These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#201 - 2015-01-15 22:16:23 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Black Pedro wrote:
Plaan Jaynara wrote:
questions

His own answers


Seriously Sabriz i'm sure if more than able to answer on his own, or do you feel that he isnt and so you have to help him, I've noticed you answering alot of stuff addressed to him, Is there a problem that you feel Sabriz cant answer himself?


I have no issue with discussions happening on this thread, someone may well have an idea that I hadn't thought of that is better than what I would have come up with. I was indeed asleep at the time, but I broadly agree with Pedro's answers, with the caveat that I do a significant amount of starship and module production and that that is (for me) a significant part of how I funded ganking (when I focused on ganking) and now how I fund ships for wardeccing.

I have nine Ishtar build jobs running right now and a lot of invention jobs running, and I consider these activities to be real-loss PVP, every bit as much as I consider last weekend's engagements against a war target corp. Other people who build Ishtars are engaged in PVP against me; people who produce Crystalline Carbonide Armor Plates and Photon Microprocessors are engaged in PVP alongside me.


I want to elaborate on the controversial 'the defenders have the advantage' comment I made earlier. Aggressors have the initiative in wars, but defenders have the capacity to escalate in a war, and a very important 24 hour warning period. Aggressors receive only a four hour warning period when the defender calls in an ally.

This is why my corporation doesn't try to establish and defend a POS, despite me alone doing enough production to warrant one. If we had a POS, and wardecced a mining corporation that didn't want to fight us, that corp could then wait until only 2 or 3 of us are online (plus maybe one or two of our -10 gank alts in other CODE. corps), then reinforce our POS with four hour's warning.

That said, the defenders need to *use* this advantage, which entails engaging in the sandbox, negotiating mercenary contracts and a payment structure, researching the various mercenaries available to determine which ones offer the most useful services, deciding whether a third party is needed, and planning elaborate traps with your mercenary allies.

'Industrial' corporations like that earn my respect, because they take advantages offered and use them to their fullest.


As for Marmites having 1300 active wars - that would cost them 65 billion ISK per week minimum. I'd be stunned if Marmites spend more than 10% of that.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#202 - 2015-01-16 01:09:21 UTC
Soon to come - I've done a few interviews and Q&As with bloggers and podcasters. I'll post them in the first post when available.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
CODE Agent AC
The Conference Elite
The Conference
#203 - 2015-01-16 01:13:17 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Soon to come - I've done a few interviews and Q&As with bloggers and podcasters. I'll post them in the first post when available.



Sounds great! I can't wait to read/listen to them.

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#204 - 2015-01-16 15:07:03 UTC
What can be done to manage expectations of safety in high-sec?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#205 - 2015-01-16 18:54:46 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
What can be done to manage expectations of safety in high-sec?


Now THAT is an excellent question.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#206 - 2015-01-17 01:53:44 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
What can be done to manage expectations of safety in high-sec?



This is too big a question to fully answer in one post, especially a post made on a tablet. Apologies for typos.

As I see it there are three main reasons people suffer really, really dumb losses in highsec.

1 - A newish player in their first experience with the sandbox.
2 - A belief that highsec is safer than it actually is, and in particular a belief that the most dangerous systems in high are safer thanthe lleast dangerous systems in low.
3 - A calculation of risk vs reward that says 'Yes, losing a Dominix in a mission is cheaper than losing a Kronos, but the extra ISK per hour is worth the risk'. This calculation may be correct or it may be wrong.

Re 1, I think tutorials that are low stakes but competitive are the way to go here. Have a tutorial mission that sends a rookie to deliver a package to an area of space that is probeable and to sit there for two minutes. Then have a latter tutorial to probe down and steal that very package from another player. Consequences of failure should be minimal, and the rewards of a successful theft high enough that collusion would be the game theoretical correct choice. That will introduce rookies to the sandbox early with minimal consequences and get them used to the idea that highsec is not safe.

Re 2, this needs both out of game communication, along with more chaos in highsec in general. The other factor is that most rookies' first experience with low is usually to walk into a gate camp, because the most obvious entrances into low are much more dangerous than other entrances. This makes people think low is orders of magnitude more dangerous than high when in fact it is not. (Exception of Tama, Egghelende and a couple others)

Re 3 - attempting to make an informed risk-reward decision is playing EVE properly. Sometimes you make the decision wrongly, sometimes you make the highest EV choice but still lose. That's fine.


There is more to say on this issue but not on a touch screen.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#207 - 2015-01-17 09:40:14 UTC
You have all my votes.

The Tears Must Flow
Mara Pahrdi
The Order of Anoyia
#208 - 2015-01-17 19:57:43 UTC
Didn't read. Much too long for my liking. You obviously spent too much time with James 315Twisted

But I like the way your posting developed in NCQA over the last two years or so. Resaon enough to give you some of my votes.

o7

Remove standings and insurance.
Dave Korhal
Kite Co. Space Trucking
#209 - 2015-01-17 23:55:07 UTC
Should players be able to flag themselves as AFK in Local?

Matt: "Mining is the devil's work. If any of you mine, I will AWOX you."

Vikkiman: "What about Dave?"

Matt: "Dave gets a pass; he's batshit insane."
Mineur Maulerant
Doomheim
#210 - 2015-01-19 16:18:25 UTC
A vote for Sabriz is a vote for a better Highsec. You have mine.

Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#211 - 2015-01-20 00:04:22 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The other factor is that most rookies' first experience with low is usually to walk into a gate camp, because the most obvious entrances into low are much more dangerous than other entrances. This makes people think low is orders of magnitude more dangerous than high when in fact it is not. (Exception of Tama, Egghelende and a couple others)

I absolutely agree, except that I also think there are a fair few in this game who have a somewhat similar negative experience in highsec and believe it to be much more dangerous than it is. So I think the problem is that rookies see lowsec as orders of magnitude more dangerous than they see highsec, while in both cases either one is orders of magnitude safer when you understand the basic dynamics and how to defend yourself. With the danger level in both perceived by rookies, it seems completely reasonable to stay in highsec. Going to lowsec appears to be suicide. But if you were to see the danger in both as so much lower than a rookie sees it, while the proportions are similar, it makes lowsec available to take a look at. Highsec being safER at that point won't stop people from going into lowsec because lowsec is safe enough.

So what I'm trying to say is that lowsec really is orders of magnitude more dangerous than highsec but not that going into lowsec is suicide, rather that being in highsec is amazingly safe when you play your cards right while in lowsec there is still a lurking danger in the unknown factors. I know highsec IS extremely safe because I've played around with many of its so-called dangers and even Marmite (the only one to ever put up a fight) is still a ghost when you simply avoid the tiny slice of highsec in which they operate. But it doesn't matter how many times more dangerous lowsec is, all that matters is that lowsec is safe enough to be worth going into. That's all that rookies need to see.

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
#212 - 2015-01-20 00:40:26 UTC
Dave Korhal wrote:
Should players be able to flag themselves as AFK in Local?


I don't see that mattering much, as people will just false-flag themselves so often that noone will believe the flag anyway.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#213 - 2015-01-20 00:47:49 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The other factor is that most rookies' first experience with low is usually to walk into a gate camp, because the most obvious entrances into low are much more dangerous than other entrances. This makes people think low is orders of magnitude more dangerous than high when in fact it is not. (Exception of Tama, Egghelende and a couple others)

I absolutely agree, except that I also think there are a fair few in this game who have a somewhat similar negative experience in highsec and believe it to be much more dangerous than it is. So I think the problem is that rookies see lowsec as orders of magnitude more dangerous than they see highsec, while in both cases either one is orders of magnitude safer when you understand the basic dynamics and how to defend yourself. With the danger level in both perceived by rookies, it seems completely reasonable to stay in highsec. Going to lowsec appears to be suicide. But if you were to see the danger in both as so much lower than a rookie sees it, while the proportions are similar, it makes lowsec available to take a look at. Highsec being safER at that point won't stop people from going into lowsec because lowsec is safe enough.

So what I'm trying to say is that lowsec really is orders of magnitude more dangerous than highsec but not that going into lowsec is suicide, rather that being in highsec is amazingly safe when you play your cards right while in lowsec there is still a lurking danger in the unknown factors. I know highsec IS extremely safe because I've played around with many of its so-called dangers and even Marmite (the only one to ever put up a fight) is still a ghost when you simply avoid the tiny slice of highsec in which they operate. But it doesn't matter how many times more dangerous lowsec is, all that matters is that lowsec is safe enough to be worth going into. That's all that rookies need to see.


The thing is, highsec isn't one unified block of space, and neither is lowsec.

Tama and Fasse are both lowsec systems. One is the only lowsec system I'm nervous to fly through in an interceptor if I'm in my learning clone. The other is so empty that I've hauled a billion through it with 5 minute old scout intel.

Uedama and Vylade are both highsec systems, and both are on trade routes. One is a quite safe system, the other, very dangerous.

I would *always* take considerably more precautions moving valuables through Uedama than through Fasse.


The real danger in lowsec is entering it. If you know how to enter lowsec safely (i.e. avoid the most obvious gates) it's often safer than the dangerous parts of high.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#214 - 2015-01-20 01:14:59 UTC
Lucky me, I happen to be familiar with all of the systems you mentioned! :D


You're ignoring the bigger point which is that Fasse is a useless system. Nobody in there cause there's nothing to do. Even exploration turns up nothing. No stations to make mining useful. It's too close to better systems and it's a dead end. You couldn't use it as an alternate route for hauling even if you wanted to.

But Uedama isn't dangerous. It can be tricky for people hauling large-value cargo in industrial ships but you merely need to understand the way gank gambling works. You can very much fly a suitable amount of value between Amarr/Jita and Dodixie/Rens and not get so much as a dirty glance from gankers.

Now I'd love to keep up this debate but we can move it someplace else if you like. More on topic, I definitely support more transparency in the system to make it easier for new players to see the real risk, helping to dispel the paralyzing rumors and instincts that keep them out of a fulfilling time playing EVE.

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."
Dave Korhal
Kite Co. Space Trucking
#215 - 2015-01-20 02:44:06 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Dave Korhal wrote:
Should players be able to flag themselves as AFK in Local?


I don't see that mattering much, as people will just false-flag themselves so often that noone will believe the flag anyway.


Perhaps! Probably, actually, which would be hilarious itself. But I was thinking of its benefit to allies, namely to get a quick headcount of who's awake in Corp, Alliance, or Standing Fleet. I know plenty of players that like to stay logged into the game for various reasons, but finding out whether someone's awake, or how many people in standing fleet are actually active, is often annoying, especially when you're trying to get ahold of someone Very Busy and can't tell whether they have to finish up a few things before getting back to you or are actually AFK/sleeping.

The opportunities for false-flag abuse are just icing on the cake.

Matt: "Mining is the devil's work. If any of you mine, I will AWOX you."

Vikkiman: "What about Dave?"

Matt: "Dave gets a pass; he's batshit insane."
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#216 - 2015-01-20 02:48:57 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Lucky me, I happen to be familiar with all of the systems you mentioned! :D


You're ignoring the bigger point which is that Fasse is a useless system. Nobody in there cause there's nothing to do. Even exploration turns up nothing. No stations to make mining useful. It's too close to better systems and it's a dead end. You couldn't use it as an alternate route for hauling even if you wanted to.

But Uedama isn't dangerous. It can be tricky for people hauling large-value cargo in industrial ships but you merely need to understand the way gank gambling works. You can very much fly a suitable amount of value between Amarr/Jita and Dodixie/Rens and not get so much as a dirty glance from gankers.

Now I'd love to keep up this debate but we can move it someplace else if you like. More on topic, I definitely support more transparency in the system to make it easier for new players to see the real risk, helping to dispel the paralyzing rumors and instincts that keep them out of a fulfilling time playing EVE.



What I'm pointing out, however, still holds.

Fasse is indeed a very low value system, with its only strategic value being as a way to get Orcas or freighters full of ice and ore out of the highsec island next door, or (less importantly) as a place to hunt for Mordrus spawns. But a large number of rookies would consider it 'very dangerous' because it's lowsec - you even get a warning before jumping in asking 'ARE YOU CERTAIN? THIS SYSTEM IS VERY DANGEROUS...'

It's very much less dangerous than Uedama, even though the highsec combat rules offer a player seeking to avoid starship combat more of an advantage in Uedama than they would have in Fasse.

Of course a dilligent player isn't at much risk in Uedama either.

The key thing is that there exist tools to provide warning as to the fact that Fasse is the less dangerous of the two systems, but these are not really taught to new players in the game client. You need to ask around and be told to check your starmap for player ship kills, podkills, and (less importantly but it can still be useful) NPC ship kills.

Managing expectations of safety in highsec is, as much as anything else, about teaching people to use those tools.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#217 - 2015-01-20 02:50:39 UTC
Dave Korhal wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Dave Korhal wrote:
Should players be able to flag themselves as AFK in Local?


I don't see that mattering much, as people will just false-flag themselves so often that noone will believe the flag anyway.


Perhaps! Probably, actually, which would be hilarious itself. But I was thinking of its benefit to allies, namely to get a quick headcount of who's awake in Corp, Alliance, or Standing Fleet. I know plenty of players that like to stay logged into the game for various reasons, but finding out whether someone's awake, or how many people in standing fleet are actually active, is often annoying, especially when you're trying to get ahold of someone Very Busy and can't tell whether they have to finish up a few things before getting back to you or are actually AFK/sleeping.

The opportunities for false-flag abuse are just icing on the cake.


That benefit you mention is legitimate and something I hadn't considered as I tend to handle that AFK checking in different ways. I would be in favor of an AFK flag in corp or alliance. For local, I see little merit either way.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#218 - 2015-01-20 03:44:03 UTC
I'd still consider Fasse more dangerous than Uedama because my tanked cruiser is less likely to be shot in Uedama where it is so far outside of any potential profit margin, but Uedama is definitely more dangerous to take anything of value. I just find it easy to get by without taking valuable cargo through places like Uedama, at least now that I know how to avoid those places and where they are (mostly).



As for the AFK in local, I think it would only be useful for alliance intel if it were a default setting that happened automatically. Either way, it would still be used for PVP and would unfairly confuse newer players. If they aren't to know who is a threat, then they should not be presented with a functionality that pretends to tell them who is a threat. That's just UI lying, and its sort has been one of the major barriers to entry to the game.

Here's an idea: make two default settings:
1.) by default, when you haven't performed any actions for 5 minutes, you get flagged AFK
2.) by default, you cannot see who is AFK on the overview.
- and the option to change them is buried deep in there somewhere where people won't find it on their own most of the time
This way you have to elect to be given the intel, which acts as a stopgap to prevent confused rookies while disguising itself as one of those brutal facets of EVE that gives veteran players an advantage.

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."
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#219 - 2015-01-20 04:06:35 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I'd still consider Fasse more dangerous than Uedama because my tanked cruiser is less likely to be shot in Uedama where it is so far outside of any potential profit margin, but Uedama is definitely more dangerous to take anything of value. I just find it easy to get by without taking valuable cargo through places like Uedama, at least now that I know how to avoid those places and where they are (mostly).



As for the AFK in local, I think it would only be useful for alliance intel if it were a default setting that happened automatically. Either way, it would still be used for PVP and would unfairly confuse newer players. If they aren't to know who is a threat, then they should not be presented with a functionality that pretends to tell them who is a threat. That's just UI lying, and its sort has been one of the major barriers to entry to the game.

Here's an idea: make two default settings:
1.) by default, when you haven't performed any actions for 5 minutes, you get flagged AFK
2.) by default, you cannot see who is AFK on the overview.
- and the option to change them is buried deep in there somewhere where people won't find it on their own most of the time
This way you have to elect to be given the intel, which acts as a stopgap to prevent confused rookies while disguising itself as one of those brutal facets of EVE that gives veteran players an advantage.


Did you just say nerf newbies and buff afk cloakies?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#220 - 2015-01-20 04:21:42 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Did you just say nerf newbies and buff afk cloakies?

I don't feel that a buff to veterans is necessarily a nerf to newbies. This game runs on Malcanis' Law, why start trying to evade it today? All we need do is lessen the impact for the poor newbs, and give them more time to revel in how powerful they will someday become if they stick with it.

but furthermore I don't see how my suggestion is a buff to AFK cloakies.

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."