These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Cipreh for CSM8! Make our voices heard! [QUALIFIED]

First post First post
Author
Oxandrolone
Bite Me inc
Bitten.
#21 - 2013-01-21 03:18:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Oxandrolone
Remove some empty useless C5's

Fix black holes

Make c4's something useful like duel statics, 1 static to c4/c5/c6 1 static to c/1/c2/c3. Gives a stepping stone between the k-space static low class holes and the pew pew high class ones.

POS rework (kinda obvious)

Do something about the massive dreadfest. I don't know how exactly... maybe make it take 2 minutes to lock a cruiser or something, blapping BS's with them is fine.

Promise to try get most or some of this done and ill probably vote for you(and my army of alts), I know you put effort into this kinda stuff since DUCKS.

Cleaver
Cipreh
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2013-01-21 08:51:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Cipreh
I have talked to members of several different w-space alliances, regarding reducing the number of class 5 wormholes, and it's quite a polarizing topic. I personally feel that it would benefit us all, and some people agree, but a lot of people feel differently.

It could potentially drive prices for materials harvested from w-space higher, and generate increased demand for the resources that would remain. Not to mention the simple fact, that in EVE, if people run into one another more often, they will inevitably blow each other up.

There are few benefits to doing something so drastic as removing systems from the game. Maybe reducing the number of class 5, and spreading the removed wormholes among the other higher occupancy classes would be a better option?

The dual static class 4 wormholes is another idea I am a fan of, it provides a stepping stone for organizations that are looking to grow into the class 5, or class 6 wormholes, without the risk of being sieged by capitals, while still having relatively easy k-space access. It would also act as a bridging system, allowing those people living in the lower classes to more easily scan deeper into w-space.

It would also drive conflict in the same sense as removing the systems entirely, if people run into each other, stuff explodes.

The dread "issue" is another one of those touchy subjects. The issue isn't necessarily with the dreads themselves, though the Moros is a beast, but the proliferation of them in organizations home wormholes, and their use under certain situations. It's a complaint that effects a lot of players, but due to the use of dreads elsewhere in the game, it's not one lightly undertaken.

Blog: http://lostwithoutlocal.blogspot.com Twitter: @Cipreh I am also available on Skype, details available upon request. Feel free to contact me via any of the above methods,or in-game.

Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#23 - 2013-01-21 09:03:47 UTC
Remove c5s? Why would you do that? Just provide an incentive for people to live there instead. There are a fair portion of the c6s that are empty as well, are we removing those as well? What about all those c4s?

Removing un-occupied c5s wont have any effect at all on wormhole loot prices. Blue loot is static (NPC buy orders don't change) and there wont be any change in volume output anyway, because the holes you're removing are empty to begin with.

Why are you suggesting improving c4s, but removing c5s? I honestly don't understand this.
Cipreh
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2013-01-21 09:15:01 UTC
Paikis wrote:
Remove c5s? Why would you do that? Just provide an incentive for people to live there instead. There are a fair portion of the c6s that are empty as well, are we removing those as well? What about all those c4s?

Removing un-occupied c5s wont have any effect at all on wormhole loot prices. Blue loot is static (NPC buy orders don't change) and there wont be any change in volume output anyway, because the holes you're removing are empty to begin with.

Why are you suggesting improving c4s, but removing c5s? I honestly don't understand this.


The class 5 and class 6 wormholes are already incentivized, via the capital escalations that pay very well. And if you take into account the reduction in gases coming out, sleeper salvage, and mag site loot, I suspect it would have a broader impact then most people would expect. You would likely see less undefended farming systems, as the sites themselves would be in higher demand.

As I said, it's a subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about, in both directions.

Blog: http://lostwithoutlocal.blogspot.com Twitter: @Cipreh I am also available on Skype, details available upon request. Feel free to contact me via any of the above methods,or in-game.

Axloth Okiah
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#25 - 2013-01-21 09:22:51 UTC
I sympathize with your effort to make people run into each other (and shoot each other) more frequently. But I think making wspace more "habitable" and increasing the population is a better way to do it than making it smaller. And improving POS security would help that the most.
Roime
Fistful of Finns
WE FORM V0LTA
#26 - 2013-01-21 10:21:34 UTC
Again, good luck, good posts so far :)

I think preventing SD inside a force field could rekindle evictions. DoA did quite a few evictions in lower classes for various reasons, but the SD mechanics resulted often in very little gains, concrete or immaterial, for the attackers. Shooting structures with battleships is only endurable if you know you'll get something out of it.

I've always regarded the risk of living in a WH a very important part of the environment, and if the risk is reduced because of boring mechanics, it's weak game design. I don't think that small, unallied PVE corps should be able to exist risk-free in wormholes just because people can't be arsed to boot them out.

This is coming from a small corp CEO, who values risk over safety, and the potential weekend-long good fights that could result when people fight for their homes. Instead of flipping the middle one and SDing their ships in the POS.

.

Dave Cameron
Doomheim
#27 - 2013-01-21 10:54:16 UTC
Yes, it’s a troll but there is a serious point to it. The problems Cipreh is describing is a symptom of how large and successful Lost have become. Thing is, they’re surprised that no one wants to fight while outnumbered and outclassed. They’re the Goonswarm of wormhole space, except without the innovation. How do you plead?

Roime wrote:
Again, good luck, good posts so far :)

I think preventing SD inside a force field could rekindle evictions. DoA did quite a few evictions in lower classes for various reasons, but the SD mechanics resulted often in very little gains, concrete or immaterial, for the attackers. Shooting structures with battleships is only endurable if you know you'll get something out of it.

I've always regarded the risk of living in a WH a very important part of the environment, and if the risk is reduced because of boring mechanics, it's weak game design. I don't think that small, unallied PVE corps should be able to exist risk-free in wormholes just because people can't be arsed to boot them out.

This is coming from a small corp CEO, who values risk over safety, and the potential weekend-long good fights that could result when people fight for their homes. Instead of flipping the middle one and SDing their ships in the POS.



This gentleman here should be running for CSM. He knows what he’s talking about.
Walextheone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2013-01-21 11:01:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Walextheone
I think some of the problems lies in the sandbox. Some big alliances in w-space with huge numbers have a sort of bully attitude; "if you 5 guys don't fight our 25, that proves you are just pve:ers and than we have good reason to kick you out."

Smaller corps are terrified and fortifty themselves with poses at every moon because of that.


What we need is smaller stuff to shoot at that doesn't take a weekend to finnish off.

I had high hopes when they changed custom offices to be destroyable as a way to drag people out of their poses or at least able to do little damage without a launching a full scale invasion. Sadly reinforcement timers and the amount of life you have of a wormholes makes it just pointless..

More incentives for corporations in all sizes to bring fleets out would make w-space much more dynamic.



Just imagine if there was some sort of buildings that you could anchor (not at poses) that upgraded your system a little bit (like in FW or nullsec) that was decently easy to destroy or at least sabotage. Reinforcment time about an hour, giving your enemy chance to defend.
Terrorfrodo
Interbus Universal
#29 - 2013-01-21 11:34:25 UTC
Roime wrote:
I think preventing SD inside a force field could rekindle evictions.

Which is good because...? Evicting people means fewer people in w-space. Really great Roll

PvE farmers and the ganks they provide are an important part of the pvp food chain in w-space, I don't want them to leave even though I don't like them. We don't need more evictions, we need ways to hurt residents that are both easier to accomplish and less drastic than outright evicting them.

For example, there could be a structure that upgrades sleeper sites in the system. There won't be more sites, but every site will get an additional wave, or every sleeper will carry a little more blue loot, increasing the worth of sites by 25% or so. (If this would buff wh income too much, the base income could be nerfed and the upgrade would just bring it back to current levels.)

And it would be relatively easy for an aggressor to disable this module, but hard to destroy it. It has hitpoints like a small POS, and drops no loot, but can be hacked within 30 minutes (with no way to speed that up by having a blob). Once hacked, it is disabled and it takes 24 hours to 'wipe the virus' and online it again. So if the residents don't defend it, they lose part of their income for a whole day.

What about people not being online 24/7? The upgrade structure has a configurable daily time window where it is invulnerable. So corps can protect themselves during the night when they have no way to defend. For C1-3 the invulnerabilty would last for 12-16 hours of the day. For C4-6 it would be shorter, maybe even zero for C6 because you can expect corps living there to be big and have people online around the clock. (Changes to the invuln period would only take effect after 24 hours so it cannot be adjusted on the fly to divert an ongoing attack.)

What would happen? Usually, the upgrade structure would be vulnerable during the time the residents are active so attacking/hacking it can provoke a response. The most pathetic carebears still won't fight. But people with the basic wish to fight, who stay pos'd up now because they don't dare to engage and don't have a real reason to take the risk, will try to bring everyone online and repel the attack.

I just realized that while this works against C1, C3 and C4-6, it wouldn't hurt C2 residents because they use their static for ratting. So we need even more ways to hurt residents... Twisted

.

Simon Severasse
Los Marginales
#30 - 2013-01-21 11:56:21 UTC
I think the biggest problem we have is having too much information, as much as I like some sites, knowing as soon as you see the name of the system, the inhabitants, the fights, and even their timezone is a problem to get good fights (even if I'm not a pvper myself I like the nature of whs).

Maybe changing the anomaly cycle of life, so as soon as one of the sleepers got damage it will despawn in the next hour whatever you do, you can grief small whs a lot, and I know it will hurt the anomaly farming in higher whs.

As terrorfrodo says we need (or you need) more objectives that make us the bears fight. But making easier to evict us is not the solution I think.

And for the love of good don't let the undock games comes to wormholes.

TLDR: My votes will go to the guy that wants the wormholes to be more dinamic, more about small gangs and fun pve (plus the risk of unwanted pvp), and less about blob and massive alliances steamrolling unknown space.
Roime
Fistful of Finns
WE FORM V0LTA
#31 - 2013-01-21 12:05:15 UTC
Ok my choice of wording was wrong, I should have said siege, not eviction (eviction is a possible outcome). I'm not assuming all small w-space corps are out here just to farm. I'd like to promote combat among them, and what would be a better reason to fight over than system control?

Currently it just doesn't happen because of force field SD.

Other structures have the same issue as pocos, they are just too cheap and easily replaceable to force a fight out of pansies. Losing a days worth of increased income is also not a reason to fight against the odds.



.

Axloth Okiah
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#32 - 2013-01-21 12:16:48 UTC
I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.

(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF)
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#33 - 2013-01-21 12:48:13 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.

(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF)


You're correct on the first point.

I do not support removal of SD ability from within the FF. Pretend scenario for you to illustrate why. (Quoted so you can skip it if you're uninterested in a cool story bro)

Cool Story wrote:
Let's pretend I live in a c5 with 5 or 6 friends of mine. Lets then pretend that we're not super hardcore gamers and we only play 3 or 4 nights a week and we haven't given our RL phone numbers out. We don't have a lot of ships, lets say we have 4 T3s each, a scanning ship, a hacking/analysing ship and 2 dreads and 2 carriers for farming our sites.

Now let's imagine that we ran our sites for the day, then went and spent 2 hours roaming in a null sec we happened to find in our static. We killed a few things, then two of us exploded and we came home and logged off for the night. The next day Fred had a work dinner he had to attend so we decide to have the night off. But that night while we were off doing other things, TLost found our hole and decided that they'd like to kick us out. The next day I log in to find 30 minutes left on the reinforce timer, a **** cage in place and there's TLost sitting outside the POS shields with 30 T3s, 2 carriers and 4 dreads.

The only choice I have is to wait the timer out and hope enough people can get on to maybe save (read: log off in) some of our ships. I can make sure that TLost don't get to take ONE of our ships; the one I'm sitting in that will explode when the FF goes down. But the rest of them are free loot and there's not a damned thing I can do about it anymore because I can't self destruct them. I also can't get anything out of the Hangar because it goes offline when the tower goes into reinforced.


Removing SD inside FFs means that the big guys get to take what ever they like from the little guys, and there's not a thing that the little guys can do except bend over and pray for lube.

Cipreh wrote:
The class 5 and class 6 wormholes are already incentivized, via the capital escalations that pay very well. And if you take into account the reduction in gases coming out, sleeper salvage, and mag site loot, I suspect it would have a broader impact then most people would expect. You would likely see less undefended farming systems, as the sites themselves would be in higher demand.

As I said, it's a subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about, in both directions.


There wont be any reduction in gases/mags/salvage coming out, because you're only removing unoccupied holes that aren't being farmed/used anyway. You would have to also reduce the total number of sites to the point where there were LESS sites per c5... and then we're back to the same reason that no one lives in c5s now, because a c6 is just as good for capital escalations and has better sites as well.
Joran Jackson
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#34 - 2013-01-21 12:52:32 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.

(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF)


Really? Modular POSes with the ability to destroy modules without an RF timer. Then you roll into the hole of someone and if they don't have full timezone coverage/don't want to fight, you spend 30 minutes or an hour and destroy a POS module worth a couple billion. Gives them an incentive to come out to defend and they'll have guns on their side, etc.

I don't know how well it would work but that's a solution it literally took me about 30 seconds to think of, can't be too hard for a game company/CSM.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#35 - 2013-01-21 12:56:05 UTC
A couple of questions:

1) If CCP doesn't change the voting system, would you participate in a primary?
2) Why did you post this in the wrong forum?

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

Axloth Okiah
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#36 - 2013-01-21 12:57:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Axloth Okiah
ad cool story:
1) Living in C5 implies being able to defend your home. If your corp is too small/weak/casual, then join someone stronger or live somewhere else (lower class perhaps). W-space is not a kindergarten.

2) Sieging many POSes in w-space isnt really a popular past-time for most corps. I seriously doubt that additional loot would change that. I'm not very familiar with past TLost ops, but evictions usually require some previous grievance of one form or another.

Joran Jackson wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I really don't think it is possible to devise a game mechanic which would automagically turn risk-averse players into risk-seeking players.

(that being said, I would support doing away with SDing in FF)


Really? Modular POSes with the ability to destroy modules without an RF timer. Then you roll into the hole of someone and if they don't have full timezone coverage/don't want to fight, you spend 30 minutes or an hour and destroy a POS module worth a couple billion. Gives them an incentive to come out to defend and they'll have guns on their side, etc.

I don't know how well it would work but that's a solution it literally took me about 30 seconds to think of, can't be too hard for a game company/CSM.

I'm afraid that such solution would only lead to lower population. If it becomes too difficult for risk-averse players to go about their business (and getting ganked while doing so) or it becomes too easy for big guys to kick them out, they will simply no longer inhabit w-space.
CCP Eterne
C C P
C C P Alliance
#37 - 2013-01-21 14:21:26 UTC
I've deleted some troll posts from this thread.

EVE Online/DUST 514 Community Representative ※ EVE Illuminati ※ Fiction Adept

@CCP_Eterne ※ @EVE_LiveEvents

Zarak1 Kenpach1
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#38 - 2013-01-21 14:34:09 UTC
@Cipreh

First off, you are circumventing the proposed wormhole primaries which would have given you a much larger voter base to work with. In doing so you basically guarentee you will only get half of the votes you could have had you been a part of the wormhole primaries and won that. For this, you are a fool.

Second, your first stated position about foritifications is clearly directed at one group in partitculiar who will remain nameless. Your current plan is to instead of conquering said group by playing the game they wish you to play, You want the rules changed so you can in theory come in with your group and maybe one other organizations host and wipe the slate clean in their fortress. If you are willing to call them complacent and weak then why don't you go take them out as it stands right now? Oh thats right, your scared shitless of their reputation for obliterating those that get to the top of the mountain to try to kick them off.

As for the rest of your blither, I stopped reading at the first statement. My four votes will not be yours and doubtless many others that could of been yours will not be since you chose to try and go **** on the new way to make the voice of the people in wormhole space heard on the CSM, and you have taken positions that in fact help larger groups rather than smaller ones. If a 10 man group wants to harden their hole so it takes about 50 people to fight 10 folks. So be it! Or, if a 260 toon corp wants to do the same thing so it takes 500 individuals to take their home, so be it! That sounds like an epic fight to me. You are the candidate for people who do not have the will to do what it takes and need to change the rules IMO.

Good day sir.

@ the rest of you.

Read this and mull upon its content for a time before you go voting for a guy who uses fundamental mechanics changes as part of his election platform.

Malcanis' Law
Casirio
TunDraGon
Shadow Cartel
#39 - 2013-01-21 15:08:33 UTC
I'm not voting for you cus I don't like you. but good luck!
Mister Tuggles
Faceless Men
#40 - 2013-01-21 16:47:54 UTC
Who is the current CSM member for WH's?