These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Yeep
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#341 - 2013-03-20 13:47:38 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


So: gold ammo, ads, stuff designed to force players to buy PLEXes/AURUM -- bad.

Now I'm actually curious about your opinion - what about cosmetic microtransaction type of stuff? Buy ship skins/decals/etc with aurum (which could then be sold for isk on the markets as well). Essentially the same thing as the clothes already in the NEx store, but for your ships.


This isn't anywhere near Eve-like enough.

There should be sections of the AURUM store gated by faction standings and only available in specific stations that sell pigments and solvents and paint BPOs (Colours like black and pink obviously come from pirate faction stores). Once you've made some coloured paint you sell it on (for ISK) to another player who has trained paint scheme design to V to be able to use 5 different colours in a pattern and bought a pattern BPO (obviously from another faction standing gated AURUM store). That player then sells the paint scheme on the ISK market to the end user who applies it (after training painting V for the 5 colour scheme and ship customisation I for the ability to add one customisation obviously).

You could make clothes the same way with added steps for making thread and cloth.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#342 - 2013-03-20 14:44:29 UTC
Yeep wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:


So: gold ammo, ads, stuff designed to force players to buy PLEXes/AURUM -- bad.

Now I'm actually curious about your opinion - what about cosmetic microtransaction type of stuff? Buy ship skins/decals/etc with aurum (which could then be sold for isk on the markets as well). Essentially the same thing as the clothes already in the NEx store, but for your ships.


This isn't anywhere near Eve-like enough.

There should be sections of the AURUM store gated by faction standings and only available in specific stations that sell pigments and solvents and paint BPOs (Colours like black and pink obviously come from pirate faction stores). Once you've made some coloured paint you sell it on (for ISK) to another player who has trained paint scheme design to V to be able to use 5 different colours in a pattern and bought a pattern BPO (obviously from another faction standing gated AURUM store). That player then sells the paint scheme on the ISK market to the end user who applies it (after training painting V for the 5 colour scheme and ship customisation I for the ability to add one customisation obviously).

You could make clothes the same way with added steps for making thread and cloth.


I know you're being ironic, but this is exactly how it should work.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Terranid Meester
Tactical Assault and Recon Unit
#343 - 2013-03-20 16:06:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Terranid Meester
Tcar wrote:


Because obviously, no one has liked the last two expansions. . .


The last two expansions were fairly mediocre, which as CCP Unifex said were more stop-gap solutions than
anything concrete.

Im afraid I won't vote for you this year Trebor. I feel your ideas of pvp run against the grain of eve.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#344 - 2013-03-20 23:51:11 UTC
Just blogged about the dynamics of the election: Table Pounding - An Early Analysis

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Frying Doom
#345 - 2013-03-21 02:15:26 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Frying Doom
#346 - 2013-03-21 02:18:46 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The argument that things are "toxic" (either internally or between CSM and CCP) is highly amusing. CSM7 has significantly more influence with CCP than any previous CSM, and when CCP announces what's going to be in the Summer expansion at PAX East, I think people are going to be pretty happy with what we managed to do -- and the "lame ducks" of CSM7 will keep on working as a CCP stakeholder (working directly with one of the development teams) until the day they leave office.

Your confusing agreeing with CCPs ideas with influence.

Trebor Daehdoow
Vice Chairman
CSM Walnut Brown


See that is how you should sign off your posts Lol

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#347 - 2013-03-21 07:31:08 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?


Apparently its a page from the future.

As in the free beer at Pax East is suppose to win over the players, as well as the next expansion information tell all or something.
Suppose to redeem CSM 7.

Just for a few more days, that trolling will be allowed or so.

I for one, am ready for the cockteasing.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#348 - 2013-03-21 07:52:16 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?


What evidence would you accept?

"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
#349 - 2013-03-21 09:18:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?


What evidence would you accept?

Well I believe that the evidence of a CSMs success is normally shown here

http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Category:CSM_Seventh_Candidacy

Strangely the page is blank.

But in all seriousness, I think that a couple of members jumping ship to show that the rest have sold us down the river is a pretty good one that CSM 7 was a fail.

Not to mention the new voting system, that CCP now chooses who goes to Iceland, the new contract system that got turned into the bounty system, the refix of war decs that are even more worthless than before,, ect... ect .....

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Frying Doom
#350 - 2013-03-21 09:19:55 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?


Apparently its a page from the future.

As in the free beer at Pax East is suppose to win over the players, as well as the next expansion information tell all or something.
Suppose to redeem CSM 7.

Just for a few more days, that trolling will be allowed or so.

I for one, am ready for the cockteasing.

Like most patches, I will not praise it until after it is released.

We have seen enough crap wrapped in a bow over the years.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#351 - 2013-03-21 18:05:12 UTC
Just got the news that CCP has accepted my application. Let the games begin (for real)!

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#352 - 2013-03-21 21:18:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Tcar
Frying Doom wrote:
[quote=Malcanis][quote=Frying Doom][quote= Trebor Daehdoow] . . .



Anecdotal Evidence


The argument draws a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion (often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion).

see also: rhetoric

rhet·o·ric
[ret-er-ik]
noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.
Frying Doom
#353 - 2013-03-21 21:30:48 UTC
Tcar wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
[quote=Malcanis][quote=Frying Doom][quote= Trebor Daehdoow] . . .



Anecdotal Evidence


The argument draws a conclusion from cases specifically chosen to support the conclusion (often while ignoring cases that might tend to undermine the conclusion).

see also: rhetoric

rhet·o·ric
[ret-er-ik]
noun
1. (in writing or speech) the undue use of exaggeration or display; bombast.

You really should stop posting with your alt Trebor.

But as usual you cannot defend yourself from the truth.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Tcar
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#354 - 2013-03-22 00:41:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Tcar
Frying Doom wrote:

You really should stop posting with your alt Trebor.

But as usual you cannot defend yourself from the truth.


LOL cannot express the laughter . Facepalm cannot convey the facepalmness of your comment. Please go on, it's enjoyable to watch a body make a fool of themselves and troll themselves.

Tcar

Trebor
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#355 - 2013-03-22 02:36:42 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:


Like most patches, I will not praise it until after it is released.

We have seen enough crap wrapped in a bow over the years.

Be interesting to see if there is enough space in the game for them to change, or if past mistakes or so will finally catch up.

Sadly I lack imagination, so will be interesting what they decide to do. As well as how well stand alone it is as well.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#356 - 2013-03-22 10:04:52 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:
But as usual you cannot defend yourself from the truth.

I don't hide behind alts. Tcar is simply a corpmate, and a simple check of our employment history shows that he has been a member of DNS for roughly twice as long as I have.

And speaking of truth, and your tenuous grasp of the concept:

Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

When you blatantly quote people out of context, all you do is damage your own argument -- or demonstrate that you don't have one.

The full context of that quote, from my blog posting:
Quote:
Mittens begins with some "realtalk". As anyone who knows him well will tell you, this is code for "propaganda". For example, he implies that because I'm the only incumbent running for re-election (which is not quite correct; I am the only incumbent who has declared that they are running), CSM7 has been a failure, and the CSM/CCP relationship has deteriorated.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Prince Kobol
#357 - 2013-03-22 11:43:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Prince Kobol
Frying Doom wrote:
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
CSM7 has been a failure

I could not agree with you more, The miining barge change was good as was the FW changes.

But honestly can you point me to the page that shows CSM 7, was not a failure?



Can you show evidence that CSM 7 was a failure?

Here is thing, how can a person define if a CSM was a failure or success as each person will have their own definitions to a large extent.

If CCP have come up with good ideas then do you want the CSM members to say there rubbish for the sake of it?

You might say that the buffs to mining ships were terrible but then lots of other people will say that they were good.

You might criticise some of the work done in regards to ship balancing, again others might applaud it.

You might say that work done in FW over the past year wasn't enough, others might say its a damn good start.

You could say that the lack of any development in regards to Null Sec and PoS's a failure of the CSM, well what do you want them to do.. hold the entire of CCP at gun point?

From what I can see many CSM's have tried to get CCP to fix null sec and PoS's but obviously their is some major issue, one might hazard a guess that CCP do not have the resources available to continue with the work they are doing and overhaul nullsec at the same time, in which case who is the CSM's fault.

I guess it all comes down to what your interpretation of success and failure is and what your expectations of the CSM is.
Friggz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#358 - 2013-03-22 13:54:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Friggz
No one can show 'evidence' that CSM 7 was or was not a failure. Not unless there is a governing entity that set specific measurable goals for CSM which we can then compare and see if they were met. Obviously that isn't the case so since we have no defined parameters to denote failure or success it's going to be opinion, and you can't 'prove' opinion.

It's also not fair to point to certain changes in the game and blame the CSM if you don't like them. The CSM provides feedback to CCP but ultimately it's always up to CCP to take it or not. Often times the feedback is going to be mixed between the different delegates.

In other words, the CSM is not responsible for every change to the game that occurs during their term. They are not the game developers. Would a certain change have not happened if the CSM was different? We don't have that information.

Everyone will have their own opinion of how successful they feel CSM7 was or was not. Some of those opinions will be more informed than others, but it's still an opinion until someone can provide a measurable statistic of success.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#359 - 2013-03-22 14:02:35 UTC
Friggz wrote:
No one can show 'evidence' that CSM 7 was or was not a failure. Not unless there is a governing entity that set specific measurable goals for CSM which we can then compare and see if they were met. Obviously that isn't the case so since we have no defined parameters to denote failure or success it's going to be opinion, and you can't 'prove' opinion.

It's also not fair to point to certain changes in the game and blame the CSM if you don't like them. The CSM provides feedback to CCP but ultimately it's always up to CCP to take it or not. Often times the feedback is going to be mixed between the different delegates.

In order words, the CSM is not responsible for every change to the game that occurs during their term. They are not the game developers. Would a certain change have not happened if the CSM was different? We don't have that information.

Everyone will have their own opinion of how successful they feel CSM7 was or was not. Some of those opinions will be more informed than others, but it's still an opinion until someone can provide a measurable statistic of success.



This is one of the reasons I want to up the information flow from the CSM to the players.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#360 - 2013-03-22 19:22:44 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
[I guess it all comes down to what your interpretation of success and failure is and what your expectations of the CSM is.

I will be very interested in the community reaction to CCP's announcements about the Summer expansion at PAX East tomorrow.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery