These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#261 - 2013-01-23 10:36:38 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
AFK cloaky campers aren't "impossible" to counter. They take some effort and some changes in your ship fitting to counter. Organising into a defence gang is also a very good idea. They're "impossible" to counter if you try and run 0.0 anoms like hi-sec missions.

That said...

I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not.


The mere presence of a cloaky camper in a system will be enough to shut down any "farms and fields" activity in a system. What's needed is a way to scan down and kill these guys. If they are not AFK then they are always going to avoid being caught, and if they are AFK then they deserve to be blown up.

However, you make a lot of sense on many subjects, and I'm sure you will make a very good CSM member. best of luck!

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#262 - 2013-01-23 10:43:55 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
AFK cloaky campers aren't "impossible" to counter. They take some effort and some changes in your ship fitting to counter. Organising into a defence gang is also a very good idea. They're "impossible" to counter if you try and run 0.0 anoms like hi-sec missions.

That said...

I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not.


The mere presence of a cloaky camper in a system will be enough to shut down any "farms and fields" activity in a system.


I beg your pardon, but you're addressing that assertion to someone who shared a system with Darkside for over a year. I'm not inclined to accept that a single, probably inactive, hostile can shut an alliance down when I have direct experience of living in an alliance that operated just fine with multiple active hostiles in the same system.

If the possibility of a single hostile, active or otherwise, is enough to shut your alliance down, then I suggest that you review your processes. I'e suggested a mechanism that would allow you a chance to detect whether the cloaky is active, as well as the possibility of setting up a trap for him. I think that is sufficient to counter a single fragile ship operating solo in your own space.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Frying Doom
#263 - 2013-01-23 11:02:51 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

I guess my question is what in particular about Malcanis places him outside of your empty-chair-0.0-CSM-Rep (regardless of how it comes across to you, no one actually says any of those things except maybe number 1 and even then none of the "they should have to move" stuff) .

Your future EVE is one I share too (maybe move WH above sov), and I think most of the rest of the CSM, certainly the null sec guys like Elise and Seleene, would agree with like 90% of that stuff.

But those facts don't ever seem to connect with you. So why Mal?

Ok part of it was due to the fact my own perspective has changed.

For years we have seen resources wasted on NUll that have ended up causing the abortion it is now. I was against wasting more resources on it but now we have just seen a huge amount of resources spent on Hi-sec and now it is time for a change mostly to systems so unloved their mothers would not want them.

Ok what has been my largest problem with CSM7 is one of the biggest reasons I will vote for Malcanis.

These forums. He is a regular logical poster, who I can understand and who does not run from what he types.

Was CSM7 more transparent than 6, yes but it still had the same problem of the fact that some of the candidates, I still don't know what they think, while others I have had to go from site to site to find out what they actually stand for.

Take Seleene's posting stats for instance, they are actually really impressive 7 563 804 characters types over 9 years but of that only 6.18% of his posts have been in Jita park. I have actually started to find more of what Seleene has written since I started to look at reddit.

Now the biggest problem I saw with CSM7 myself (Besides the constant praise of CCP) you had the ability to chose albeit quickly, a new chairman and the deck went straight to Null, again you might have decided Seleene was the best leader but without seeing your discussions it just looked like lets vote for Null and an ex-CCP employee as well. (I added that last bit as I see the CSM much like a Union and frankly in a Union you would never vote ex-management in to run it)

So while you say you agree with 90% of what I have said (which is great btw) and that most of the CSM probably would as well is also great. So it comes down to this. Why didn't I know? I read these pages everyday, One of the CSMs I think it was Trebor hinted he has similar ideas in a Null sec thread, then later joked with me (which I took the wrong way and attacked, then apologized) but at the end of the day, I did not know the views of the current CSMs given EvE as a whole approach.

At the start of CSM 7 their was a thread in which it was suggested CSM take a greater role in these forums, some did like Seleene's AMA but again that was an ask not the CSM member is involved, yes some things are NDA but your personal views cannot be nor should any member be silent for the sake of unity. You are all different people elected for different reasons, yes you should be seen to ***** argue and fight for the sake of those who elected you. This harmonious front has just caused a lack of information about what you actually stand for.

That is probably why I am happy to vote for Malcanis, he engages in frequent and logical discussions on these forums, I know his views and I know he has the ability to see EvE as a whole not just a part.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Frying Doom
#264 - 2013-01-23 11:03:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well to name only the most obvious example, the "answer" to the very first question in his list is the direct opposite of my view. Rather than hi-sec being nerfed to reflect it being a starter area, I think the way we look at hi-sec needs to be completely revolutionised, because it's clearly and obviously not just a starter area and hasn't been for the majority of EVE's existence.

Bingo Big smile

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#265 - 2013-01-23 11:07:32 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Speedkermit Damo wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
AFK cloaky campers aren't "impossible" to counter. They take some effort and some changes in your ship fitting to counter. Organising into a defence gang is also a very good idea. They're "impossible" to counter if you try and run 0.0 anoms like hi-sec missions.

That said...

I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not.


The mere presence of a cloaky camper in a system will be enough to shut down any "farms and fields" activity in a system.


I beg your pardon, but you're addressing that assertion to someone who shared a system with Darkside for over a year. I'm not inclined to accept that a single, probably inactive, hostile can shut an alliance down when I have direct experience of living in an alliance that operated just fine with multiple active hostiles in the same system.

If the possibility of a single hostile, active or otherwise, is enough to shut your alliance down, then I suggest that you review your processes. I'e suggested a mechanism that would allow you a chance to detect whether the cloaky is active, as well as the possibility of setting up a trap for him. I think that is sufficient to counter a single fragile ship operating solo in your own space.


We are not discussing whether cloaky campers can shut down my alliances or not. In my experience, it's usually easy enough to tell which ones are AFK and can be ignored, and which ones constitute a genuine threat. My main objection is that their activities involve no risk.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#266 - 2013-01-23 11:11:04 UTC
"No risk"?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Intex Encapor
#267 - 2013-01-23 11:33:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Intex Encapor
the afk cloaker itself is not real threat to anyone, just the combination of him and cynos is the point where stuff gets annoying.


as you can never know how much people the guy is bringing with him, the shutting down operations, by presence, is working very well.(been there done that)

both ways of ganking are very valid and fine, just the combination needs some minor nerfs
Callduron
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#268 - 2013-01-23 12:29:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Callduron
Malcanis wrote:
Callduron wrote:
I've just read and very much enjoyed your articles on lex malcanis and goon culture.

Regarding the effort required to become king of nullsec. Frankly I don't care who is king. What concerns me is that king ruling the whole map. If the test/fa thing blows over and PL drives into the drone regions we could see an all blue null within a year, at least as far as sov and infrastructure is concerned. I would much rather see a patchwork quilt of rival warlords.

I have no inside knowledge on whether the HBC and CFC want this to happen but if they did who could stop them?


If the players who live in sov space want to make sov space an "all blue" then who are you or I to tell them they shouldn't? Isn't the point of a sandbox to build what we want how we want? Others are free to try and stop us, of course - then it comes down to who's better at building sandcastles, and whose sandcastle was better designed and built.

So much for player freedom. The other side of the equation is of course the mechanics that CCP overlay that space with, which inventivise and reward specific sandcastle styles. At the moment the horrible "You've got a week before you need to get serious about dealing with this" Dominion sov system means that it's possible for one large group to dominate the whole of 0.0 -there's no reasonable power projection nerf that will mean than the CFC can't move its fleet within a week. And there's no real downside to concentrating all of a wide-spread bloc's forces into a single point, because the moons keep on gooing even when your fleet is 6 regions away.


OK, there's 2 simple points arising.

1) Are you in favour of design changes that encourage sov war to become more about ship to ship combat rather than the current structure grind?

2) Are you in favour of design changes that encourage null sec dominance to be based more on your number of pilots than on your number of supercaps?

I write http://stabbedup.blogspot.co.uk/

I post on reddit as /u/callduron.
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#269 - 2013-01-23 12:32:43 UTC
Callduron wrote:
sov war to become more about ship to ship

How would this be done in a way which isn't exploitable?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#270 - 2013-01-23 12:34:24 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Callduron wrote:
sov war to become more about ship to ship

How would this be done in a way which isn't exploitable?

1v1 honour duels at the sun, first alliance to 100 kills wins sov.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#271 - 2013-01-23 12:35:11 UTC
Callduron wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Callduron wrote:
I've just read and very much enjoyed your articles on lex malcanis and goon culture.

Regarding the effort required to become king of nullsec. Frankly I don't care who is king. What concerns me is that king ruling the whole map. If the test/fa thing blows over and PL drives into the drone regions we could see an all blue null within a year, at least as far as sov and infrastructure is concerned. I would much rather see a patchwork quilt of rival warlords.

I have no inside knowledge on whether the HBC and CFC want this to happen but if they did who could stop them?


If the players who live in sov space want to make sov space an "all blue" then who are you or I to tell them they shouldn't? Isn't the point of a sandbox to build what we want how we want? Others are free to try and stop us, of course - then it comes down to who's better at building sandcastles, and whose sandcastle was better designed and built.

So much for player freedom. The other side of the equation is of course the mechanics that CCP overlay that space with, which inventivise and reward specific sandcastle styles. At the moment the horrible "You've got a week before you need to get serious about dealing with this" Dominion sov system means that it's possible for one large group to dominate the whole of 0.0 -there's no reasonable power projection nerf that will mean than the CFC can't move its fleet within a week. And there's no real downside to concentrating all of a wide-spread bloc's forces into a single point, because the moons keep on gooing even when your fleet is 6 regions away.


OK, there's 2 simple points arising.

1) Are you in favour of design changes that encourage sov war to become more about ship to ship combat rather than the current structure grind?

2) Are you in favour of design changes that encourage null sec dominance to be based more on your number of pilots than on your number of supercaps?


The first is directly related to the second. As long as we have 100m hp structures, then supers are going to be intensely desirable, because if we wanted to spend hours shooting inanimate objects we'd be mining.

As for supercaps: supercarriers I'm honestly not too bothered about at this stage; they're fairly vulnerable to various accessible subcap doctrines, and they die quite often. Titans I'd like to see repurposed away from the current role of "double super dreadnaught".

"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.
#272 - 2013-01-23 12:37:28 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Callduron wrote:
sov war to become more about ship to ship

How would this be done in a way which isn't exploitable?


Looking at context, I think he means reducing the emphasis on supercaps.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2013-01-23 12:43:36 UTC
What is my vote worth in the grand scheme of things...

Because Far-que... That's why.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#274 - 2013-01-23 12:45:15 UTC
Da Dom wrote:
What is my vote worth in the grand scheme of things...


I refer you to your own signature for an answer.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Da Dom
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#275 - 2013-01-23 13:46:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Da Dom wrote:
What is my vote worth in the grand scheme of things...


I refer you to your own signature for an answer.


...

Fracking good answer bro.

Good luck with your campaign Cool

Because Far-que... That's why.
Anslo
Scope Works
#276 - 2013-01-23 14:19:40 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I think Ronin's going for a very different consituency than the one I'm aiming at, and perhaps his electoral tactics makes better sense than mine. I'm really only aiming for that segment of the voters that is interested in improving the game as a whole, using methods based on evidence and logic, rather than baseless conspiracy theories.

I think that you, on the other hand, would be best represented by Ronin, and I wholeheartedly recommend him to you.


Boy such a "quality" candidate you are with your passive aggression. You sure would be a great CSM member.

Because clearly only YOU care about improving the game, no the carebear can't.

Get over yourself. Vote Herr Ronin.

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#277 - 2013-01-23 14:52:55 UTC
Anslo wrote:
Because clearly only YOU care about improving the game, no the carebear can't.

Get over yourself. Vote Herr Ronin.

So you're saying the only thing which can be improved in hisec is missions, incursion and wardecs?

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

RIP Vile Rat
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#278 - 2013-01-23 15:23:45 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

So while you say you agree with 90% of what I have said (which is great btw) and that most of the CSM probably would as well is also great. So it comes down to this. Why didn't I know? I read these pages everyday, One of the CSMs I think it was Trebor hinted he has similar ideas in a Null sec thread, then later joked with me (which I took the wrong way and attacked, then apologized) but at the end of the day, I did not know the views of the current CSMs given EvE as a whole approach.

At the start of CSM 7 their was a thread in which it was suggested CSM take a greater role in these forums, some did like Seleene's AMA but again that was an ask not the CSM member is involved, yes some things are NDA but your personal views cannot be nor should any member be silent for the sake of unity. You are all different people elected for different reasons, yes you should be seen to ***** argue and fight for the sake of those who elected you. This harmonious front has just caused a lack of information about what you actually stand for.

Pretty sure I've posted directly in response to you in several threads saying as much if not more. You either ignored the information or didnt believe it credible, hardly my/our fault ;) But that may have been your old perspective at work; the new you is looking up.

So Malcanis, are you the candidate of public bickering? SPOON THROWING?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#279 - 2013-01-23 15:30:33 UTC
If I feel the need to use metalware to make a point, it won't be a spoon that gets used Pirate

Nevertheless, I reject the assumption that public drama equates to either effort or credibility.

I most definately would like to see the CSM better communicate exactly what it does and how, because the pernicious "free holiday to Iceland" and "CSM = empty publicity stunt" memes are nourished by the obscurity of all the hard work and effort that actually takes place. There's insufficient visibility of the causes the CSM promote, and the effects they achieve.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
DJ P0N-3
Table Flippendeavors
#280 - 2013-01-23 16:10:37 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
I would support one nerf to cloakers: a cloaked ship should not be able to actively scan. If you want to use the DSCAN, system scan or probes, you should have to be uncloaked. That would mean a cloaker would have to briefly decloak to locate targets off his grid. That would give you your opportunity to know whether he was active or not.


As it is still unclear to me whether or not the voting method will change in such a way that I have to choose multiple candidates, I'd like some clarification on this matter:

Is this something you would actively push for, or is it something you would only bring out if CCP said "we're hitting cloaking with a nerfbat, we are open to suggestions as to how we do this"?