These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Corbexx, CSM X

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tora Bushido
Commonwealth Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#21 - 2014-12-01 17:59:58 UTC
If I wasn't running this year myself, you would get my vote like last year. You did a great job so far in the CSM.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.
Chitsa Jason
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#22 - 2014-12-01 22:23:05 UTC
+1

You got my vote. Corbexx did a lot of work this year and I am super glad he is running again.

Burn the land and boil the sea You can't take the sky from me
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#23 - 2014-12-01 23:42:11 UTC
corbexx wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
My primary point of concern i the fact that you sat through the meeting in which CCP announced their decision to remove high sec awoxing and said almost nothing. Could you elaborate on your feelings on this topic?


Not everything from the meeting is in the minutes, Going back and looking through them there is actually a fair bit I said in them. I remember that meeting very well as it became pretty heated. First I think you mean the corp on corp aggression not axowing as awoxing is different.

Corp mechanics are INCREDIBLY complex, very unintuitive. At the moment the optimal way to play in hisec and be safe is to be in a npc corp. Removing the corp on corp in hisec is a good thing for newbies who just don't understand the game mechanics. Yes there will be issue, yes it will affect RvB and eve uni. but on the whole I think its for the better. You can still infiltrate a corp and steala nd rob them blind, no issue there.

Every month I go to both of Sugar Kyles Eve uni chat, and this is brought up every month as a issue.



Prior to knowing your position on intra-corp aggression I had intended to have you on my list of recommended candidates.

However, if you are successful in achieving a major increase in safety for career empire PVEers (the targets of highsec corp infiltrators), you'll simply accelerate the trend toward nullsec and wormhole players carrying out their wealth generation activities in highsec instead of fighting to assert their ability to generate wealth in dangerous space.

You'll also remove one of the best ways for rookie players to get their first PVP experiences. AWOX ransoming is something I have seen several people do as their first step into the sandbox, and the thing that broke me from my initial EVE path of 'level up my Dominix' was a mercenary infiltrating my first corp and blowing someone up to fill a contract.

I don't live in wormholes, and even I've noticed the number of people migrating out of them over the last couple of years, as people move their ISK generating activities to highsec and grind incursions in relative safety. I hear the wormholer complaints 'there's too many predators, not enough prey' and as a WH outsider I'm concerned that W-space may end up looking even more like non-FW lowsec if there's many more buffs to highsec safety.





Newer players should be given firm warnings that joining a corporation opens them up to intra-corp PVP (a dismissable warning that's the reverse of the one you are given when you join a fleet), but it's not new players in their battlecruisers and Ventures that get shot in infiltration/AWOX incidents, it is career PVEers and miners in their Orcas and pirate faction battleships. The first unplanned PVP most new players encounter is a gatecamp when they derp and buy a skillbook in a dangerous lowsec system, not an AWOXer.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2014-12-02 01:25:00 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

Prior to knowing your position on intra-corp aggression I had intended to have you on my list of recommended candidates.


That's nice to know I would have been on your recommended list, could I ask why I would have been on it?


Sabriz Adoudel wrote:


However, if you are successful in achieving a major increase in safety for career empire PVEers (the targets of highsec corp infiltrators), you'll simply accelerate the trend toward nullsec and wormhole players carrying out their wealth generation activities in highsec instead of fighting to assert their ability to generate wealth in dangerous space.


By mayor safety you mean corp on corp agression being removed, I really can't see this suddenly getting people from null or wormholes to farm isk in hisec, Lets be honest if people in null and wormholes wanted to do that it could easily be done now, and in a fair few cases is done already, So yeah not something to worry about at all from that POV.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

I don't live in wormholes, and even I've noticed the number of people migrating out of them over the last couple of years, as people move their ISK generating activities to highsec and grind incursions in relative safety. I hear the wormholer complaints 'there's too many predators, not enough prey' and as a WH outsider I'm concerned that W-space may end up looking even more like non-FW lowsec if there's many more buffs to highsec safety.


Incursion yes I agree is a issue, However if you listen to as many people as I do about wormholes it seems the C1 to C4 is picking up nicely with all the nice buffs they have gotten recently, C5 and C6 are still doing ok. but could do with some loving. Its my next project to look at. I don't think there is any issue of w-space turning in to non-FW Lowsec.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

You'll also remove one of the best ways for rookie players to get their first PVP experiences. AWOX ransoming is something I have seen several people do as their first step into the sandbox, and the thing that broke me from my initial EVE path of 'level up my Dominix' was a mercenary infiltrating my first corp and blowing someone up to fill a contract.


Do you have any figures on this, several people out of what, all the new players who have started since you have been playing? Since you have been in code? Do you have any idea how many players do the corp on corp aggression, compared to how many new players have left over this?

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Lanctharus Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#25 - 2014-12-02 04:47:55 UTC
Good to hear that you have decided to run again.

As you are aware we at the Cap Stable Podcast interviewed you during your run for CSM9 and we wish to do the same this year for CSM10.

Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/

As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods:

Email: podcast@capstable.net
Twitter: @CapStable
Or via our contact form

We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy.

Sincerely,

Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast
Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#26 - 2014-12-02 04:52:39 UTC
My support for you would have been for the work you did in encouraging PVE in dangerous space, particularly the sleeper loot changes. I still regard that as excellent work and would support changes to make other forms of wealth generation activities (such as mining) more viable in WH space.

EVE needs more incentive to be undocked and active in dangerous space, whether that activity is fighting rats, mining, running exploration sites or whatever, and the more those activities reward risking valuable assets the better the game.


Back to the point of contention, starting with the question of newbies.

People AWOX ransoming as newbies - I only have anecdotes, no hard numbers. It's a rare occurence (despite my efforts to advise people in the forum newbie areas of the option) and most people that do it as newbies are people that lose a ship to highsec predators, then ask questions like 'how did you do that?' and get the necessary tips.

Most newbies never realise it's an option. But where else can a 500k skillpoint character without external ISK injection win a decisive PVP victory solo in EVE through their own cunning, preparation and initiative?

You claim new players leave over intracorp aggression. What do you define as a new player? I've been in and out of the main channel where these sorts of attacks are organised, and as a result I know the people involved in these shenanigans target corps with Orcas, pirate faction battleships, Marauders and empire navy battleships. Expensive ships. They watch traffic in level 4 mission hubs. If their targets were new players, they'd be going after places like Simela (level 2-3 SoE mission hub) and the newbie cruisers there.

The main people that are hit hard by highsec intracorp aggression are people settling into a career of highsec mission running or highsec mining. EVE will not hold 90% of those people once they finish the process of levelling up from a Dominix to an Ishtar to a Proteus to a Vindicator to a Kronos (or their Retriever into a Mackinaw) unless they are brought into the sandbox somehow. Those people aren't newbies, they are usually closer to 3-6 months old.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Black Pedro
Mine.
#27 - 2014-12-02 11:09:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
corbexx wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

However, if you are successful in achieving a major increase in safety for career empire PVEers (the targets of highsec corp infiltrators), you'll simply accelerate the trend toward nullsec and wormhole players carrying out their wealth generation activities in highsec instead of fighting to assert their ability to generate wealth in dangerous space.


By mayor safety you mean corp on corp agression being removed, I really can't see this suddenly getting people from null or wormholes to farm isk in hisec, Lets be honest if people in null and wormholes wanted to do that it could easily be done now, and in a fair few cases is done already, So yeah not something to worry about at all from that POV.


I am not so sure about this. If highsec AWOX removal allows the formation of large, organized and stable "incursion corporations", many players may choose to move back to highsec and join them permanently. Right now, the inherent social element of corporations is hampered by the aggression mechanics which prevent incursion corps, so many players just have an NPC-corp alt doing incursions and still consider their main Eve identity as a defined by the wormhole, low, or null corp they are part of. If they can now join a permanent incursion corp and find a social identity, they may just pack up and leave more risky space completely.

Now, although this would suck more life out of the more risky space and make for a less vibrant universe, some would argue that increased social contact would be better for player retention. In fact, I support the proposed form of "corp-lite" which would allow the social benefits of, but none of the game rewards of a player corporation. Therefore the problem comes back to the failure of implementing "risk vs. reward" properly in highsec - incursion are just far, far too rewarding for the level of risk. Corbexx, what do you think is the best way to fix this without completely alienating players who love incursion gameplay?

But back to the question of removal intracorp agression in highsec, my main problem with it is that it will lower the bar of formation of a corporation even more than it is. Already, any one-month old player can form a corp, and spam invites to other new players. These new players will join, learn nothing, get frustrated and possibly quit the game. There are "natural hurdles" for running a corp in low/null/WHs as if you are clueless and don't understand game mechanics your corp, or at least its assets, will not last long. But in highsec, the threat of awoxing is one of the few ways to "test" corps and to weed out the "fail-corps" that have no business existing. In any case, competent highsec corps have several mechanisms to protect themselves (security checks, dedicated training corps, etc.), so all this change does is protect the lazy and clueless CEO, and will encourage low quality corps to spam invites even more to new players as there is now zero risk to them.

New players deserve recruitment into better corps than many of the ones plaguing highsec today that are run by players who do not understand game mechanics, or who are actively looking to exploit newbies with high taxes, and low ore buyback prices. If you are going to remove highsec awoxing, at least put some mechanism in the game to help get new players into the larger, competent highsec corps who care about training new players, or better yet, directly into a low/null/WH corp.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2014-12-02 12:04:18 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:

I am not so sure about this. If highsec AWOX removal allows the formation of large, organized and stable "incursion corporations", many players may choose to move back to highsec and join them permanently. Right now, the inherent social element of corporations is hampered by the aggression mechanics which prevent incursion corps, so many players just have an NPC-corp alt doing incursions and still consider their main Eve identity as a defined by the wormhole, low, or null corp they are part of. If they can now join a permanent incursion corp and find a social identity, they may just pack up and leave more risky space completely.


Really? One of the main reasons stopping incursion corps is war decs not awoxing lets be honest here, not running wide with rumours and speculation.

Black Pedro wrote:
Therefore the problem comes back to the failure of implementing "risk vs. reward" properly in highsec - incursion are just far, far too rewarding for the level of risk. Corbexx, what do you think is the best way to fix this without completely alienating players who love incursion gameplay?


Incursions need looking at everyone knows that its in the minutes. What really needs to happen is the incrusions that are over paid need it scaling back its pretty simple.

Black Pedro wrote:

But back to the question of removal intracorp agression in highsec, my main problem with it is that it will lower the bar of formation of a corporation even more than it is. Already, any one-month old player can form a corp, and spam invites to other new players. These new players will join, learn nothing, get frustrated and possibly quit the game. There are "natural hurdles" for running a corp in low/null/WHs as if you are clueless and don't understand game mechanics your corp, or at least its assets, will not last long. But in highsec, the threat of awoxing is one of the few ways to "test" corps and to weed out the "fail-corps" that have no business existing. In any case, competent highsec corps have several mechanisms to protect themselves (security checks, dedicated training corps, etc.), so all this change does is protect the lazy and clueless CEO, and will encourage low quality corps to spam invites even more to new players as there is now zero risk to them.


So your issue here is you don't think newbies should be allowed to form there own corps since they don't know much? Who should decide they have no business exsisting? you? your code mates? You sound really anti newbie, If they want to form a corp let them, if it fails it fails. If it succeds we might have the next brave newbie alliance. Your arguement for awoxing needs to stay is that you feel the need to have some mechanic to grief newbie corps that might, just might not be up to some standard that you set? WTF!

Black Pedro wrote:

New players deserve recruitment into better corps than many of the ones plaguing highsec today that are run by players who do not understand game mechanics, or who are actively looking to exploit newbies with high taxes, and low ore buyback prices. If you are going to remove highsec awoxing, at least put some mechanism in the game to help get new players into the larger, competent highsec corps who care about training new players, or better yet, directly into a low/null/WH corp.


Ok so you being able to awox people is fine, but people setting high tax rates isn't. I will let CCP know right now Black pedro feels corps setting tax high in hisec is bad for newbies along with low ore buy back. Yes last part would be useful and as you can see some stuff is happening to help like http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rookie-resources/

Now from a fundamental pov you, your alts, code, there alts, disagree with me on my view, that's fine. Lets agree to disagree and leave it there. (more stuff on this will probably be ignored but cheers for the bump)

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Black Pedro
Mine.
#29 - 2014-12-02 12:59:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
corbexx wrote:


Really? One of the main reasons stopping incursion corps is war decs not awoxing lets be honest here, not running wide with rumours and speculation.


I agree. My comment was all speculation. I have no evidence for my view and cannot predict the future, but however neither can you. I was just pointing out that such a change may have more consequences on the distribution of the Eve population than apparent at first glance.

Wardecs come with notification and can be dodged. Highsec awoxing cannot and this is the biggest problem preventing incursion corps currently.

corbexx wrote:

Incursions need looking at everyone knows that its in the minutes. What really needs to happen is the incrusions that are over paid need it scaling back its pretty simple.

I saw that in the minutes, and your comments there. That went a long way earning my support for your CSM run (which you have).

I agree by the way. I just wonder why this hasn't happened yet as it is so obvious. I can only assume CCP is concerned that the drastic changes that are necessary will upset a portion of the player base and personally, I am not sure the best way to implement them.
corbexx wrote:

So your issue here is you don't think newbies should be allowed to form there own corps since they don't know much? Who should decide they have no business exsisting? you? your code mates? You sound really anti newbie, If they want to form a corp let them, if it fails it fails. If it succeds we might have the next brave newbie alliance. Your arguement for awoxing needs to stay is that you feel the need to have some mechanic to grief newbie corps that might, just might not be up to some standard that you set? WTF!

Nope. I think players should not be provided with free protection of their corp, yet given all the rewards of corp. I agree, if a corp is to fail it should fail - it should not be allowed to exist if it cannot manage the basic level of competence to protect its operations from outsiders. Awoxing for all player corps is not some standard that "I set", but is a competitive standard that all corps are subject to. Surviving/defending against awoxing is another proof of competency for a new corp (something Brave managed to do, by the way).

As I said I support a "corp-lite" mechanism where players can form a corp that is free from wardecs (and awoxing) but has none of the advantages of a player corp. But a proper player corp? It has to take responsibility for its own protection if it wants to reap the rewards of a player corp.

It's just simple risk vs. reward.

corbexx wrote:

Ok so you being able to awox people is fine, but people setting high tax rates isn't. I will let CCP know right now Black pedro feels corps setting tax high in hisec is bad for newbies along with low ore buy back. Yes last part would be useful and as you can see some stuff is happening to help like http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/rookie-resources/

Now from a fundamental pov you, your alts, code, there alts, disagree with me on my view, that's fine. Lets agree to disagree and leave it there. (more stuff on this will probably be ignored but cheers for the bump)

No, I think that removing awoxing will increase the number of exploitative (as well as just terrible) highsec corps. I would appreciate it if you relayed my concerns to CCP, and encourage them to continue to develop tools to give newbies a chance to avoid them. Awoxing (as it is) only harms established players (with the assets that make awoxing worthwhile) who should know better, while high tax rates exploit new players who have just joined their first player corp and don't know better.

But I will agree to disagree with you on this issue. The risk vs. reward problems with the income distribution in this game are much more important to me than awoxing, and your views on this match mine. And honestly, removing awoxing isn't going to change much at all - there will be no beneficial effect on newbie retention and players relying on awoxing to disrupt highsec corps will find other ways.

The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
Erica Dusette
Division 13
#30 - 2014-12-02 14:03:17 UTC
It's no coincidence that corbexx is not only a wormholer but the only CSM to ever mention fashion to me.

As we all know, wormholes are the supreme apex of any pilot's career in EVE. It's the endgame, where everyone must wear their Sunday best, dying like gentlemen (or ladies). Corbexx understands this and has worked tirelessly in it's pursuit, consistently delivering results - he understands what wormhole space involves, what's important to daily life for it's residents and that we need to look good while living it.

I even heard corbexx will push hard for the catsuit to finally move from SISI to tranquility.

I'm voting #1 corbexx and so should you.

Good luck sir!

Jack Miton > you be nice or you're sleeping on the couch again!

Part-Time Wormhole Pirate ツ Full-Time Supermodel

▷ worмнole dιary + cнaracтer вιoѕ ▷ вσss
Alan Mathison
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2014-12-02 20:43:16 UTC
Corbexx:

corbexx wrote:

So your issue here is you don't think newbies should be allowed to form there own corps since they don't know much? Who should decide they have no business exsisting? you? your code mates? You sound really anti newbie, If they want to form a corp let them, if it fails it fails. If it succeds we might have the next brave newbie alliance. Your arguement for awoxing needs to stay is that you feel the need to have some mechanic to grief newbie corps that might, just might not be up to some standard that you set? WTF!

...

Now from a fundamental pov you, your alts, code, there alts, disagree with me on my view, that's fine. Lets agree to disagree and leave it there.


That just got you my first vote, sir!

Moving onto a question I have, space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#32 - 2014-12-02 20:49:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Re: the whole in-corp aggression thing (it's not AWOXing), can we agree that the root problem is the disastrous state of corporations and corporation management in EVE, and that no fix short of a complete overhaul will be satisfying?

The change to prevent in-corp aggression is an experiment, whose success CCP is (or should damn well be) monitoring. When CCP has the numbers to determine how well the change worked, they have the option to revert it if it was a wash or worse. The new rapid-fire release cycle makes that easy for them to do.

The best thing CSM can do, IMO, is ask them to define success in terms of the impact of the change, keep on them to stick to that (and to rolling it back if it fails), and source and offer suggestions about how corporations should function in EVE, and even (hat tip to Mangala Solaris) if corporations should be the only social organizations EVE offers.

As an aside, true newbies don't have to be ganked to leave. Seeing it happen to their social group might be enough. I'm not going to speculate on whether or how often that happens, but if corporations are the glue that keeps people in EVE, then the shattering of a corporation may well be enough to drive them away.

Oh, and +1 to Corbexx, even if he did stand us up when we invited him to chat with us the first time. P

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#33 - 2014-12-03 11:58:16 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Re: the whole in-corp aggression thing (it's not AWOXing), can we agree that the root problem is the disastrous state of corporations and corporation management in EVE, and that no fix short of a complete overhaul will be satisfying?

I will agree. The intracorp aggression mechanics (which can be used for awoxing) are probably the least of the problems facing highsec corporations. The real question is what do you view a corporation as? Is it just a "clubhouse" where friends can join up to form a social entity, or are they game entity designed to compete with each other in all areas of space including highsec? The game doesn't really know seem to know either as although there are some advantages to being in a player corp, they are not persistent or unique at all (all corps are the same) so there is no real reason to defend them in the case of a wardec.

Forgive this, but here is an outline a better designed corporation system that respects risk vs. reward:

Have two "tiers" of corporations, a "protected corporation" and a full corporation, and a series of persistent deployables that can be reinforced and have to be defended (like POCOs). The "protected corporation" enjoys full CONCORD protection from wardecs and awoxing, but has only minimal advantages (chat channel, corp contracts, a few others). The full corporation is as now, with the ability to set up POSes and these new deployables which will provided a distinct bonus to PvE activities like mining and missioning. This will allow players to tune their risk to match their capabilities and interest in defending their corp.

Let me illustrate how it would work with a story.

1) Let's say a relatively new player recruits some of his real-life friends and they want to make a go at starting a new mining corporation. The set up a "protected corp" and start the business of setting up their mining operations, recruiting, and getting to know one another and their only risk is the odd suicide ganker. After a month they decide to upgrade their corp to "full" status so they can deploy a compression array at a POS to make more profit on their activities.

2) A week later, a rival corp in the system notices the asteroids are being depleted, some words are exchanged, and the rivals hire some mercenaries to wardec our new corp. After a few losses, the new corp realizes that they aren't quite ready to defend their corp and decide to pull down their POS and surrender for a small ISK cost, and now immediately return to a "protected corp" status for an enforced minimum period of time (two weeks?). They can carry on mining as before, just without the advantages of the full corp.

3) A month later, they have recovered and grown. They are much larger, have recruited some players with PvP experience, and decide that to go to "full" corp again. They set up a POS, and decide to invest in some large, permanent deployables to increase their mining yield in the system (or cluster?). These cost several hundred million ISK but provided a few percent bonus on their yield so they pay off in the medium term and therefore are a valuable (and vulnerable) corp asset. Now when some trash-talking leads to a wardec, the corporation has a strong incentive to fight, or hire mercenaries, to defend these deployables or lose their investment.

Something like this could make wardecs meaningful and restore some risk vs. reward to highsec.

Since this is your CSM thread Corbexx and highsec corporation mechanics aren't in your primary wheelhouse as a wormholer I will stop here with this discussion of wardecs. But I would encourage to extend your view of risk vs. reward to highsec wardec mechanics if they come up for discussion on the CSM.

As I just posted in Sion Kumitomo's thread, there is suppose to be risk in highsec, and awoxing, wardecs are a large part of that.


The 8 Golden Rules of Eve

Why Do They Gank?
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2014-12-04 12:48:33 UTC
Alan Mathison wrote:

Moving onto a question I have, space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.


My personal opinion is to have some form of hacking that can be used to unanchor offline towers. Varying in difficulty on two things. 1) size, easy for small towers hard for large towers. 2) type of tower, easy for a basic amarr tower, hard for a true sansha tower

This could use the hacking skill or a new one but would allow for people to go out and find and remove these towers.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#35 - 2014-12-04 15:46:18 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Alan Mathison wrote:

Moving onto a question I have, space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.


My personal opinion is to have some form of hacking that can be used to unanchor offline towers. Varying in difficulty on two things. 1) size, easy for small towers hard for large towers. 2) type of tower, easy for a basic amarr tower, hard for a true sansha tower.


I would be happier with locking mechanisms that used grid and CPU, so that if you wanted to have a seriously locked-down small tower you could, as long as you paid the cost for it.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Alan Mathison
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#36 - 2014-12-04 17:03:29 UTC
Corbexx:

corbexx wrote:
Alan Mathison wrote:

Moving onto a question I have, space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them?


My personal opinion is to have some form of hacking that can be used to unanchor offline towers. Varying in difficulty on two things. 1) size, easy for small towers hard for large towers. 2) type of tower, easy for a basic amarr tower, hard for a true sansha tower


Thanks so much!

I'll take this opportunity to ask the other things I'll be asking candidates I'm taking seriously.

EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it?

It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority?

EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do?

Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-)

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#37 - 2014-12-04 19:58:31 UTC
Alan Mathison wrote:


I'll take this opportunity to ask the other things I'll be asking candidates I'm taking seriously.

EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it?


Yes I would. I'm all in favour of a corp lite/ social groups. Exactly what it would get or have not sure.

Alan Mathison wrote:

It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority?


We don't really get a say in priority, But I will say i'll be carrying on working on stuff I think would help W-space. Being proactive going out finding issues getting info on it and passing it on to CCP, allows you to potentially get alot sorted,. Even if it is just little quality of life stuff. Obviously if I had my say it would be W-space. But to be honest W-space is doing pretty well with small iterations (there is still stuff to do but its not like null that needs a HUGE revamp). Alot is knowing just who to go to.

Alan Mathison wrote:

EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do?


It was down, there is probably alot of reasons not enough advertising. the fact that CSM 8 was fairly quite with no huge rage monsters for people to go EMO about. I don't think it diminishes the validity of the CSM, its not ideal i'll give you that. But i'd like to think most of us have justified our spots. How to improve this I think needs both the CSM and CCP pushing it to people.

Alan Mathison wrote:

Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-)


yes.

http://i.imgur.com/qkC1K2P.png

oops wrong pic.

http://i.imgur.com/qfbLYvk.jpg

Ragdolls amazing cats.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#38 - 2014-12-04 22:12:52 UTC
CCP has come out and stated that they want DOTLAN-style functionality for the gorgeous new map, which is awesome for k-space.

What's your stance on their building in mapper-style functionality for w-space?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#39 - 2014-12-05 00:14:53 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
CCP has come out and stated that they want DOTLAN-style functionality for the gorgeous new map, which is awesome for k-space.

What's your stance on their building in mapper-style functionality for w-space?


SWEET, huge plus for new groups.

Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
Jeff Kione
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2014-12-05 18:45:42 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Alan Mathison wrote:

Moving onto a question I have, space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.


My personal opinion is to have some form of hacking that can be used to unanchor offline towers. Varying in difficulty on two things. 1) size, easy for small towers hard for large towers. 2) type of tower, easy for a basic amarr tower, hard for a true sansha tower

This could use the hacking skill or a new one but would allow for people to go out and find and remove these towers.


I'm curious, would you want this to be a relatively risk-free activity in high-sec? If this was enabled I could see the mass rush for everyone to go out and find abandoned large towers in high-sec to sell with little to no risk, except from gankers perhaps. I think it might be interesting if hacking a corporation's anchored tower gave you a suspect flag, perhaps.