These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Diemos Hiaraki
Septentrion
#281 - 2015-01-27 06:25:15 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Time to catch up on replies. Starting with the most interesting one, IMHO, then the hostile ones.

Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
.snip.
So, because I see high sec as the cancer slowly killing off Eve subscribers and I want the vast majority of high sec to be abolished I obviously won't be voting for you as your manifesto stands. However I would really appreciate it if you could answer a question - do you think that the likes of yourself, Marmite and CODE would adapt and find enjoyable content in Eve if high sec was downgraded to low or null sec? I know this may seem like a strange question, but I honestly think that high sec's days are numbered.



I want to address the 'highsec should be nothing more than a kiddie pool' argument.

Each category of space has game mechanics that define an identity for that space and in doing so promote a type of gameplay.

Lowsec, for instance, features game rules preventing bubbles and sharply hurting interceptor gatecamps. As a consequence, it's 'identity' is that it's the freefire space where escape is easiest, where supercapitals are at their most powerful*, and

Rookie systems have their identity set by the rules against non-consensual PVP and the total lack of attractive resources (level 4 mission agents, high end exploration sites, good asteroids, etc). This is what make them the 'kiddie pool'.

Highsec's identity is set by CONCORD. CONCORD create an environment where more 'neutral' players can coexist in a system than is possible in any other area of space. Outside high, it's not possible to have dozens of neutrals in a system except in unusual circumstances. This leads to an environment where a lot of people are willing to undock and act in a system at one time in a way that's just not going to happen outside of cynojammed systems deep in sovereign null.

It's also space that allows players to operate when they do not have the capacity to escalate fights. Outside highsec, the correct action to take when you spot an opposing force you cannot defeat is to go into lockdown. In highsec, you have the very real option of using the advantages CONCORD provide the defender in engagements to try to deter a superior force from attacking. This makes it conducive to solo play in a way that other areas of space are not.

Finally, you can't trust CONCORD with your safety, only with retribution. Retribution for illegal aggression is certain; your survival is up to your choices.

I do not feel that the removal of (non-rookie system) highsec will ever occur, nor would I advocate it. Much as non-sov null provides a competitive environment that is different to sovereign nullsec, highsec provides a competitive environment that is different to both.

* - Supercapitals are, of course, seldom worth fielding in lowsec because outside FW which isn't really all that conducive to capitals, lowsec offers nothing worth fighting for; that's another issue.


Many thanks for the answer. For me high sec's identity is a total clusterfeck and not something wholly defined by NPCs. I didn't (and don't) expect you to change you mind about high sec; I was just trying to express some of my own frustrations about it's mechanics, how I see it harming Eve's subscriber base, and find out if you could adapt to another play style.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#282 - 2015-01-27 08:00:54 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
I want to highlight that being a corp thief does not show up on your API or your killboard. Oh sure you might see that they withdrew X isk from the corp wallet, but what does that mean? Nothing. It could mean a hundred different things. Corp on Corp aggression awoxing is very easy to spot on killboards if you just look for it. Catching awoxers is about to get a LOT harder.
Defending against thieves is already something that can be done using roles. Most thieves have to put in effort to get themselves into roles which allow them to steal, and as long a they have to put in effort, not just *join with noob, point and shoot orca - demand ransom* (which by the way, also doesn't show up on killboards) it's fine. Keeping the current status quo where newbies aren't recruited as freely just to help the laziest of awoxers is a bad idea.

And hey, genius, they aren't changing how corp thieves work, so it's not going to be "a lot harder" to catch them, it's going to be just as difficult as it ever was.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#283 - 2015-01-27 08:20:45 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
New player experience does indeed need work. Some detailed fitting tutorials (like 'here's a fit for PVE, and why it works. Here's a fit for PVP, and why it works. Here's the price you pay for trying to mix the two, whether you do it or not is up to you').
I'm sure those tutorials would be very good if you already know the mechanics. I'm not sure you could realistically turn those into something that new players would be able to read and take away any useful information from. The fact is fitting a ships is pretty complex when you're not fitting a gank catalyst.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
With respect to the Skiff. I think it serves its purpose well as the 'tanky mining ship that can fight back'. What it does too well is the actual mining. Its yield is close enough to that of the Mack and Hulk that taking the risk of fielding a non-Skiff exhumer is not rewarded.

Not sure on the exact numbers, but I would support a change that went along the lines of -10% Skiff yield, +5% Mack yield, +8% Hulk yield. I feel that using non-mining scouts and a Hulk fleet should be viable, whereas at present it's (usually) more sensible to have your whole fleet in Skiffs with one Orca.
A skiff already has lower yield. Picking a hulk would give you considerably more yield (something like 30% more), picking a mackinaw gives you a much bigger ore bay. The reason people use skiffs is that they are the only exhumer that keeps you relatively safe from ganking. So you fight for a group who complains about miners using the wrong tools for the job and blowing them up to show them the error of their ways, then you complain when people use the right tools for the job and demand they get nerfed?

And FYI, using a hulk fleet with scouts is viable and used all the time in low and null, but you see considerably less of them in highsec as gankers can use alts too so it's difficult to scout out and incoming gank fleet. The few places in highsec they are used are places gankers wouldn't generally look. As stupid as it sounds, highsec is simply too dangerous to consider using high yield-paper tank in the majority of cases, regardless of the yield bonus. With the amount of precautions a corp would need to put in place to guarantee their safety long enough to earn the value of the fleet, they could work in null and earn considerably more.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#284 - 2015-01-28 03:24:52 UTC
I'm well aware that Skiffs have a yield slightly less than that of Mackinaws and Hulks, but the gap was closed considerably with a recent patch.

A Hulk fleet in a deadend system with scouts on the entrance gate (and, if desired, any wormholes) would provide ample warning of incoming gankers in high just as it provides warning of hostiles in null. The only real way gankers will get you then is a logon trap, which is more effort than it's worth, or a lapse in your scout's concentration. It still doesn't make sense to do so in general because Hulk yield isn't high enough to be able to pay the scout.


On the idea of fitting tutorials for new players - advanced fitting is indeed complex and there's a million and one exceptions to every rule. However, basic fitting strategies (don't mix tanks, don't mix active and buffer tanks, don't mix guns, carry a way to apply damage to small ships, fit weapons systems that your hull is bonused for and fit modules to enhance them, favor sustainable local repair in PVE, burst local repair in solo PVP, buffer in medium gang or fleet PVP) - all of these can be taught as rules that the intermediate player follows verbatim (and the veteran can break from time to time).

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#285 - 2015-01-28 08:42:16 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I'm well aware that Skiffs have a yield slightly less than that of Mackinaws and Hulks, but the gap was closed considerably with a recent patch.

A Hulk fleet in a deadend system with scouts on the entrance gate (and, if desired, any wormholes) would provide ample warning of incoming gankers in high just as it provides warning of hostiles in null. The only real way gankers will get you then is a logon trap, which is more effort than it's worth, or a lapse in your scout's concentration. It still doesn't make sense to do so in general because Hulk yield isn't high enough to be able to pay the scout.
Supposedly it wasn't losed that much as according the the game right now a max yield hulk is 30% more yield than a skiff. A skiff and a mackinaw are level pegging as neither of them has yield as a primary design feature..

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
On the idea of fitting tutorials for new players - advanced fitting is indeed complex and there's a million and one exceptions to every rule. However, basic fitting strategies (don't mix tanks, don't mix active and buffer tanks, don't mix guns, carry a way to apply damage to small ships, fit weapons systems that your hull is bonused for and fit modules to enhance them, favor sustainable local repair in PVE, burst local repair in solo PVP, buffer in medium gang or fleet PVP) - all of these can be taught as rules that the intermediate player follows verbatim (and the veteran can break from time to time).
I just don;t think people will get it. You understand it because you'e played the game for eternity. If you told a newbie not to mix tanks though he'd have no idea what you are talking about.

I learned by doing. I lost many a terrible fit battleship to NPCs and I lost a few ships venturing into lowsec, a couple of mining iterons (lol) to can bait, etc. Knowledge gradually and naturally increased. While ganking existed, I never saw it happen near me an never encountered it. I think if everything was shoved in my face in day one, then I was thrown into an environment where nothing I flew was safe and people were just getting blown up and trolled in local, I'd probably have not bothered sticking around. I'm all for teaching newbies to look after themselves, but I think you have to accept that they aren't going to just get it because you've told them, and they need to be given a good bit of breathing room to adjust to EVE as it's different from many other games. Once they are in and adapted, go nuts.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

CODE Agent AC
The Conference Elite
CODE.
#286 - 2015-01-28 08:53:29 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I'm well aware that Skiffs have a yield slightly less than that of Mackinaws and Hulks, but the gap was closed considerably with a recent patch.

A Hulk fleet in a deadend system with scouts on the entrance gate (and, if desired, any wormholes) would provide ample warning of incoming gankers in high just as it provides warning of hostiles in null. The only real way gankers will get you then is a logon trap, which is more effort than it's worth, or a lapse in your scout's concentration. It still doesn't make sense to do so in general because Hulk yield isn't high enough to be able to pay the scout.
Supposedly it wasn't losed that much as according the the game right now a max yield hulk is 30% more yield than a skiff. A skiff and a mackinaw are level pegging as neither of them has yield as a primary design feature..

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
On the idea of fitting tutorials for new players - advanced fitting is indeed complex and there's a million and one exceptions to every rule. However, basic fitting strategies (don't mix tanks, don't mix active and buffer tanks, don't mix guns, carry a way to apply damage to small ships, fit weapons systems that your hull is bonused for and fit modules to enhance them, favor sustainable local repair in PVE, burst local repair in solo PVP, buffer in medium gang or fleet PVP) - all of these can be taught as rules that the intermediate player follows verbatim (and the veteran can break from time to time).
I just don;t think people will get it. You understand it because you'e played the game for eternity. If you told a newbie not to mix tanks though he'd have no idea what you are talking about.

I learned by doing. I lost many a terrible fit battleship to NPCs and I lost a few ships venturing into lowsec, a couple of mining iterons (lol) to can bait, etc. Knowledge gradually and naturally increased. While ganking existed, I never saw it happen near me an never encountered it. I think if everything was shoved in my face in day one, then I was thrown into an environment where nothing I flew was safe and people were just getting blown up and trolled in local, I'd probably have not bothered sticking around. I'm all for teaching newbies to look after themselves, but I think you have to accept that they aren't going to just get it because you've told them, and they need to be given a good bit of breathing room to adjust to EVE as it's different from many other games. Once they are in and adapted, go nuts.

Before anyone asks...
Look at the multiple civilian shield booster kills.
NOTE: This is in referrence to the number of the mods as well as the KMs. And yes, all parties involved assisted the player on to improve their EVE experience by talking to them on a one on one basis and explain why said fit was bad. They had never learned it from the intro, and now they know better.

The Artist Formerly Known As AC. 

The terminal end of the digestive system. 

The Best CSM Candidate

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#287 - 2015-01-28 13:51:14 UTC
Serious question:
You often make the claim that highsec is not supposed to be the early game, when compared to low, null and wormhole space and isn't something you grow out of, it's a section of space in it's own right. At the same time however you state that high level PVE should be nerfed in highsec and put into lowsec more - like moving L4 missions into lowsec for example.

So why is it you think that for PVE, highsec should just be a starter area, while for PvP it should be the full game? Surely if highsec is a whole game area, it should cater to all levels of play for both PvE and PvP, thus things such as level 5 missions should occur fully in highsec too. Or if PvE players are supposed to move on to higher levels of PvE outside of highsec, that PvP players should have to move on too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#288 - 2015-01-28 19:35:17 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

And hey, genius, they aren't changing how corp thieves work, so it's not going to be "a lot harder" to catch them, it's going to be just as difficult as it ever was.


When did I say corp thieving was changing? That's not something I said man. I said catching a corp thief in general is harder, always has been. What I was saying, if you had listened, was that many of the people who currently do "lazy" (as you call it) awoxing will have to adapt and some may chose to become corp thieves. And you're correct, if they chose to ransom and honor said ransom then yes they are much harder to catch. I myself followed that approach (hilariously I did not change my bio while awoxing).

My point was that the corps that were falling for awoxing are typically going to be the same ones who will fall for corp thieves. These are generally corps that have awful recruitment standards (re: my bio) and are not particularly a positive contribution to the game society.

As for the change, I understand CCP's reason for removing it, and I think their intention is noble and their hearts in the right place, I just don't think that the change is actually going to accomplish what they claim it is.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#289 - 2015-01-28 19:44:18 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Serious question:
You often make the claim that highsec is not supposed to be the early game, when compared to low, null and wormhole space and isn't something you grow out of, it's a section of space in it's own right. At the same time however you state that high level PVE should be nerfed in highsec and put into lowsec more - like moving L4 missions into lowsec for example.

So why is it you think that for PVE, highsec should just be a starter area, while for PvP it should be the full game? Surely if highsec is a whole game area, it should cater to all levels of play for both PvE and PvP, thus things such as level 5 missions should occur fully in highsec too. Or if PvE players are supposed to move on to higher levels of PvE outside of highsec, that PvP players should have to move on too.


Risk vs. reward. Simple as that.

Personally though, I'm not really all that worried about high sec lvl 4's myself. I don't disagree with Sabriz on this, I just am not as concerned about it. High sec incursions on the other hand...

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#290 - 2015-01-28 20:56:03 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Serious question:
You often make the claim that highsec is not supposed to be the early game, when compared to low, null and wormhole space and isn't something you grow out of, it's a section of space in it's own right. At the same time however you state that high level PVE should be nerfed in highsec and put into lowsec more - like moving L4 missions into lowsec for example.

So why is it you think that for PVE, highsec should just be a starter area, while for PvP it should be the full game? Surely if highsec is a whole game area, it should cater to all levels of play for both PvE and PvP, thus things such as level 5 missions should occur fully in highsec too. Or if PvE players are supposed to move on to higher levels of PvE outside of highsec, that PvP players should have to move on too.



I am in favor of level 5 missions being added (technically returned) to highsec, but with *very* careful balancing of rewards. They can (if done right) be a source of conflict in highsec.

They should serve as optional fleet content, not as something that is the clear best way to grind ISK.

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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#291 - 2015-01-28 23:16:45 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Serious question:
You often make the claim that highsec is not supposed to be the early game, when compared to low, null and wormhole space and isn't something you grow out of, it's a section of space in it's own right. At the same time however you state that high level PVE should be nerfed in highsec and put into lowsec more - like moving L4 missions into lowsec for example.

So why is it you think that for PVE, highsec should just be a starter area, while for PvP it should be the full game? Surely if highsec is a whole game area, it should cater to all levels of play for both PvE and PvP, thus things such as level 5 missions should occur fully in highsec too. Or if PvE players are supposed to move on to higher levels of PvE outside of highsec, that PvP players should have to move on too.


You're assuming that highsec's current level of individual PvE income generation is balanced in the first place.

It's not.

Highsec breaks risk vs reward on a fundamental basis, with it's PvE "content" being both safer and more lucrative than almost anything else.

One of those things need to be dealt with. Personally I'd like to see both of them adjust downward slightly, rather than simply slashing mission and incursion income drastically to match how safe it is to do those things.

PvP belongs everywhere in EVE Online. PvE does as well, but since there is a distinct mechanical benefit to PvE activity, (whereas PvP depends on the loot fairy in equal measure regardless of what sec status you are in), it must be balanced accordingly.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Stragak
#292 - 2015-01-30 23:54:49 UTC
I have a question for you. You stated that the concord LP you felt was watered down by incursions. But in a replied on page one you stated you would like to see incursions be more LP and little liquid isk. How do you plan on doing both? Do you have any figures you had in mind?

"Oh look, the cat is sitting in the litter box and pooping over the side again" every time we go through these "rough patches". In good humor, and slight annoyance, Boiglio   https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=238130&p=82

Vic Jefferson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#293 - 2015-01-31 00:47:19 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:


I am in favor of level 5 missions being added (technically returned) to highsec, but with *very* careful balancing of rewards. They can (if done right) be a source of conflict in highsec.

They should serve as optional fleet content, not as something that is the clear best way to grind ISK.


Population distribution is a zero sum game - the more people and the more stuff you put in Hi Sec, the more you are going to concentrate the population there and keep other areas barren. When a great many ills of the game could be squarely pinned on the concentration of population in Hi Sec, this seems like a poor choice.

Have the people who want the content come to Low Sec. If content creators want to follow them there, fantastic. More L5 hubs, possibly even neutral L5 agents; sure these are good, but they belong in Low Sec. The rest of the game is already suffering from the content and income present in Hi Sec.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#294 - 2015-01-31 10:52:37 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:


I am in favor of level 5 missions being added (technically returned) to highsec, but with *very* careful balancing of rewards. They can (if done right) be a source of conflict in highsec.

They should serve as optional fleet content, not as something that is the clear best way to grind ISK.


Population distribution is a zero sum game - the more people and the more stuff you put in Hi Sec, the more you are going to concentrate the population there and keep other areas barren. When a great many ills of the game could be squarely pinned on the concentration of population in Hi Sec, this seems like a poor choice.

Have the people who want the content come to Low Sec. If content creators want to follow them there, fantastic. More L5 hubs, possibly even neutral L5 agents; sure these are good, but they belong in Low Sec. The rest of the game is already suffering from the content and income present in Hi Sec.



I want to unpack the caveats that I added to the post about balancing rewards.

Currently, there's a fair number of resource/wealth creating things you can do in highsec. Mining, level 4 missions, level 1-3 missions, incursions, anomolies, non-combat exploration, combat exploration, belt ratting. I'll exclude more immediately competitive activities that redistribute wealth rather than create it (such as trading or suicide ganking) and PI, production or invention (as they are mostly 'set and forget' operations rather than processes you are engaged in while you gain resources).

Of these, several are clear 'wrong' choices from a game theoretical point of view. Belt ratting, anomolies and level 1-2 missions offer so little in rewards that noone would consider doing them for the in-game rewards. Players that actively enjoy one of these activities find the game sharply pushes them out of their preferred activity.

Then there's the second tier - mining, level 3 missions, level 4 missions for corps with bad LP rewards, incursion scout sites, combat exploration and non-combat exploration. These provide resources that (generally) aren't worth bothering to fight over but that people that *actively enjoy* the activity won't feel they are wasting their time for doing them. (Noone actively enjoys mining, but that's a totally different issue)

Then there's the top tier - incursion fleet sites, and level 4 missions for the Sisters. These offer so much in the way of rewards that *even people that do not enjoy doing them* wind up feeling obliged to run them, or feel disadvantaged if they still elect not to.

I would not want to see level 5 missions added if they would fit into that last category. I'd rather see a rewards structure that, once you factor in expected losses, makes efficiently running level 5 missions in highsec on par with the current rewards for running level 4 missions for a non-Sisters corp.


As for lowsec and L5s - I do not see any evidence that L5s are drawing people into lowsec and do not consider them important to low at all. Highsec incursions, 0.1-0.2 belt ratting (for clones and Mordus spawns) and FW all offer better rewards and a lower risk compared to any of the main ways of doing L5s (solo with a carrier, solo swapping between blinged mission-tailored neut-resistant ships, spidertanked battleships, fleet with logi).

If I felt L5s were a unique thing pulling people into low, I would agree with you. They are not the game's premier repeat-almost-on-demand group PVE content (that is C5-6 sites and incursions).

However, I will repeat my caveat in different words - if L5s are added to highsec, and the same broad reward formula is used as is used for current L4s, they will actively make EVE worse, just as highsec incursions make the game worse for (almost) every non-participant in them. Balance is key.

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

ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#295 - 2015-01-31 15:46:49 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.

The Rules:
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)

Jenshae Chiroptera
#296 - 2015-01-31 17:59:40 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Firstly, the only evidence I have as to the state of WH space is annecdotal, from my own visits there, from information from corp thieves that prey on wormholers, and the like. Everyone I've spoken to indicates that C1 to C3 holes are quieter than they used to be without having had any major mechanical changes.
I have a similar experiences. The only worm hole people I know who do not care about frigate link are in C5 and C6 systems.
corbexx does deny this and says CCP number show no major decline. However, further on that - what time frame? New or old corps? etc.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Vic Jefferson
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#297 - 2015-01-31 21:27:29 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

I would not want to see level 5 missions added if they would fit into that last category. I'd rather see a rewards structure that, once you factor in expected losses, makes efficiently running level 5 missions in highsec on par with the current rewards for running level 4 missions for a non-Sisters corp.


People are not all min-maxing automatons. Just making sure the rewards fit in with other Hi Sec activities, which may be too high in the first place, would not prevent lots of people from engaging in it.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

As for lowsec and L5s - I do not see any evidence that L5s are drawing people into lowsec and do not consider them important to low at all. Highsec incursions, 0.1-0.2 belt ratting (for clones and Mordus spawns) and FW all offer better rewards and a lower risk compared to any of the main ways of doing L5s (solo with a carrier, solo swapping between blinged mission-tailored neut-resistant ships, spidertanked battleships, fleet with logi).


I'm not sure about drawing in, at least not presently, but the groups built around the level 5 hubs I know about don't seem to mind the income from them. More L5 hubs in low sec couldn't hurt, and could let more groups move into places. The point I'm trying to raise isn't so much about the state of L5s in Low Sec, it's that putting more of anything in Hi Sec is feeding a problem.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

If I felt L5s were a unique thing pulling people into low, I would agree with you. They are not the game's premier repeat-almost-on-demand group PVE content (that is C5-6 sites and incursions).


But again, people are not min-maxing automatons. Giving people another reason to stay in Hi Sec, even a sub-optimal one, is bad.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

However, I will repeat my caveat in different words - if L5s are added to highsec, and the same broad reward formula is used as is used for current L4s, they will actively make EVE worse, just as highsec incursions make the game worse for (almost) every non-participant in them. Balance is key.


I still think this comes down to you approaching this problem too mathematically - people are not rational actors, the game is full of people doing sub-optimal ISK/hr activities. Now, I think you want more missioners in Hi Sec so you have more and more expensive targets to go after, which, while I can't argue against that being a good thing, just like mission runners shouldn't have everything available to them in Hi Sec, neither should you, the antagonists, have the best selection of prey in Hi Sec.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Mr Epeen
It's All About Me
#298 - 2015-02-02 16:49:07 UTC
Every year someone from CODE decides to declare their candidacy and then ends up dropping out.

So tell us why we should bother reading this thread since it is likely a waste of time? Why should we take you seriously? What can you offer us that this is not the yearly CODE election troll?

Mr Epeen Cool
Sam Spock
The Arnold Connection
#299 - 2015-02-02 17:25:13 UTC
The main concern I have with your being in the CSM would be that CODE seems to have a problem with respecting anything organized outside itself (see last years ATX) so I would wonder if you would respect what the CSM is and what it does. Based on the amount of time and effort in explaining what you believe in and all the responses I am somewhat convinced that you would.

Not saying I would vote for you but at least you seem serious about it.

Giving you Inconsistent grammar, speilling and Punct-uation since 1974!

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#300 - 2015-02-03 05:21:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Mr Epeen wrote:
Every year someone from CODE decides to declare their candidacy and then ends up dropping out.

So tell us why we should bother reading this thread since it is likely a waste of time? Why should we take you seriously? What can you offer us that this is not the yearly CODE election troll?

Mr Epeen Cool



Sam Spock wrote:
The main concern I have with your being in the CSM would be that CODE seems to have a problem with respecting anything organized outside itself (see last years ATX) so I would wonder if you would respect what the CSM is and what it does. Based on the amount of time and effort in explaining what you believe in and all the responses I am somewhat convinced that you would.

Not saying I would vote for you but at least you seem serious about it.




Answering these.

We actually did discuss the question within CODE. "Do we want to take CSM seriously, or field a joke candidate?".

I argued for taking it seriously.

The AT doesn't shape EVE in any way***, so I didn't mind us not taking it seriously (although I wasn't involved in the decision). Some people thought our antics there were hilarious, some thought they were childish. The actual story was that we missed the deadline to get higher skillpoint CODE. supporters (like myself) that were not formally part of the alliance into the alliance, and so the team we had to field was basically unable to compete to win. They couldn't deal with opponents tanking against Kin/Therm damage.

We could lose graciously, or we could bet against ourselves and lose like trolls.

On the CSM, however, it's been a real issue that there isn't anyone on the body that understands the highsec predator gameplay mechanics well, and there also do not seem to be people that understand how risk/reward balance changes in highsec can alter the balance of other regions of space.

For example, the Tiamat anti-AWOXing changes will result in increased safety for (the more careless) highsec miners. This will lead to an increased Mexallon supply gamewide, and hence an increase in supercapital proliferation. A change aimed at highsec that has only tangential direct impact on lowsec will end up having significant indirect impacts on sovereign nullsec.

It's a bad thing for the game that the current CSM is comprised of (mostly) people that either do not understand this, or do not care.

In this situation, it was easy enough for me to defeat the arguments of a couple of people (who will not be named) that wanted a joke candidate. I don't believe anyone in CODE. still supports treating the CSM as a joke.



*** - This was wrong. I still feel the impact of the AT is minor.

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