These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rengerel en Distel
#121 - 2013-01-16 17:15:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Let's say you could only push for one thing to change about non-empire industry, what would you think would make the most difference? Not counting POS revamp or moon changes.


If i only get one wish it would be for modular outposts capable of being upgraded to allow a fully invested nullsec system to be the equal of a good hisec ssystem.


Is it a matter of 100% refining, or just the costs of having enough slots for a real industrial base?

With the increase in shiptoasting, the Report timer needs to be shortened.
Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#122 - 2013-01-16 17:16:50 UTC
Malcanis wrote:


Are you arguing that moon mining should be obsoleted entirely? That's a very radical change, and I think I'd need to hear from you exactly what problems you think this would fix and how gameplay would be improved before I could comment further. If there's one good thing about moon-mining it's that valuable moons are excellent fight-generators; I'd want to see the opportunities and motivations for fighting in 0.0 diversified a hell of a lot further than their current paucity before I endorsed removing any.


If we can target dust bunnies on a planet via disticts then why not PI buildings on planets and moons? Of course for such a thing to happen, PI would need to be iterated on and improved. Im sure you are aware of this topic which reminds me of the old Dead Horse pos thread, in the Assembly Hall with the resulting link to its pdf - Planetary Interaction 2.1.

PI another one of those great CCP features with lots of promise built before it was finished. Moon mining would still exist, just in a different form plus planets could also provide the moon mining mineral [ala ring mining]. Fights would still be around moons [and planets] just instead of blowing up a pos on the spot, it would possibly be blowing up a pos [heres hoping for the new pos's] and bombarding the planet with orbital strikes to remove the facilties/using dust mercs to conquer them [though this one is probably less likely]. Instead of one alliance and one pos, it could be various alliance members each with their own facilties on the same planet earning a piece for themselves or giving it to the alliance. Theres lots of things that could happen. Radical? Why be satisfied with the status quo?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#123 - 2013-01-16 17:25:23 UTC
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Let's say you could only push for one thing to change about non-empire industry, what would you think would make the most difference? Not counting POS revamp or moon changes.


If i only get one wish it would be for modular outposts capable of being upgraded to allow a fully invested nullsec system to be the equal of a good hisec ssystem.


Is it a matter of 100% refining, or just the costs of having enough slots for a real industrial base?



I'll. Post a proper answer later after I've read the CSM minutes but the short answer is no.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zagdul
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#124 - 2013-01-16 18:00:29 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
After much thought, I'm going to run for CSM election this year.

What are my qualifications:
First and foremost I have been playing EVE for over 6 years. I've seen a lot, done a lot, connected with a lot of other players and I have a pretty wide experience of the game (and some pretty wide gaps in that experience, as I will freely admit). I have lived in Sov 0.0, NPC 0.0, lo-sec, hi-sec and W-space. I'm not an intense meta-gamers, I don't hang out in the "Cool" jabber channels, I'm not in any kind of alliance leadership position. My perspective is that of a humble grunt, and my philosophy is informed by that.

Secondly, and more visibly, I spend a great deal of time thinking and discussing EVE. Anyone who reads these forums knows that. I'm always ready to learn from people who know something I don't, and I spend a fair amount of time trying to help people who don't know things I do. Running for the CSM is a logical extension of that.

Finally, I am - no false modesty here - a ~good poster~. I can present a reasoned, logical, structured argument, and I can follow one when it's presented to me. If I am elected, I will represent my philosophy to CCP effectively. I will also make the attempt to increase the communication between the CSM and you, the players with regular reports and posts right here on this forum. I will not hide these communications away on a blog, they will be here, on record, where you can respond to them.

What is my philosophy
I believe in EVE. I think it's something special in the gaming world, and I think that what makes EVE special is worth protected and supporting. I believe in the freedom of players to interect with each other, and the right of players to determine how those interactions result with the minimum of NPC interference. I believe in making changes to EVE that increase the possibilities of player ineraction, and that provide gameplay opportunities. If you send me to Reykjavik, you will be sending a message to CCP that you want that emergent, player-driven narrative to be the core and centre of EVE.

If you like, you can get a moredetailed idea of my thoughts about EVE on the articles I have written for TheMittani.com. Please note that I am completely unaffilated with the CFC, and there is no specific Goon input into my campaign, nor will there be in my actions as a CSM.

I also wrote a hi-sec manifesto in this forum, which specifically laid out my thoughts on hi-sec. I think it also showcases my general philosophy on EVE.

What's your alignment?
My election campaign has no official standing in any EVE coaltion. I am a member of the Initiative., which is currently in the HBC, but I have not sought permission or asked support from anyone in the HBC to run for election. I believe the HBC will run their own "official" candidate.

Enough about me: Ask questions.



Bout time.

Dual Pane idea: Click!

CCP Please Implement
Anslo
Scope Works
#125 - 2013-01-16 18:29:29 UTC
"Vote for me! I can fix high-sec!"

Is from a nul-block.

Yeahno. My vote's going to Herr Ronin.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#126 - 2013-01-16 19:21:21 UTC
Anslo wrote:
"Vote for me! I can fix high-sec!"

Is from a nul-block.

Yeahno. My vote's going to Herr Ronin.


Ronin is in a nullbloc too, but don't let the facts get in the way of your decision.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zimmy Zeta
Perkone
Caldari State
#127 - 2013-01-16 19:38:00 UTC
Glad that you are running, have my vote etc.


To convince all the high sec enthusiasts you could just claim that you want CCP to buff Drakes and Tengus. Blink






(Don't)

I'd like to apologize for the poor quality of the post above and sincerely hope you didn't waste your time reading it. Yes, I do feel bad about it.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#128 - 2013-01-16 20:03:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Malcanis wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Rengerel en Distel wrote:
Let's say you could only push for one thing to change about non-empire industry, what would you think would make the most difference? Not counting POS revamp or moon changes.


If i only get one wish it would be for modular outposts capable of being upgraded to allow a fully invested nullsec system to be the equal of a good hisec ssystem.


Is it a matter of 100% refining, or just the costs of having enough slots for a real industrial base?



I'll. Post a proper answer later after I've read the CSM minutes but the short answer is no.


To expand: there are several problems with sov nullsec. One of them is, as you have accurately identified, the sheer carrying capacity available. There needs to be a way to add an very large number of research and production lines to sov stations to level the evident imbalance of a single hi-sec system being able to outproduce entire developed 0.0 regions.

Another aspect is that there need to be specific advantages to producing in 0,0 to outweigh the very great game mechanics advantages of doing the same activities in hi-sec. So 0.0 stations need to give some compelling advantage to offset the actuarial cost of (to name but one) no CONCORD protection or (to name another) the chance of the station being captured whilst all those long research or production jobs are running. In short there need to be straight up financial advantages to producing in 0.0 to compete with the huge subsidies that producers in hi-sec get.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#129 - 2013-01-16 20:15:34 UTC
Any thoughts on suggestions like changing the manufacturing costs to one based on mineral values, as opposed to today's values of 2k isk or less pr maelstrom?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#130 - 2013-01-16 20:51:30 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Any thoughts on suggestions like changing the manufacturing costs to one based on mineral values, as opposed to today's values of 2k isk or less pr maelstrom?


To be perfectly frank a hard numbers modification like that is better coming from someone like corestwo. I had hoped to enlist V.V. into leading a solid proposal like that, but apparently ideological concerns predominate.

One idea that I did have was to promote T2 production in 0.0 by adding a manufacturing upgrade to 0.0 outposts that would allow production from invented BPCs that ignored the negative MEs. That would give T2 production in 0.0 a solid advantage to offset the overheads, without being open to abuse by enabling players to refine finished goods to end up with more stuff than they started with.

If you recall my hi-sec manifesto, I did suggest a possible (for example) -1% per 0.1 sec level ME & PE penalty (So producing in a 1.0 system would require (for example) 10% more minerals and take 10% longer than in a 0.0 system. But that was more to encourage a shift to 0.5 or 0.6 systems. I'm not sure that it would on its own be enough to enable viable 0.0 production of bulk items like battleships.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#131 - 2013-01-16 22:50:12 UTC
Serious questions: All yes or no. Longer answers are fine, Yes/No is all I'm looking for. Some of these are things I want, some are things I do not want.

POS revamp: Pushing CCP to reconsider this as a priority issue

Tech 3 nerf: As per balancing plans stated in meeting notes (drastic reduction of performance to all strat cruisers)

Jump range nerf on capitals/supercapitals: Range reduction

Player built stations being completely destructable: Including stations built before the change

Anything to do with ponies: (Just say no, and noone has to get hurt.)

Higher yield 0.0 low end asteroids: Veld, trit, mex

Inflation calculator not including Plex: "because not good reason given"

Thanks!
Alvin Exe
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#132 - 2013-01-16 22:54:21 UTC
You definetly have my vote and it has nothing to do with corpmate favor !

Always like to read new ideas to make Eve Online better :)
madpsychc0killer
Solutis in Sanguis
#133 - 2013-01-17 00:00:06 UTC
I'll be sending a vote or two your way fella,

You post well (both here - which is a rarity and worth a vote in itself and also on the site that shouldn't be namedTwisted), your ideas always tend to be well thought out, and your arguements solid. Eve will be better off with you on the csm next time around.
Xercodo
Cruor Angelicus
#134 - 2013-01-17 01:03:01 UTC
Sure, I can get behind this :D

The Drake is a Lie
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#135 - 2013-01-17 01:58:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Just to go off on a complete tangent…
Malcanis wrote:
[Basically, I think players should be able to choose which NPC corp they want to belong to, and different NPC corps should have different advantages and different drawbacks and challenges. There should certainly be more complexity - joining a Caldari Megacorp that has a 'Cold War' going on with another megacorp should give you a big standings hit to that other megacorp (or even open warfare with their members - a very small scale version of faction warfare). Joining a government/Navy organisation should involve you in faction warfare. Other corps might vary the cut they take of your earnings. Different NPCs corps might also offer different facilities like easier jump clone access, better refining, limited access LP stores, partial diplomatic immunity for players with very low faction status (eg: you might join a Caldari megacorp with good trading relations with the Minmatar; you'd still be hostile to Gallente Faction navy, but you'd be able to travel into Minmatar space as if your standing to them was +2.0 higher than it actually is). And so on. There are lots of possibilities.

Basically, it should matter which NPC corp you choose. And the NPC corps with the pros/cons that suit a particular playstyle, whether mining, trading, missioning, hauling, whatever, will then tend to accumulate the players who do the relevant professions.
I was thinking about this the other day, and one thing that struck me is that, for all granularity of the (NPC) standings system, it's used for exactly four things: faction police hunting you, factions allowing you to plunk down a POS, taxes and fees, and station services (basically agents and jump clones). Due to how both missions and industry work, the latter two are pretty much meaningless because you just grind one or two relevant corps to the requisite level and then you're done (and some of them are superseded by faction standing anyway). So why does it matter that my standings list is four pages long filled with corps and factions and provide standings with three-digit precision, effectively giving me 200 steps of standings each? Seems like a bit of a waste…

…so why not fill that with meaning and functionality? What you just said triggered an expansion of those through, namely that joining a particular corp will set absolute limits to your effective standings, and that the standings are given more consequences. Note the word “effective” because it will be important. (All the following numbers are based on absolutely no considered thought whatsoever and are just there for illustrative purposes.)

If you join Lai Dai, your Gallente standings are limited to ±0; your Minmatar standings are limited to +2, as are your Ishukone standings (you may belong to the same faction, but you're working for the much-reviled competition), and so on. At the same time, you get a flat modifier towards the same set of corps and organisations: -5 towards gallente; -2.5 against minmatar and Ishukone etc. Your actual standings figures aren't modified — if you quit the corp (and take a standings hit because you're such a pansy) you get your old numbers back, but while in their employ, they will never count higher than that.

Oh, and then we apply the faction-police trigger rule to everything. You're in Lai Dai; you've never done a day's work for Ishukone; so now your effective standing towards them is -2.5. The next time you come across an Ishukone station or convoy in a 0.9 system, they will open fire, because that's what you get at -2.5. Forgot that the goods you bought were in one of their stations and flew there in your Itty V? Ooops… *pop* Oh, and no, they won't let you dock to avoid the sentry guns, so I hope you brought some istabs.

Make missions be against other corps, not just against generic factions or silly pirates, to scramble these standings even further, and add in a crapton of corp-to-corp derived standings relationships. Want to go to Jita? Then FedNavy missions will probably be a bad idea since, not only will they send you off to shoot CalNavy ships, but any kind of progress you make in the FedNavy ranks will act as a direct negative limit on your CalNavi standings. It won't be as crippling as getting -10 with an entire faction — you can still fly around just fine since the factions themselves won't hate you (much… although in the FedNavy vs. CalNavy case, you might want to keep an eye on who's watching the jump gates) — so there's not the same need to decline mission after mission, but there will now be some stations that you simply have to avoid because they are dead-end death traps. Anyone who played Freelancer will recognize this and see why its (actually much simpler) system of interlinked standings created a far more dynamic environment than the ostensibly more complex (but in reality much less relevant) standings mechanics in EVE.


…and then there's the matter of decoupling standings from missions. An industrialist shouldn't have to grind missions to get perfect refine standings with a corp, nor should a trader have to grind missions to lower taxes — they should have other means (which by no means translates into “less work”) of getting those standings.
Jacabon Mere
Capital Storm.
Out of the Blue.
#136 - 2013-01-17 03:53:46 UTC
Are you married?

This is unironically relevant to whether I vote for you or not.

Capital Storm is recruiting Aussies for Lowsec pvp and money making. Join "Capital Storm Pub" channel ingame. www.capitalstorm.net
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#137 - 2013-01-17 07:30:58 UTC
Jacabon Mere wrote:
Are you married?

This is unironically relevant to whether I vote for you or not.


I think that's too personal to be relevant.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#138 - 2013-01-17 07:43:09 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Good stuff on the whole.


In principle, that's absolutely the sort of thing what I'd like to see. However, your standings penalties are applied way too early. Civiliam stations should not as a matter of course shoot at other civilians unprovoked. Merely being a member of another megacorp isn't sufficient. Also there needs to be a good spectrum of corp styles available and not all of them need to involve being unexpectedly blapped by NPCs.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#139 - 2013-01-17 09:19:49 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Jacabon Mere wrote:
Are you married?

This is unironically relevant to whether I vote for you or not.


I think that's too personal to be relevant.

<3 love is in the air <3

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#140 - 2013-01-17 10:34:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
A quick note on POS:

Everything about deploying, using and managing POS is unacceptably horrible. POS should be a centrepiece of EVE life: the whole point of a sandbox is that it's based on player created content. Hobbling the ambition virtually every EVE players has, to have a little corner of space to call his own, is bad game design and bad business. If there's one thing that would improve life in ALL areas of EVE, it would be to make POS more accessible and less of a horrible burden.

Declining to fix POS because "only a small percentage use them" is the worst reason I can think of. The fact that only a small percentage of players use such an important, powerful feature should be a red flag, a flashing alert, a blaring siren that something is badly wrong.
And I'm am frankly sceptical that it would take the entire development resources of CCP for a full expansion cycle to deliver significant improvements. If CCP say that it would be too expensive to deliver "perfect" POS, well then I will have to take their word for it at the moment.

But I flatly don't believe that they couldn't give us at least a few of the more desperately needed improvements with much less resources.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016