an EVE player who once posted that high-sec reward should not be nerfed because so much else depends on it.

Do you believe that other areas of space should be made more profitable relative to high-sec in order to drive conflict and higher population densities outside of high-sec? What would you say if I accused high-sec reward and profitability of making struggles for resources in other areas less meaningful?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2014-12-05 21:44:58 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
You are an EVE player who once posted that high-sec reward should not be nerfed because so much else depends on it.

Do you believe that other areas of space should be made more profitable relative to high-sec in order to drive conflict and higher population densities outside of high-sec? What would you say if I accused high-sec reward and profitability of making struggles for resources in other areas less meaningful?


Calls for nerfing highsec income are usually based on the idea that 'they are playing it wrong so we need to FORCE them to play our way.' I disagree with that style of thinking. If you want to make another portion of New Eden have an advantage such as industrialism in low and null, I was in favour of that.

If you start quoting risk/reward I will ask what risk afktars in null suffer. Or rental agreements. Some things are not a matter of risk they are a matter of EFFORT. TIME. A miner may not be doing glorious battle but his effort is soemthing he is willing to do. Why should we asdk that he do it in places where anybody can pop him for the fun of it (more so than they already can in highsec)

The generalization of 'more profitable regions' is just that, too general. I think each section of space has appropriate activities and then some edge cases. It is smarter to carebear in relative safety. It is better to run industry where YOU are the government (null sov). Profit margins for a trade center in low should be higher because of the risks that they take.

But give me a good reason why we should nerf highsec rewards. Then ask if that same reason applies to other regions.

Or is it you just want more targets in your space?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Praetor Siderium
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#24 - 2014-12-05 22:23:57 UTC
I listen to numerous Eve podcasts and I'm pretty sure I've heard Mike on every one of them. What I've learned about him is that he doesn't care for just one aspect of the game, he cares about the entire game. I don't know if I always agree with his positions but I respect the fact that he presents his positions with a veritable heap of information as to WHY he feels the way he does, and why he thinks things should or should not be changed. He reads the forums to make sure he remains in touch with the rest of the player base and he makes a FRIGGIN list of things to check into. I'm not sure how he manages to play the game let alone spend time with his family and work.

He is a voice of reason and sanity in a place where crazies often get the most attention. +3 votes from me Mike.

PS - Thanks for all your hard work with the Newbros

PPS - I'm gonna go buy a "holidy" card this weekend and send it out next week
mr ed thehouseofed
Wrought iron Industries
#25 - 2014-12-06 14:14:09 UTC
gets my vote Big smile

i want a eve pinball machine...  confirming  CCP Cognac is best cognac

Mangala Solaris
Spectre Fleet Corporation
Spectre Fleet Alliance
#26 - 2014-12-06 14:51:14 UTC
In my CSM capacity I have worked alongside Mike for approaching two years now and he has been tireless in his work on your behalf. I will certainly recommend you all have him high on your ballots come the elections. He deserves a third term!
Black Pedro
Yammerschooner
#27 - 2014-12-06 17:07:55 UTC
Hi Mike,

I have questions/concern about new players and getting them integrated into the game. I think most people agree that the quality of a new player's Eve experience in the game (and ultimately the time the stay playing Eve) depends greatly on the initial social contacts that they make. Ideally, they will shortly after finishing the tutorials end up in a good corp that can not only teach them, but support them in the activities they find most enjoyable. However, getting newbies into the correct corp can be challenging, and I am concerned that many new players can end up in small, incompetent (for lack of a better word) or downright exploitative corps which are unable or unwilling to help new players learn the game making their initial Eve experience more frustrating.

So firstly, do you think enough is being done to help guide new players into competent corporations that are interested in training new players? Do you have any ideas on what additional mechanisms could be implemented to help new players find not only a social environment where the thrive, but into corporations willing to train and support them?

Secondly, there are upcoming changes in Rhea which will facilitate the "spamming" of new players with corporation invitations and a proposal in the last CSM minutes (pg. 78) to ban intracorp agression in highsec. Together, these will remove two "checks" on this spamming behaviour that is so prevalent in other games, as there will now be zero risk in accepting new players into your corporation. This will make a strategy of "spam inviting" in starter systems to gather new players into an exploitative corp that has excessively high taxes or a low ore buy-back program a viable one, and one that will have a detrimental effect on the experience of new players.

So, what can we do to help prevent new player's lack of knowledge of game mechanics from being exploited by nefarious, or just clueless CEOs? Personally, I think this is a strong argument against changing the intracorp aggression mechanics, but assuming they go through, what can be done to limit the danger of new players ending up in terrible/exploitative corps and just quitting the game?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-12-06 18:11:09 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

So firstly, do you think enough is being done to help guide new players into competent corporations that are interested in training new players? Do you have any ideas on what additional mechanisms could be implemented to help new players find not only a social environment where the thrive, but into corporations willing to train and support them?

Secondly,
So, what can we do to help prevent new player's lack of knowledge of game mechanics from being exploited by nefarious, or just clueless CEOs?


I edited his quote so I could focus on the questions.

Do I think enough is being done for new players? Hell, no. That is why I am in the Rookie Help Chat and why I am organizing Operation Magic School Bus. I have said for YEARS that we need to find some way to encourage the corps that actually help new players (as opposed to prey on them) Whether it be by tax breaks, some sort of non-isk recognition, whatever. If we ever manage to make sorp and alliance skins I would say the helpers get theirs FIRST.

What can we do to help players against nefarious CEOs? You mean like the ones already spamming in newbie systems to join their corp (which has the low low tax rate of 50-75%? Or the ones who set up mining groups for thier own personal sources? Spam isn't coming, it is already here. I am of two minds on this one. One: It IS Eve and as long as the rules are logical and apparent then some of the burden SHOULD be on the players. BUT this is why I agreed with the removal of awox. The rule was counter-intuitive and dumb. So yes CCP should have some very minor protections for new players in the starting and career systems I do think some of the burden alos belongs with the players.

But damn, we need a better system to show them there is more than mining and missions. To encourage them to be social, to make them part of our community.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Hiasa Kite
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2014-12-06 18:45:05 UTC
You'll be getting a vote from me, Mike. Good luck!

"Playing an MMO by yourself is like masturbating in the middle of an orgy." -Jonah Gravenstein

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2014-12-06 21:52:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Amyclas Amatin
Mike Azariah wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
You are an EVE player who once posted that high-sec reward should not be nerfed because so much else depends on it.

Do you believe that other areas of space should be made more profitable relative to high-sec in order to drive conflict and higher population densities outside of high-sec? What would you say if I accused high-sec reward and profitability of making struggles for resources in other areas less meaningful?


Calls for nerfing highsec income are usually based on the idea that 'they are playing it wrong so we need to FORCE them to play our way.' I disagree with that style of thinking. If you want to make another portion of New Eden have an advantage such as industrialism in low and null, I was in favour of that.

If you start quoting risk/reward I will ask what risk afktars in null suffer. Or rental agreements. Some things are not a matter of risk they are a matter of EFFORT. TIME. A miner may not be doing glorious battle but his effort is soemthing he is willing to do. Why should we asdk that he do it in places where anybody can pop him for the fun of it (more so than they already can in highsec)

The generalization of 'more profitable regions' is just that, too general. I think each section of space has appropriate activities and then some edge cases. It is smarter to carebear in relative safety. It is better to run industry where YOU are the government (null sov). Profit margins for a trade center in low should be higher because of the risks that they take.

But give me a good reason why we should nerf highsec rewards. Then ask if that same reason applies to other regions.

Or is it you just want more targets in your space?

m


All of null-sec, both in the CFC and outside of it are PVP areas where anyone may freely engage anyone. Ratting ships from all sides die, routinely, as a product of hostile action, and such losses are usually accepted and prepared for as part of the risks of living in the area. The effort required for solo PVE can be minimized just as much whether you are in high-sec or null-sec, and I would assert that the main factor in balancing the incomes would be the risks players face when operating in each area.

Large scale sovereignty warfare moves at a glacial pace, you may see it as less "risky", and thousand man fleets fighting over sovereignty objectives are not an immediate part of the risks facing each sides' ratters. Null-sec sovereignty deals more with alliances fighting at a large strategic scale. The risks posed to individuals making an income are more to do with small-gang pvp, which can exist anywhere in null-sec. Small-gang warfare targeting ratters and renters are still very much alive, the two powerblocs do it to each other, and often support smaller "pirate" groups operating in each others' space.

In stark contrast, there are far more limited options for directly engaging individuals making an income in high-sec. Individuals can easily evade wardecs. Suicide ganking has reached the point where only highly organized entities do it regularly.

It may be a smarter player choice to PVE in safer areas, but as a matter of having a better game, more dangerous areas should be more rewarding relative to high-sec. Features like incursions which give a high-level of income in high-sec break the reward incentive for people to attempt to make money out of low-sec, null-sec and wormhole space. The incentive for making money in high-sec must decrease relative to the incentive for making money in other areas of space if PVP is to have a higher stake in the way individuals have income.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-12-07 00:09:10 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
The incentive for making money in high-sec must decrease relative to the incentive for making money in other areas of space if PVP is to have a higher stake in the way individuals have income.


The incentive for making more isk is the same every where so I assume you mean the means. Right?

Look, we can play this point counterpoint all day because you missed what I was saying. I am NOT trying to ruin or even change your gameplay when we discuss ways of making isk but I, in return, ask the same. Do not look to nerf someone else to make your own situation be better. Look to improve your own space, make it attractive.

It is like real estate . . . graffiti on the next block over might make yours look better, relatively, but it is a downward spiral and in the end, few want to live anywhere nearby. If we make highsec untenable then we block a distinct portion of the game population who have no want or need to go to low or null. THAT hurts the whole game.

Make your space better . . . not by making someone elses space worse but by actually making your space BETTER. As a result the whole game will benefit.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Amyclas Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2014-12-07 01:06:56 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
The incentive for making money in high-sec must decrease relative to the incentive for making money in other areas of space if PVP is to have a higher stake in the way individuals have income.


The incentive for making more isk is the same every where so I assume you mean the means. Right?

Look, we can play this point counterpoint all day because you missed what I was saying. I am NOT trying to ruin or even change your gameplay when we discuss ways of making isk but I, in return, ask the same. Do not look to nerf someone else to make your own situation be better. Look to improve your own space, make it attractive.

It is like real estate . . . graffiti on the next block over might make yours look better, relatively, but it is a downward spiral and in the end, few want to live anywhere nearby. If we make highsec untenable then we block a distinct portion of the game population who have no want or need to go to low or null. THAT hurts the whole game.

Make your space better . . . not by making someone elses space worse but by actually making your space BETTER. As a result the whole game will benefit.

m


What I am saying is that areas outside of high-sec must be more attractive for making isk relative to high-sec if we don't want the game to devolve into e-sports where players and groups can easily recover losses in the "safe-zone" of high-sec.

Groups like CFC and The New Order actively attempt to disrupt high-sec economic activity because we understand the impact that the wealth it produces has on the rest of the game. If capital pilot owners on both sides mine in high-sec or run incursions, would it not be in our interest to disrupt and hurt such activities? If producers in high-sec are in direct economic conflict with our own industrialists, would it not be in our interest to slaughter them en-mass? Conflict comes to high-sec because it is connected to every area of the game. If the humble high-sec miner, mission runner, incursion runner or industrialist who do not want to leave high-sec were not in economic competition with the rest of the game, you would certainly see less effort put into their extermination.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"

Urziel99
Unified Research and Industrial
#33 - 2014-12-07 07:42:58 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
The incentive for making money in high-sec must decrease relative to the incentive for making money in other areas of space if PVP is to have a higher stake in the way individuals have income.


The incentive for making more isk is the same every where so I assume you mean the means. Right?

Look, we can play this point counterpoint all day because you missed what I was saying. I am NOT trying to ruin or even change your gameplay when we discuss ways of making isk but I, in return, ask the same. Do not look to nerf someone else to make your own situation be better. Look to improve your own space, make it attractive.

It is like real estate . . . graffiti on the next block over might make yours look better, relatively, but it is a downward spiral and in the end, few want to live anywhere nearby. If we make highsec untenable then we block a distinct portion of the game population who have no want or need to go to low or null. THAT hurts the whole game.

Make your space better . . . not by making someone elses space worse but by actually making your space BETTER. As a result the whole game will benefit.

m


*snip*

If the humble high-sec miner, mission runner, incursion runner or industrialist who do not want to leave high-sec were not in economic competition with the rest of the game, you would certainly see less effort put into their extermination.


Doubtful. It's one thing for Miniluv or CODE to target known logistics alts and alt corps of enemy power blocs. It's quite another to massacre every freighter that enters a pipe system.

Even if nullsec was far and away the best place to do industry you would still see people doing it in highsec and you would still kill them so your argument is pointless justification. But that is to be expected from james 315's followers.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#34 - 2014-12-07 10:54:19 UTC
Mike, I always have fun talking with you, feel like I can approach you with any of my ideas I think are worth doing more than just throwing at a wall to see what sticks and when we disagree on things, you can articulate your point to even someone as hard headed and opinionated as me.

+1 for mikes continuation on CSM.
+1 for letting mike continue to use the developed relationships and skills to be an effective part of CSM.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp

Benny Ohu
Chaotic Tranquility
Snuffed Out
#35 - 2014-12-07 17:08:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Benny Ohu
i see mike as one of the more active csm on the forums, soliciting opinions and visibly reading and responding to feedback threads. i don't regret voting for mike in the past and i'll vote for him again despite his being a horrid dirty carebear

Mike Azariah wrote:
Calls for nerfing highsec income are usually based on the idea that 'they are playing it wrong so we need to FORCE them to play our way.' I disagree with that style of thinking. If you want to make another portion of New Eden have an advantage such as industrialism in low and null, I was in favour of that.


given these conditions,
- if players were avoiding activity in dangerous space due to rewards not stacking up to the effort/time/risk,
- when players would otherwise enjoy activity in that space including hazards (i believe players generally gravitate to the most optimal method for an activity regardless of 'fun factor'),
- when making changes would probably cause players who would prefer to play there to move there,
- when making changes would not cause safer space to have inoptimal rewards for effort/time/risk for those who would prefer to remain,
- and when changes would create additional or more enjoyable pvp/piracy encounters for everyone who desires such gameplay,
i feel 'making more targets move to this dangerous space' would be a good goal, because it's adding to the entertainment value of the game by presenting more engaging options for those who want to take them

that's not reason for simply nerfing the 'better' options, though. it's a hypothetical circumstance that may justify a certain goal. i imagine there's many paths to achieving the goal, and by taking the most obvious, nerfing something, you're possibly ignoring more effective or less disruptive options

Quote:
I think each section of space has appropriate activities and then some edge cases. It is smarter to carebear in relative safety. It is better to run industry where YOU are the government (null sov). Profit margins for a trade center in low should be higher because of the risks that they take.

i think it'd be ideal to have any given activity have about equal viablity in all areas of the game. for example, shooting red plus signs. pete might like lowsec belt ratting over running highsec missions, but before the clone tags were introduced, pete only ran missions because he when belt ratting he felt he was wasting his time. now with mordus rats and clone tags, pete flies around lowsec belts and enjoys his pve hours more than before. pete sometimes runs into pies but even with the bother and the hazard, the isk is more worth his time now

e: uh wow that last bit has nothing to do with what's quoted. i guess i wanted it in there as a positive example of making space more appealing to people who might want to play there
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#36 - 2014-12-07 17:25:25 UTC
I endorsed Mike for CSM 8 on a long shot - I didn't think he had all that good a chance of getting elected, but I thought it was definitely worth trying to help an advocate for the "little guys" of EVE get elected, because I believe that a CSM with a diverse range of experience and viewpoints is a stronger, more effective CSM.

Mike repaid that that endorsement a hundred times over in CSM8, and then gave us an encore for CSM9. The argument that the individual, the loner, the casual needs a representative is as strong as ever, and Mike's proven ability to speak up effectively for that constituency, and his two terms of experience in delivering that voice make him an inarguable choice for the role.

I strongly urge you to find a place on your preferences for Mike.

Vote Mike Azariah!

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Xander Phoena
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2014-12-08 20:13:11 UTC
Mike Azariah is one of my most very favourite people in all of New Eden. And that's before I even take into account the amazing work he has contributed to CSM9. You should vote for him - I will be.

www.crossingzebras.com

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#38 - 2014-12-08 22:39:58 UTC
Much of the ISK/hr that high sec activity can generate is because high sec is the beating heart of the EVE economy. Would you agree that part of the problem with nullsec income in particular isn't just the risk, but the fact that it's a nearly pure ISK faucet that hardly requires any interaction with other players--and their wallets? Given that a neck-punch to high sec might just bring the whole game's economy to its knees, wouldn't it be better to figure out how to get players to interact profitably? If you could get the ISK transfer/ISK injection ratio in null sec to roughly the same proportion that mission running enjoys in high sec, that would be a huge buff to null sec income, but with the same or less ISK injected.

Unfortunately, that would be a very tall order. But do you think that it's the right track, or do you have a better idea?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

LUMINOUS SPIRIT
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#39 - 2014-12-08 22:53:51 UTC
+1 vote from me. every little bit helps.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2014-12-08 23:13:56 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Much of the ISK/hr that high sec activity can generate is because high sec is the beating heart of the EVE economy. Would you agree that part of the problem with nullsec income in particular isn't just the risk, but the fact that it's a nearly pure ISK faucet that hardly requires any interaction with other players--and their wallets? Given that a neck-punch to high sec might just bring the whole game's economy to its knees, wouldn't it be better to figure out how to get players to interact profitably? If you could get the ISK transfer/ISK injection ratio in null sec to roughly the same proportion that mission running enjoys in high sec, that would be a huge buff to null sec income, but with the same or less ISK injected.

Unfortunately, that would be a very tall order. But do you think that it's the right track, or do you have a better idea?


Man you ask think questions with a lot of layers.

To the first part? No, null does make a fair amount of isk in their own space. They just don't talk about it as much. So null is not the impoversished waif some make it out to be.

It WOULD be better to help players interact but, as I have said before, not FORCE them to do so. There ARE some players who take solace in quietly mining or running missions. I know, I am, at times, one of them. To gut highsec would not move players to other regions, some it would move to other games.

As for the last part I wrote a huge paragraph and then realized I was tapdancing too close to my NDA boundaries for my own taste. But I can say in more general terms that a lot of commonly held beliefs of how things are in Eve are based on faulty premises.

But back to my key point. I do not want to ruin one space to benefit another. Each space should have its own draw and its own reason to be there.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)