These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tora Bushido for CSM X - A New High-Sec (No Nerfed Disneyland)

First post First post
Author
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#261 - 2015-01-21 08:00:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Vote for Tora, because he really enjoys Eve content and doesn't care about 25 billion isk a month, when it comes to making the right decision.

Gevlon, no worries mate. I understand your frustration. It's not easy to deal with people who can't be bought. Blink


EDIT : In case you have no idea what this is about :

http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/2t28qr/marmite_fires_gevlon_goblin/

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Sequester Risalo
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#262 - 2015-01-21 11:03:45 UTC
Marmite Collective - The only mercenaries that can't be bought.

Nice catchphrase you got there.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#263 - 2015-01-21 18:57:17 UTC
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Tora?

F
Captian Kenshin555
F0RCED ENTRY
Pandemic Legion
#264 - 2015-01-22 00:23:52 UTC
Id like to officaly support Tora for CSM

for mercs n pirates everywhere a vote for Tora is a vote for Content
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#265 - 2015-01-22 07:58:32 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"
If you vote for me, you vote for content and conflict......... yes !

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#266 - 2015-01-22 13:53:21 UTC
Added my Twitter account to the OP : @blowfish70.

Want a fast answer to a question, send a twit. I read it 24/7. Lol

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#267 - 2015-01-23 10:13:51 UTC
I wonder how many players have no idea what the CSM stands for and who never voted before. Any good suggestions how to get in touch with them and make them care ? Would be nice if we could use the in game billboards for this.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#268 - 2015-01-24 04:24:35 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
I wonder how many players have no idea what the CSM stands for and who never voted before. Any good suggestions how to get in touch with them and make them care ? Would be nice if we could use the in game billboards for this.


So much this and so much more.

But you cannot force education. I know, I've tried.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#269 - 2015-01-24 11:19:17 UTC
Resistance is futile ! You shall vote Bushido Big smile

It's not that you need to force people, as I agree that wont work, but some just didn't really give it much attention. If there is a way to let them know why it's important, they might give it a couple of minutes more.... I hope Blink

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Taris Murkon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#270 - 2015-01-25 05:29:48 UTC
If you would stop shitting up other candidates threads it would be a lot easier to vote for for you. I agree with most of your ideas; but dude seriously stand on your own merits and quit trying to knock the the other guys down. You are coming off as a bloody politician.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#271 - 2015-01-25 11:27:46 UTC
Taris Murkon wrote:
If you would stop shitting up other candidates threads it would be a lot easier to vote for for you. I agree with most of your ideas; but dude seriously stand on your own merits and quit trying to knock the the other guys down. You are coming off as a bloody politician.
You can call it anyway you like it, but when a I see a post I do not agree with, I will speak up. Would you rather have a CSM member who only agrees with everyone ?

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#272 - 2015-01-25 13:41:45 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.


5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

ashurman
Doomheim
#273 - 2015-01-25 14:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: ashurman
Ok less a question and more random thoughts on war decs.

Is it not better to give the defenders a reason to fight back?
Maybe give them a reason to come out of there stations or log on and fight back.
As at the moment there is nothing to actualy make people WANT to fight back vs war decer's/Greifers.
Maybe if the defenders win the war they cant get dec'd for a week by anyone else or maybe concord pay the corp all the isk killed. Obv if they have been dec'd by two corps and they win 1 loss 1 they should still get the shield for there win.

It saves Big merc allainces/Corps having to have 100's of wars active to get a rookie ship kill on the undock off jita and it actualy makes content rather than something people try to avoid.

And maybe a isk reward for the attackers if they win *funds you spent on the war get returned or something similer*
Which can also lead to the cost of wars being increased so Greifers/War dec alliances actualy have to pick targets rather than the *dec all button* which we see at the moment. Bountys could be payed at a larger % while at war to the attackers as well.

Draw's should literaly be no one gets anything and the defenders dont get there *shield*

Bit of a wall of text but what are your thoughts on this as it is in no way a nerf and does not require any new mods to be made for content to actualy happen.

Ok question time:
1 "I would suggest, double the war dec costs for the first group (up to 50 players). and let the rest as it is."
By "let the rest as it is" i assume you mean leave it at basic cost but should it not be the other way round? make the first war cheaper and all wars after it more? Would this not mean getting the most out of your isk as you are actualy having to hunt that set allaince/corp rather than sitting on undocks all day as the more groups you dec the more you have to pay so the less isk back in kills you get?

2 Im a bit behind on all the cool kid school yard lingo but what does HTFU mean and why is it so important to you.

3 Cookies or ice cream. And what type.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#274 - 2015-01-25 17:13:59 UTC
ashurman wrote:
Is it not better to give the defenders a reason to fight back? Maybe give them a reason to come out of there stations or log on and fight back. As at the moment there is nothing to actualy make people WANT to fight back vs war decer's/Greifers. Maybe if the defenders win the war they cant get dec'd for a week by anyone else or maybe concord pay the corp all the isk killed. Obv if they have been dec'd by two corps and they win 1 loss 1 they should still get the shield for there win. It saves Big merc allainces/Corps having to have 100's of wars active to get a rookie ship kill on the undock off jita and it actualy makes content rather than something people try to avoid.
The reason to fight back is to keep the corp / alliance alive. That alone should be a good reason. If people cant fight themselves, they could hire mercenaries or call in help from friends. What Marmites does isnt any difference then what NPSI fleets do. The biggest difference is, we have to pay a lot of isks for it.

ashurman wrote:
And maybe a isk reward for the attackers if they win *funds you spent on the war get returned or something similer* Which can also lead to the cost of wars being increased so Greifers/War dec alliances actualy have to pick targets rather than the *dec all button* which we see at the moment. Bountys could be payed at a larger % while at war to the attackers as well. Draw's should literaly be no one gets anything and the defenders dont get there *shield*
No isks rewards needed. If it is a paid war dec, they get isks from the client. If it is a fun war, rewards will only make the attacking side richer and we would have even more wars. I can only speak for myself, but sometimes it takes hours to pick targets. Looking at past results, have we decced them recently, do we really need to dec them a 3rd+ time, are they big enough (we prefer 25+ member corps/alliances), etc etc. And yes we do have a lot of wars, then again we also pay for it. If you want a lof of shiny ships, you also pay for it. My point, if people are willing to pay the price, why shouldnt they be able to do it. If for example Code wants to gank with battleships and pay for them, I say let them. Who are we to decide what is good or bad when it comes to people spending their isks ?

ashurman wrote:
Ok question time:
1 "I would suggest, double the war dec costs for the first group (up to 50 players). and let the rest as it is."
By "let the rest as it is" i assume you mean leave it at basic cost but should it not be the other way round? make the first war cheaper and all wars after it more? Would this not mean getting the most out of your isk as you are actualy having to hunt that set allaince/corp rather than sitting on undocks all day as the more groups you dec the more you have to pay so the less isk back in kills you get?
2 Im a bit behind on all the cool kid school yard lingo but what does HTFU mean and why is it so important to you.
3 Cookies or ice cream. And what type.
1. No, by making the first war more expensive, you avoid getting to many smaller corps decced. The bigger corps/alliances should be able to handle a war. The smaller are still in the proces of setting up things (resources, recruitment, etc).
2. HTFU = Harden The **** Up. We have seen so many nerfes in highsec the last two years and no buffs to evilness, it's time we stop this process and even reverse things. If people complain about how hard it is in high-sec now, you should have been here 2 years ago.
3. Ice Cream, Lemon / Red Berries

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

ashurman
Doomheim
#275 - 2015-01-25 17:35:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ashurman
"The reason to fight back is to keep the corp / alliance alive. That alone should be a good reason. If people cant fight themselves, they could hire mercenaries or call in help from friends. What Marmites does isnt any difference then what NPSI fleets do. The biggest difference is, we have to pay a lot of isks for it. " *i suck at this quote milarky and hate fourms ;)*

Well not really. War dec's dont kill off corps/alliances. they just dont bother logging in or undocking or they just on play on a alt. when dec ends they can just go back to normal.
Surely giving the defenders a reason to fight back which is more than E-honour would give the attackers more content? More than camping undocks and trade routes anyway and just killing off the daft or ignorant.

And as far as im aware NPSI does not need to wait 24hrs to start shooting people nor does it need to pay anything to do so.

And happily i was there 2 years ago and as far as i can tell its not that much differant than it was back then execpt wars are cheaper now. And you have the option for suspect baiting everyone rather than single corps which is a big + in my mind. Though dec shield being removed was slightly anoying as the tears were great.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#276 - 2015-01-25 18:09:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
ashurman wrote:
Well not really. War dec's dont kill off corps/alliances. they just dont bother logging in or undocking or they just on play on a alt. when dec ends they can just go back to normal. Surely giving the defenders a reason to fight back which is more than E-honour would give the attackers more content? More than camping undocks and trade routes anyway and just killing off the daft or ignorant.
That happens too and in most cases mercs avoid these corps. It is one of the things I look at before we decide to war dec them. But most alliances/corps we war dec do have things to lose.

ashurman wrote:
And as far as im aware NPSI does not need to wait 24hrs to start shooting people nor does it need to pay anything to do so.
Yeh, we might want to nerf that a bit then. It's so unfair to the players they blob. Blink

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#277 - 2015-01-25 18:55:43 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
The reason to fight back is to keep the corp / alliance alive. That alone should be a good reason. If people cant fight themselves, they could hire mercenaries or call in help from friends. What Marmites does isnt any difference then what NPSI fleets do. The biggest difference is, we have to pay a lot of isks for it.
Mercenary corps are generally more able to win a war than the targets they pick, both because they train specifically for tht type of combat, and because they pick targets they have a high chance to win against. The reason people don't fight is because there's nothing to gain from fighting a battle you are going to lose. That won;t change. If mechanics force people to fight, then they will find other ways to avoid it. They aren't going to submit to being fodder.

Tora Bushido wrote:
I can only speak for myself, but sometimes it takes hours to pick targets. Looking at past results, have we decced them recently, do we really need to dec them a 3rd+ time, are they big enough (we prefer 25+ member corps/alliances), etc etc.
And yeah the big question "Are we at least 95% certain to win this war?"

Tora Bushido wrote:
And yes we do have a lot of wars, then again we also pay for it. If you want a lof of shiny ships, you also pay for it. My point, if people are willing to pay the price, why shouldnt they be able to do it. If for example Code wants to gank with battleships and pay for them, I say let them. Who are we to decide what is good or bad when it comes to people spending their isks ?
It really depends on if your gameplay mechanics are too easily at the expense of others. As it is wardecs are relatively easy and cheap to run. You have hundreds of wardecs, yet the fees you pay are low enough that a solo player could pay for them. That's ludicrously cheap. Sure, you should be able to do what you want, but it should be balanced.

Tora Bushido wrote:
1. No, by making the first war more expensive, you avoid getting to many smaller corps decced. The bigger corps/alliances should be able to handle a war. The smaller are still in the proces of setting up things (resources, recruitment, etc).
No, by making the start war cost more expensive you make it more difficult for a small corp to dec another small corp. Larger corps would still be able to dec whoever they want. As you stated above, many of your wardecs are paid for by the client, so if the cost to you went up, the cost to them would too. If they weren't paid for by a client, I'm sure the income you have would cover the additional cost.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#278 - 2015-01-25 19:35:37 UTC
Yes, we would like to win all wars we declare. Are you saying that any other corps/alliance in Eve picks battles so they could lose them ? If that's true, they are doing it wrong.

Picking new targets brings the risk of not winning a war, which is way more fun. We sometimes go after targets we know are going to Hurt U (hint hint).

Increasing the base price will hurt bigger mercenaries like Marmites, as 150 x 50M extra is a lot of isks we have to work for first. We are not an isks-printer. 80% of our wars are not contracts, so we can not just increase a contract price.

Only thing I do agree with you, is that doubling the base price from 50M to 100M could be bad for smaller (merc) corps. Maybe we could only increase it for corps/alliance who have more then an X amount of players ? This way the bigger alliances like Marmites pay more and the smaller (merc) corps (who probably do less damage to a target) pay less.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#279 - 2015-01-25 22:08:29 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Yes, we would like to win all wars we declare. Are you saying that any other corps/alliance in Eve picks battles so they could lose them ? If that's true, they are doing it wrong.
Try reading. No, that's not what I'm saying. Of course you will aim to win, but when your targets realise they can't win and decided to take the action to reduce the impact of their loss, the cried go up about how hey should be "encouraged" to actively defend themselves, and by "encouraged", of course we really mean "forced".

Tora Bushido wrote:
Picking new targets brings the risk of not winning a war, which is way more fun. We sometimes go after targets we know are going to Hurt U (hint hint).
You just stated above "we would like to win all wars we declare", so which is it? Either you declare wars with the intention of winning or you find it more fun to lose wars and therefore are choosing the wrong targets.

Let's be honest for a moment, since CSM candidates should be honest above all else. You want to beat the enemy so you pick targets you have the highest chances of success against. Suggesting that you like the risk of not winning is just trying to make yourselves look more honourable than you really are. It's fine to attack easy targets, hell it's expected, but let's frop the pretence.

Tora Bushido wrote:
Increasing the base price will hurt bigger mercenaries like Marmites, as 150 x 50M extra is a lot of isks we have to work for first. We are not an isks-printer. 80% of our wars are not contracts, so we can not just increase a contract price.
It's 7.5b, which can be near-passively made through T1 production on a single account, or made through trading on a single character. On top of that you make isk through loot and through contracts, and I also understand that many of your wars are paid for by your members too. I don't believe you'd honestly struggle to meet the extra cash, which is why you're comfortable making the suggestion.

Tora Bushido wrote:
Only thing I do agree with you, is that doubling the base price from 50M to 100M could be bad for smaller (merc) corps. Maybe we could only increase it for corps/alliance who have more then an X amount of players ? This way the bigger alliances like Marmites pay more and the smaller (merc) corps (who probably do less damage to a target) pay less.
Personally I believe war costs should ramp up considerably more as you start more wars, so that after making 10 - 20 wars are so they start to become insanely expensive and 30+ would make most groups bust.

The reason for that is that groups like your own that simply farm wars don't really add engaging content for smaller groups. You'd likely stick with having a bunch of nullsec wars, your contract wars and a few ad-hoc wars. Smaller groups would be unaffected as they would be unlikely to have vast quantities of aggressive wars, and overall, mercenary groups would be encouraged to either work on a smaller set of corps or break down into specialised corps. With that change I'd be happy for people to be pushed out of NPC corps quite heavily. If people were just forced out as is, groups like yours would just wardec them and we'd just see players dropping out as they are forced to not play or submit to being killed endlessly.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#280 - 2015-01-25 23:41:10 UTC
Lucas, if you are telling me I am a liar, then this is the end of our discussion. There is nothing in my replies to you which isn't true. And please stop the industrial, trading comments. I AINT A CAREBEAR ! (caps for drama effects Blink)

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.