These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Why the new voting system CCP?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#81 - 2013-02-24 19:31:12 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Then the game is already balanced as everyone can perform the same procedure A in the same location and get out the same results (affected by skills).
The entire science and industry sector disagrees with you.
MilitantMan
Doomheim
#82 - 2013-02-24 19:38:09 UTC
ccp are catering for large nullsec alliances full stop. they have realised that they can not keep new players interested in the game (manly becuase the large nullsec alliances control everything) so they will just look after their bread and butter the veterans players and mostly anything that the goons want
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#83 - 2013-02-24 19:40:52 UTC
MilitantMan wrote:
ccp are catering for large nullsec alliances full stop.
…by doing things such as…? What, exactly?

Quote:
so they will just look after their bread and butter the veterans players and mostly anything that the goons want
If that were the case, technetium would no longer be a bottleneck and sov would have had a a few more iterations by now. Sadly, neither has happened.
Tesal
#84 - 2013-02-24 19:41:44 UTC
MilitantMan wrote:
ccp are catering for large nullsec alliances full stop. they have realised that they can not keep new players interested in the game (manly becuase the large nullsec alliances control everything) so they will just look after their bread and butter the veterans players and mostly anything that the goons want


I don't think that's true. The calls for nerfs to hi-sec have largely gone unheeded and some hi-sec things have been buffed.
Falin Whalen
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2013-02-24 19:44:43 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
The dynamic nature of MMOs makes sure there's never an objective balance
Sure there is.

If procedure A works like procedure A for everyone, rather than work like procedure A⁻¹ for some, then it is objectively balanced: everyone is treated the same when doing the same thing.


Then the game is already balanced as everyone can perform the same procedure A in the same location and get out the same results (affected by skills).

I should stop complaining, and use the 6-12 stations in each nulsec system that have 50 manufacturing slots, base 50% refine, 20 ME PE research and 10 invention slots each...Hey, wait a minute!

"it's only because of their stupidity that they're able to be so sure of themselves." The Trial - Franz Kafka 
Tesal
#86 - 2013-02-24 19:48:24 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
I should stop complaining, and use the 6-12 stations in each nulsec system that have 50 manufacturing slots, base 50% refine, 20 ME PE research and 10 invention slots each...Hey, wait a minute!


Please continue complaining for my enjoyment.
MilitantMan
Doomheim
#87 - 2013-02-24 19:48:29 UTC
Tippia wrote:
DarthNefarius wrote:
Come on...the small guys are going to get decimated.

We all know that the major component thats going to steer winning votes here is the over vote mechanics of this proposed STV are really going to determine the compostition of the CSM. I suspect the undervote mechanism will seriously diminish in its desired purpose for increased voter representation due to HI SEC voter apathy stemming from percieved complexity of having 14 voting choices

Here Malcanis' axiom of doing things to help newbies ends up hurting them worse has a chance to go into overdrive.
Of course. That's because the problem never was one of mega-coalitions and ze ebil nulseccers beating down on the little highsec guys.

The “problem” is that only those who care enough to vote get represented. As expected. As it should be. The amount of lost votes are pretty irrelevant because that number is ridiculously tiny anyway, so dithering over a system that makes use of those votes compared to one that doesn't is largely besides the point.

The “small guys” are not getting represented, not because they're small, but because they represent a minority view among those who care enough to make their views known to begin with. If they want better representation, they have to ensure that more of their peers actually start caring. Since the CSM elections are already way past the standard 90-9-1 split, the chances of that happening are pretty minute.

However, as long as the “small guys” keep thinking that it's a problem of voting systems and of unfair coalitions, all their whines and pleas and suggestions will only have exactly this result: it will serve the ones who actually participate… i.e. not the “small guys.”



I think what you seem to miss in your logic, is that most nullsec compromises of veteran players that take more of a 'serious' interest in the game than others. They are more than likely to take interest in outside politics and forums. Also most of these people are lemmings of large alliances, and feel almost borg like collective. So they feel lets vote for my ultimate leader. Most people really have no interest in the CSM, because they dont actually 'represent them'. CSM members really represent themselves and its almost an 'ego' trip like they feel important.

Unless I actually go look for it in some random forum post, I see nothing on what the CSM is doing for me or anyone on a regular basis. In fact the last one was so quiet i forgot the CSM existed still.

The CSM doesnt have a voice for the small guy anyway, because everything is so focused on the large alliances.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#88 - 2013-02-24 20:07:59 UTC
Falin Whalen wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
The dynamic nature of MMOs makes sure there's never an objective balance
Sure there is.

If procedure A works like procedure A for everyone, rather than work like procedure A⁻¹ for some, then it is objectively balanced: everyone is treated the same when doing the same thing.


Then the game is already balanced as everyone can perform the same procedure A in the same location and get out the same results (affected by skills).

I should stop complaining, and use the 6-12 stations in each nulsec system that have 50 manufacturing slots, base 50% refine, 20 ME PE research and 10 invention slots each...Hey, wait a minute!


I have been there before you and like before me there have been a decade of other guys.

We dealt with it.

They (I was too new to matter) would continuously create ~content~ and EvE news and websites around the world were bursting full of the epic battles that happened in 0.0.

Then came your "new gen" that never stops whining while doing nothing noticeable.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#89 - 2013-02-24 20:11:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have been there before you and like before me there have been a decade of other guys.

We dealt with it.
Good for you. It doesn't make it any less broken, nor does it take it off CCP's list of things that are slated for a massive overhaul and fix. It most certainly doesn't make it balanced, and it will be nice to see it moving in the right direction.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#90 - 2013-02-24 20:13:16 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Then the game is already balanced as everyone can perform the same procedure A in the same location and get out the same results (affected by skills).
The entire science and industry sector disagrees with you.


Enlighten me since you are a logic genius, what would happen to the already cruddy revenue null sec minerals once you make their refinement efficient and the logistics easier?

The more you flatten the entry curve out there the least profitable it becomes to stay in there.

In order to "rebalance" hisec (as hypocrites say) to keep the new and easier null sec competitive, hi sec would need to be obliterated with no mercy, like capping refining efficiency at 30% and similar other draconian measures.

The one hi sec nerf that should have already happened many years ago is for stations stopping having almost free cost for slots, when POSes need to spend 11k - 27k per slot per hour (last time I bothered to calculate it).

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#91 - 2013-02-24 20:14:50 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have been there before you and like before me there have been a decade of other guys.

We dealt with it.
Good for you. It doesn't make it any less broken, nor does it take it off CCP's list of things that are slated for a massive overhaul and fix. It most certainly doesn't make it balanced, and it will be nice to see it moving in the right direction.


If it was broken then it'd be empty like low sec used to be for many years.
If people still opt to stay in there it's because there's something of benefit that outperforms the drawbacks, a cost vs benefit that permeates the whole of EvE.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#92 - 2013-02-24 20:19:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Enlighten me since you are a logic genius, what would happen to the already cruddy revenue null sec minerals once you make their refinement efficient and the logistics easier?
Not much. If anything, it'll be in higher demand since more people living in null should lead to more stuff being exploded.

Quote:
In order to "rebalance" hisec (as hypocrites say) to keep the new and easier null sec competitive, hi sec would need to be obliterated with no mercy, like capping refining efficiency at 30% and similar other draconian measures.
Ah, so giving highsec the same stats as null would be to obliterate it, but null having those stats doesn't obliterate anything… Right. No contradiction there.

No, no draconian measures would be needed — just some good old balance, making everyone compete at the same base level. Why are you so adamantly opposed to people competing on equal grounds? Why are you so against balanced gameplay?

Quote:
If it was broken then it'd be empty like low sec used to be for many years.
…which it is. The only things really being produced are the things that have to be produced out there because it can't be done anywhere else. Beyond that, it's utterly deserted.
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#93 - 2013-02-24 20:25:02 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If it was broken then it'd be empty like low sec used to be for many years.
If people still opt to stay in there it's because there's something of benefit that outperforms the drawbacks, a cost vs benefit that permeates the whole of EvE.


lmfao

you've complained more about nullsec industry than anyone else i've ever seen. you're such a hypocrite.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#94 - 2013-02-24 20:28:11 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Enlighten me since you are a logic genius, what would happen to the already cruddy revenue null sec minerals once you make their refinement efficient and the logistics easier?
Not much. If anything, it'll be in higher demand since more people living in null should lead to more stuff being exploded.

Quote:
In order to "rebalance" hisec (as hypocrites say) to keep the new and easier null sec competitive, hi sec would need to be obliterated with no mercy, like capping refining efficiency at 30% and similar other draconian measures.
Ah, so giving highsec the same stats as null would be to obliterate it, but null having those stats doesn't obliterate anything… Right. No contradiction there.

No, no draconian measures would be needed — just some good old balance, making everyone compete at the same base level. Why are you so adamantly opposed to people competing on equal grounds? Why are you so against balanced gameplay?

Quote:
If it was broken then it'd be empty like low sec used to be for many years.
…which it is. The only things really being produced are the things that have to be produced out there because it can't be done anywhere else. Beyond that, it's utterly deserted.


Same level would mean putting moons in hi sec, 10/10 anoms and similar in hi sec and a plethora of other features, including bubbles Twisted

As for the "higher demand", I am going to laugh on this one.
More people means also more that grind the minerals and it takes but an individual to cover the supply needs of several others.
More people who asked for "farms" does not sound so much of a war scenario either.

I can agree that null sec should get improved a lot and gaping holes (beginning with slots scarcity) closed but some requests seem just coming from the desire to get the best hands down, with no compromise. That's not how EvE works and I am surprised you don't notice that.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#95 - 2013-02-24 20:29:47 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
If it was broken then it'd be empty like low sec used to be for many years.
If people still opt to stay in there it's because there's something of benefit that outperforms the drawbacks, a cost vs benefit that permeates the whole of EvE.


lmfao

you've complained more about nullsec industry than anyone else i've ever seen. you're such a hypocrite.


I have asked for null sec industry to be improved, it's not a crime.

Industry is a no faucet, social feature.

Sorry if thinking linear does not suit you.

EvE Online portal | EvE markets tutorials
Singular Snowflake
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#96 - 2013-02-24 20:32:42 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

But I think of all the hours I have put into this hobby, and I boil with rage at the thought of these guys in null sec pulling off the ultimate grief of thousands of high sec players.

You boil with rage over an internet spaceship game?
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#97 - 2013-02-24 20:35:00 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
I have asked for null sec industry to be improved, it's not a crime.

Industry is a no faucet, social feature.

Sorry if thinking linear does not suit you.


First off, this doesn't even make sense. It is literally nonsense.

You were talking about how you made lemonade from lemons, when in fact you've bitched and moaned about nullsec industry and left your nullsec groups because they didn't respect your useless industrial contribution.

It just shows you have zero credibility, and will argue anything irrespective of consistency or coherence because you have serious personality issues.

Basically, just stop talking because you've just added another point on a long list of why no one should listen to you.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#98 - 2013-02-24 20:36:55 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
Same level would mean putting moons in hi sec, 10/10 anoms and similar in hi sec and a plethora of other features, including bubbles Twisted
It would if they had any impact on the availability and cost of S&I slots. Fortunately, they don't, so it doesn't.

Quote:
As for the "higher demand", I am going to laugh on this one.
More people means also more that grind the minerals
Non sequitur, and it doesn't remove the increased demand anyway. If it pays poorly, people won't do it; if it does, people will. More people building stuff in null does not mean that market logic and behaviour is suddenly drastically altered or removed.

Quote:
I can agree that null sec should get improved a lot and gaping holes (beginning with slots scarcity) closed but some requests seem just coming from the desire to get the best hands down, with no compromise.
…and no-one is really listening to those guys. What everyone who's actually engaged in the debate are suggesting is just plain old balance as a first step — same costs and same availability, and then we can use the margin created to start buffing null to compensate for the inherent risks and difficulties that come from working out there. Of course, there is a real risk that some of that can't be compensated for without raising the baseline even further, but those are the breaks.
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
#99 - 2013-02-24 20:37:08 UTC
Let me just drop something in here that I collected in a brainstorming session. Might develop it further with numbers and such. I'll leave you to your squabbling then.


Sovereignty and Population

To control a system, you must control the people. People loyal to you will work for you. Their work can be directed to support different areas.

Every Planetary Command Center adds population to the system, depending on the planet type. Maximum viaable population is defined by the planet type.
Every POS adds population to the system, depending on tower size and amount and type of modules.
Every Outpost adds population to the system.
Every system has a number of deadspace areas that can be build up with colonies, adding population and focussing the work force.
Every Temperate planet has districts, which can have a district capital with enhancements to focus the work force of the system.
Every capital increases the population. Capital control can shift with DUST 514 intervention. Control of the district will determine who the population added by PCCs is loyal to.

Workforce focus:
Trade: Workforce left on their own devices will produce a small amount of ISK income.
Production: Manufacturing in POSes and Outposts and planetary processors will increase in efficiency
Harvesting: Mining, refining and planetary extraction will increase in efficiency
Military: Damage output and hitpoints of structures will increase.
Corruption: Allowing the local pirates to seep control into the population will increase the amount and quality of pirate encounters.
Logistics(optional): Logistics are required to allow Supercapitals to function.

Sovereignty and Population

New Mining Mechanics
Joran Dravius
Doomheim
#100 - 2013-02-24 20:42:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Joran Dravius
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Assuming that 4000 votes is the magic number to get on the CSM (it is actually much, much less in the last 4 or 5 spots), we are faced with the real possibility that null sec will place 10-12 of the 14 slots, with wormholes placing 1-2, low sec maybe 1, and high sec shut out.

High sec is always talking about what a higher population it has so a high sec candidate winning CSM shouldn't be hard, should it? Hmmm, guess their bots aren't programmed to vote.