These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

High Sec Candidate

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#41 - 2014-11-28 19:45:36 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

I agree they are related but I am not sure we need to implement that before a wardec change. There really isn't any difference from a game mechanics view whether a new player stays in an NPC corp, or in some new un-wardeccable corp-lite that is really just a form of player controlled NPC corp.


Yes. There is no difference in terms of game mechanics... but in terms of social player mechanics.... and social players are happy players!

Black Pedro wrote:
There are, and still will be player corps, and we need ideas to make wardecs between them meaningful and more engaging.

I don't agree that anything that enables a wardec to carry on is good. CCP could just make dec-dodging an exploit again and wars would go on longer then, but people would still just dock up and play an alt, or worse, go play another game entirely.


The most extreme of my carebear cousins will simply go and play the Hello Kitty browser game, whilst waiting for a wardec to expire....

Black Pedro wrote:
We need ways to make players want to stay in a player corp. Otherwise, if there is no incentive or desire to defend it but we force them to endure the whole dec, they just won't log in.


You will find, that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink (except if you use the camel-brick strategy... but that violates the human rights of the camel....).

I think that there is simply no way to make a player take part in a war dec if he doesn't want to....
But if he is in a corp with a POCO or a POS then... losing his stuff is punishment enough... and if he doesn't want to fight.... then spending a week or two just docked up is punishment enough... and damages his "mining/farming for plex". Then it is up to the player what he does.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#42 - 2014-11-28 19:51:12 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:

Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does.

Ok, so you think making NPC corps more dangerous or punitive might be better than enticing carebears with carrots to player corps. Do you think carebears would put up with this increased risk, or would they quit the game? I really don't have a sense of the carebear thinking on this. [/quote]

I guess it works like this....

I think that some of my carebear cousins will take the path of least resistance....

But CCP Statistics shows that they are more likely to keep playing if there is some kind of social connection.
NPC Corps are poison for the soul of EVE...

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#43 - 2014-11-28 19:53:31 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:
admiral root wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....

But:

NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!)
Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group)
and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....


Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff?


The fundamental problem is illogical player behavior(which as a dev you have to account for). There is a certain prestige and mindset with joining a corp that you don't have with joining a chat channel. So a lot of players create/join corps even when they are clearly better off joining a chat channel and mailing list. These players are also the reason awoxing is being removed and wardecs got nerfed. Eve is a social game and you really do want to encourage the userbase to be social.

I would support a "corp in name only" status for the "social" players. This would allow CCP to attach better risks and rewards to "real" corporations


Trust me... before your average "care bear" gets informed enough to join a "chat channel" he has already given up and gone back to WOW!

Being a part of a "corporation in name only" is something that gives CareBears a chance to feel as big as the members of the CFC, or CODE. or Nulli Secunda.... etc.
(Remember "Feeling" is as important as "being"...)

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#44 - 2014-11-28 20:04:23 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:
How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances.

I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc.

How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are?


Good question.

At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo.
I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank....

I have some ideas.... but once again I present the theory that CSM should control the CCP plans... and not present their own ideas too strongly (especially when they have no idea about how hard or impractical something should be to code!).

One of my ideas (especially for Freighter Pilots):

The Caldari Navy Intelligence Self Destruct Device:

This device was developed for Caldari Navy Intelligence... once activated it guarantees (99.5%) the complete destruction of the Ship AND the Cargo............

So when it is fitted... the pilot simply has to be not AFK.... and he can deny potential Gankers any loot whatsoever...

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#45 - 2014-11-28 20:07:44 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
violates the human rights of the camel...

Hmm.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#46 - 2014-11-28 20:08:40 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
violates the human rights of the camel...

Hmm.


Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels).

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#47 - 2014-11-28 20:14:03 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
violates the human rights of the camel...

Hmm.


Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels).

I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights!

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#48 - 2014-11-28 20:28:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Zappity wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
violates the human rights of the camel...

Hmm.


Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels).

I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights!


Are you trying to derail my CSM campaign with some petty ethical distractions? Or would you care to comment on the state of the game today?

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#49 - 2014-11-28 20:44:30 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Zappity wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
violates the human rights of the camel...

Hmm.


Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels).

I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights!


Are you trying to derail my CSM campaign with some petty ethical distractions? Or would you care to comment on the state of the game today?

Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#50 - 2014-11-28 21:33:39 UTC
Zappity wrote:

Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not.


And your opinion about the state of the game? Or any of the EVE related issues* that have been mentioned here?

*I think it would be a shame if the CSM was elected based upon the differences between camels and humans.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#51 - 2014-11-28 21:52:47 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Zappity wrote:

Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not.


And your opinion about the state of the game? Or any of the EVE related issues* that have been mentioned here?

*I think it would be a shame if the CSM was elected based upon the differences between camels and humans.

I think the game is in a better state than ever. Most of my concerns about specific issues were canvassed during the summer summit - I think the current CSM is doing an excellent job. Tags4Standings is about the only highsec issue I care much about (bring it on). I would like to see highsec separated by lowsec to make the trade hubs more independent. That's about it, really.

Oh, except for dynamic system sec status. That would be fantastic.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#52 - 2014-11-28 22:22:11 UTC
Zappity wrote:

I think the game is in a better state than ever.


Why?

Zappity wrote:

Tags4Standings is about the only highsec issue I care much about (bring it on).


And in what direction do you care about it?

I personally think that tags4sec as it is... well it is a bit easy. Easy for some antisocial ganker-type to just spend a few hundred million ISK and get their standings back.

What do you think?

Zappity wrote:
I would like to see highsec separated by lowsec to make the trade hubs more independent. That's about it, really.


I don't think having the only route between Jita and Amarr going through LowSec space would make any great improvement for the game. Trade Hubs will develop where they are economical... and if the map is changed then (after a time) the most popular trade hubs will change with them.

Of course this makes a horrible disadvantage for the New Players that are just starting... but then well... maybe they/we should have started playing earlier!

Zappity wrote:
Oh, except for dynamic system sec status. That would be fantastic.


Dynamic System Sec Status? Do you mean... that "Sec" status would be system specific?

Please explain more!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#53 - 2014-11-29 00:56:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Why do I think the game is better than ever? So many fixes since Crucible and now starting on the fun big stuff.

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
I personally think that tags4sec as it is... well it is a bit easy. Easy for some antisocial ganker-type to just spend a few hundred million ISK and get their standings back.

What do you think?

I didn't say tags4sec, I said Tags4Standings. As in faction standings. My views are on record - I think the current grind is awful. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=383006

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
I don't think having the only route between Jita and Amarr going through LowSec space would make any great improvement for the game. Trade Hubs will develop where they are economical... and if the map is changed then (after a time) the most popular trade hubs will change with them.

Yes, that's the point. At the moment Jita dominates everything because it is too easy to region trade for arbitrage. I routinely use public courier contracts with the reward set at 0.1% of collateral. It is too easy atm and separation would provide risk vs reward as well as many new opportunities.

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Dynamic System Sec Status? Do you mean... that "Sec" status would be system specific?

Please explain more!

Yes, as in the security status of a system would change according to events within that system. There are plenty of threads about the idea, e.g. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5218416 , especially page 2.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Tear Jar
New Order Logistics
CODE.
#54 - 2014-11-29 01:02:05 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:


At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo.
I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank....

..


They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly.

It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2014-11-29 16:03:30 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
[b]Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart?

Yes there is, and that candidate is Sabriz. Good luck with your run though.

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#56 - 2014-11-29 20:58:49 UTC
Tear Jar wrote:


They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly.


Flying an Orca is probably really boring, and with the changes coming to ISboxer, I am not thinking about multi-boxing any time soon.

Tear Jar wrote:

It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears.


We carebears need all the help we can get, including a voice on the CSM. That is my opinion.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#57 - 2014-11-29 22:09:18 UTC
Ah, now I understand. So your key point of distinction with Mike Azariah is that you are the pro-ISBoxer candidate.

Good luck with that.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#58 - 2014-11-29 22:25:36 UTC
Zappity wrote:
Ah, now I understand. So your key point of distinction with Mike Azariah is that you are the pro-ISBoxer candidate.

Good luck with that.


Nope.
Not in the slightest, but Im not about to start trying being a one-man mining fleet now.

And I am looking forward to seeing Mike starting a campaign thread!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Veers Belvar
Swordmasters of New Eden
#59 - 2014-12-01 19:01:37 UTC
Definitely support more highsec PvE player on the CSM. Good luck!

As far as wardeccs, consider the following. Marmite Collective recently wardecced my 1 man corp. Is there any conceivable game mechanic that will get me to fight them at 90-1 odds and given that all they do is train and practice PvP? Absolutely not. It's either dec dodge, NPC corp, or dock up and play on alts. The fact that they are even able to dec me is the problem, and shows why the wardecc system is fundamentally broken. Hopelessly one sided wars with no chance of a defender victory do not lead to interesting gameplay, they just lead to boredom. I would hope that if you are elected CSM you would examine whether wars serve any purpose in highsec (in fact there is some crazy statistic out there than 90%+ of the losses are incurred by one side of the war, on average. These are turkey shoots, not wars.)
Lorelei Ierendi
We Care A Lot
#60 - 2014-12-01 19:15:40 UTC
Dear Mr Belvar,

Thank you for taking an interest in my campaign. I hope that you will use your votes correctly come voting day... I had a conversation including someone on my corps that seemed to think that NOT VOTING was also sending a message.

Veers Belvar wrote:
Definitely support more highsec PvE player on the CSM. Good luck!

As far as wardeccs, consider the following. Marmite Collective recently wardecced my 1 man corp. Is there any conceivable game mechanic that will get me to fight them at 90-1 odds and given that all they do is train and practice PvP? Absolutely not. It's either dec dodge, NPC corp, or dock up and play on alts. The fact that they are even able to dec me is the problem, and shows why the wardecc system is fundamentally broken.


Might I ask what you use your 1 man corps for?
Does being in a 1 man corps bring any advantages for you, as a player, over being in an NPC corps (other than taxes)?

This also comes to what people have been saying about looking that the corporation system as a whole?
You know that stuff about "social" corporations with no gameplay relevance... vs. corporations that want to build structures, do things and have gameplay relevance.

If your 1 man corporation is an entity that excerpts some direct influence on the game (eg dropping secure containers with messages) then there has to be a mechanism for someone to attack/stop you. This is EVE after all.
But if this one man corporations exists solely so that all your alts fly under the same banner... then that is a different matter, I think.

But why would someone want to stay in a one man corporation? Wouldn't joining a group of others enable more interaction and involvement? Maybe once the AWOX removal hits, that will reduce the one men corporations..?

Veers Belvar wrote:
Hopelessly one sided wars with no chance of a defender victory do not lead to interesting gameplay, they just lead to boredom. I would hope that if you are elected CSM you would examine whether wars serve any purpose in highsec (in fact there is some crazy statistic out there than 90%+ of the losses are incurred by one side of the war, on average. These are turkey shoots, not wars.)


War is not necessarily always about having a "fair fight", but I agree that the mechanism as it is, is hopelessly broken. Almost as bad as the bounty system.

Tora Bushido is also running for the CSM, and if you read his thread... and the linked interview... well you will see that he-who-is-probably-High-Secs-prime-War-Deccer has some ideas on making things more balanced. I read his interview, and I find some of his ideas good... but I will give him time to write his long post and present them before I steal them.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/