These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
Neo Kathura
Doomheim
#161 - 2014-12-23 10:18:58 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Sasha Nyemtsov wrote:


Hi Sabriz,

'Audacity' does make audio editing very easy. I don't have any experience in sound technology but I'm able to do all the basic editing for the SoundCloud files in this little program. I got better at it as time went on, but I'm still learning.

It takes time though, and you have to be prepared to listen again and again - and critically - to your piece. I think you're just a rather busy pilot at the moment!

All the very best for your campaign and, more immediately, for the coming holiday!



Yeah I'm ridiculously busy IRL, organising maintenance for a Boeing 737 repossessed from a now bankrupt airline.

I think I need to take the stress out on some freighters soon.
And yet you'll have time to be on the CSM? History shows it's a very busy role to fill.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#162 - 2014-12-23 10:23:12 UTC
Neo Kathura wrote:
And yet you'll have time to be on the CSM? History shows it's a very busy role to fill.



I work 9 to 5 with occasional flareups. I'm not unmanageably busy often, I just happen to be right now. (Even at times like this I find time to log in to EVE, manage trades and still get to the gym IRL)

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Odeva Pawen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#163 - 2015-01-04 05:57:03 UTC
You have my vote. I have a question though. Do you have any ideas on how to improve the bounty system?

Overheat Keyboards! Load Rage posts! Prepare for a long, seething, back and forth about irrelevant things!

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#164 - 2015-01-04 06:08:47 UTC
Odeva Pawen wrote:
You have my vote. I have a question though. Do you have any ideas on how to improve the bounty system?



I think it broadly does the right thing at the moment, but that the 20% figure is too low. If attacking a bounty target awarded 35-40% of the net loss value, it would be more lucrative and might incentivise attacking people rather than just functioning as a tip to people that would have shot you anyway.

Initially the bounty system was set to pay 20% in order to address exploit concerns. These were justified - I personally reported two exploits at the time of the Retribution launch (the big one, podding someone with a 'gold pod' installed, was hotfixed within hours by removing the gold pod implant from killmails).

I believe changing it from 20% to 40% would not introduce new exploits but would make larger bounties more of a conflict driver. Suddenly, it becomes *worth* your gank fleet targetting the CODE. battleship (with our alliance bounty) over the Carebears Inc battleship (with minimal/no bounty).


Secondly, I think the bounty system would be improved by reworking insurance. I should make a major post on this at some point, as my thoughts on insurance will probably be controversial (I believe insurance payments to high SP players should be sharply decreased, while keeping large payments to rookies, and have an only partly thought out idea for doing this). As insurance is such a large factor in the bounty payment formula, any nerf to insurance will improve bounty payouts.



One final point. A common criticism of the bounty system is 'troll bounties' - i.e. bountying someone for a trivial amount for the lulz. I don't see these as an issue as bounties of under 50 million ISK generally make no difference to PVP engagement decisions.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#165 - 2015-01-08 04:47:09 UTC
I've provided answers to the Just For Crits lowsec questionaire. Look for them on their website sometime soon.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#166 - 2015-01-12 21:18:44 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

...
I'm announcing my candidacy for CSM10, as one of the many people involved in bringing conflict, opportunity, destruction and excitement to high security space.
...
It's conflict that makes EVE worth playing.
...

I approve of this message, and encourage everyone to include Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido on their ballots, to stem the tide of decay to content-creation in hisec.

F
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#167 - 2015-01-12 21:54:28 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

...
I'm announcing my candidacy for CSM10, as one of the many people involved in bringing conflict, opportunity, destruction and excitement to high security space.
...
It's conflict that makes EVE worth playing.
...

I approve of this message, and encourage everyone to include Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido on their ballots, to stem the tide of decay to content-creation in hisec.

F


Feyd, I'd love some questions from you. Both difficult and friendly questions encouraged.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#168 - 2015-01-13 05:04:40 UTC
Sabriz has ideas that are both mostly reasonable and not based on obvious ulterior motives. People in my alliance who don't vote for Sabriz will be flogged then shot.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#169 - 2015-01-13 05:08:01 UTC
Vimsy Vortis wrote:
Sabriz has ideas that are both mostly reasonable and not based on obvious ulterior motives. People in my alliance who don't vote for Sabriz will have their assets stripped, then be biomassed.


Changed your quote slightly. Please keep the hostilities strictly in-game.

:)

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
#170 - 2015-01-13 05:23:15 UTC
Don't worry it's totally consensual.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2015-01-13 13:33:10 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Please keep the hostilities strictly in-game.

Given that she's an Amarrian, I assume the flogging was meant in-game. As far as shooting, I assume stolen/reappropriated projectile weapons.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Globby
Never Ignorant Gettin' Goals Accomplished
Gimme Da Loot
#172 - 2015-01-13 15:11:55 UTC
I fully endorse this product and/or service.
Shadow Raptor
Doomheim
#173 - 2015-01-14 05:13:54 UTC
I don't have the time or patience to read this entire thread.

How do you feel about ganking innocent miners and haulers in high sec?

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#174 - 2015-01-14 05:20:07 UTC
Shadow Raptor wrote:
I don't have the time or patience to read this entire thread.

How do you feel about ganking innocent miners and haulers in high sec?




There is nothing 'innocent' about miners or haulers. They are economic combatants in market warfare.

Just as drones are a good countermeasure against ECM in starship combat, gank ships are a good countermeasure to mining barges in market warfare.

If the miners and haulers want safety, highsec offers them the tools to seize it. They need to learn to use those tools.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Jayne Fillon
#175 - 2015-01-14 06:36:20 UTC
Shadow Raptor wrote:
innocent miners
I'm trying really hard to envision guilty miners...

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#176 - 2015-01-14 09:09:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Shadow Raptor wrote:
innocent miners
I'm trying really hard to envision guilty miners...

It's not hard. The miner who is gathering resources to build ships that will support the alliance that is trying to take your Sov? The miner that is flooding the market with under-priced (from your point of view) ore (possibly gathered by EULA-breaking means), devaluing your efforts? The rival mining corp that organizes a fleet and takes most of the ice after the anomaly spawns in your home system, leaving you without fuel to run your industry POS?

There are are plenty of reasons that miners are "guilty" of working against your interests. You gotta love the sandbox.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#177 - 2015-01-14 09:44:20 UTC
I don't see miners as guilty, but then I don't see anyone else as guilty either. We're all just having a lot of fun in the sand box. People need to realize it's just a game.

Ganking barges in highsec can be a method to boost mineral prices, or a tool for boosting the value of one's killboard, or perhaps even as a way to fulfill one's own belief that miners should be eliminated. And these purposes as well as many other possible purposes can all have a wide variety of motives and specific reasoning behind them. All in all, everyone has their own reason for doing what they do, and we group together with people who have similar yet not the same interests.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#178 - 2015-01-14 09:49:05 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I don't see miners as guilty, but then I don't see anyone else as guilty either. We're all just having a lot of fun in the sand box. People need to realize it's just a game.

Ganking barges in highsec can be a method to boost mineral prices, or a tool for boosting the value of one's killboard, or perhaps even as a way to fulfill one's own belief that miners should be eliminated. And these purposes as well as many other possible purposes can all have a wide variety of motives and specific reasoning behind them. All in all, everyone has their own reason for doing what they do, and we group together with people who have similar yet not the same interests.


This.

Or, you may have no concerns whatsoever about mining, but you might desire to increase sales of the Hulks you build.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Jayne Fillon
#179 - 2015-01-14 11:28:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Whelp. I'm ashamed of having initially written you off simply due to your alliance ticker - I should know better than that.

After having actually read your OP, I have to say I'm rather impressed with your platform and a lot of the points that you've made regarding highsec. I'm going to have to take a listen to the soundclouds you've posted, and I must say I'm looking forward to your interviews with both cap stable and just for crits. Too many who have come before you simply spew the same old tired lines about theme parks and tears; it's quite refreshing to hear a well reasoned and passionate voice supporting highsec conflict.

I have three questions for you, all of which I have chosen to ask because I myself have not formed an opinion on them one way or another - I'd love to hear what you think and why. Please don't assume that these questions are asked with a bias, as I have none, and I most certainly won't be upset if you answer the question in a certain way, as long as your opinions are backed up. P

My first question is regarding the formation of highsec groups and corporations. Prefacing this with my opinion that "conflict in Eve is always a good thing," do you feel that the current corporation mechanics are sufficient for non-PvP groups to handle wardecs and other forms of non-consensual PvP? If no, what changes to corporations and alliance would allow for groups of players to form highsec based entities and still be able to resist or, better yet, fight back against a PvP centric organization?

Again with wardecs, what do you think about changing wardecs to a regional or decentralized system instead of the current universal license to ignore concord? For example, maybe the war is only valid if your target is in a mining barge, or located in Jita. A much more detailed version of this idea was proposed by Marlona Sky if you'd like to look it up for reference, I don't have the link handy.

Lastly, Mike Azariah half jokingly proposed a "peace dec" mechanic where instead of one corporation essentially forcing the PvP playstyle upon a non-PvP entity, the tables are reversed. In essence, it would be conducting non-consensual PvE against a PvP target, forcing them to do some sort of non-PvP activity. Ignoring the specifics of the proposed mechanic, what do you think about a concept of the "peace dec"?

That's all for now.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#180 - 2015-01-15 04:11:12 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Whelp. I'm ashamed of having initially written you off simply due to your alliance ticker - I should know better than that.

After having actually read your OP, I have to say I'm rather impressed with your platform and a lot of the points that you've made regarding highsec. I'm going to have to take a listen to the soundclouds you've posted, and I must say I'm looking forward to your interviews with both cap stable and just for crits. Too many who have come before you simply spew the same old tired lines about theme parks and tears, it's quite refreshing to hear a well reasoned and passionate voice supporting highsec conflict.

I have three questions for you, all of which I have chosen to ask because I myself have not formed an opinion on them one way or another - I'd love to hear what you think and why. Please don't assume that these questions are asked with a bias, as I have none, and I most certainly won't upset if you answer the question a certain way, as long as your opinions are backed up. P

My first question is regarding the formation of highsec groups and corporations. Prefacing this with that opinion that conflict in Eve is always a good thing, do you feel that the current corporation mechanics are sufficient for non-PvP groups to handle wardecs and other forms of non-consensual PvP? If no, what changes to corporations and alliance would allow for groups of players to form highsec based entities and still be able to resist or, better yet, fight back against a PvP centric organization?

Again with wardecs, what do you think about changing wardecs to a regional or decentralized system instead of the current universal license to ignore concord? For example, maybe the war is only valid if your target is in a mining barge, or located in Jita. A much more detailed of this idea was proposed by Marlona Sky if you'd like to look it up for reference, I don't have the link handy.

Mike Azariah half jokingly proposed a "peace dec" mechanic where instead of one corporation essentially forces the PvP playstyle upon a non-PvP entity, the tables are reversed. Essentially, it would be conducting non-consensual non-PvP against a PvP target, forcing them to do some sort of non-PvP activity. Ignoring the specifics of the mechanics, what do you think about this proposal?

That's all for now.

Hoping Sabriz blasts you and your ideas from this thread, and in so doing validates our faith in him as a candidate to hold the line on EvE's founding HTFU traditions.

p.s.
This is all you need to survive wardecs, carebear proffed pansification changes to actual game mechanics are *NOT* required or wanted.

F