These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#361 - 2015-02-17 23:05:54 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The people who are overwhelmingly the targets of highsec predators (gankers, wardeccers and the like) are not newbies. Nor are they the extremely experienced player (who usually has a clue they are in danger and so can use the advantages highsec gives the defender in conflicts to escape). They are usually the middling experienced player.
In fairness, they may not be a newbie in terms of time played, but they are a newbie in terms of experience with the game. They're targeted specifically because they don't know how to respond.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
As for wardec evasion - this was termed every bit as much of an exploit as CONCORD evasion once. It gives the defender an overwhelming advantage in conflicts. I support some form of unilateral surrender as long as it is a *surrender*, not a broken mechanic.
And now it's not an exploit. Things change, get over it. It used to be possible to use dec shield alliances or shed wars too, now it's not possible to do either.

The problem wit ha surrender mechanic is that it puts full control in the aggressors hands, and they already generally have the vast majority of the control. If that were the case, there would be nothing stopping the main wardeccers deccing a corp and demanding 500m isk for example to surrender, which gives them 2 weeks grace and they are back again. If there were no other way out of the war besides waiting it out or not logging in, it would simply get rid of most highsec corporations or cause people to quit. It wouldn't suddenly make them suicide themselves for all eternity into the waiting blasters of what would definitely be a superior force.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#362 - 2015-02-17 23:20:34 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Kaarous, it sounds like some of the trolls are blocking you. Does this make you despair? Lol


Nope, that's working as intended.

But I can't say the same for wardecs, which is why we need to vote for Sabriz, to get our voices heard.

"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.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#363 - 2015-02-18 00:36:11 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Which is all perfectly fine. The problem is that your ideas don't respect their ability to counter you attempts to fight them on their own terms.


So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying.

We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#364 - 2015-02-18 07:49:59 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying.
When did I ever say that? I'm certainly not advocating passive defense. In this particular instance we're not even talking ganking, we're talking wardecs. I don't believe a wardec should lock you in and force you to fight with guns to get out.

Tengu Grib wrote:
We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful.
And I agree. People should use decently fit ships, ECM drones and evasion to not get ganked. That said, I think ganking is too static. I like Black Pedro's idea that concord response times should vary for example, so sometimes you only get 10 secs, sometimes you get 50 for example. I also think the shocking overuse of catalysts highlights a balance issue there. I'd like to see a larger variety of ships and fits able to be used for various reasons. At no point will you ever find me saying that ganking should be removed or passive defense should be the way forward. Hell, I want freighters to be given more active and less passive defense methods specifically because they are too passive.

So yeah, if that's what you've managed to get from what Iv'e said, you very much misunderstand. I just don't think every situation needs to be resolved by fighting it out with guns. Some players don't like that playstyle, and that's OK.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#365 - 2015-02-18 19:38:15 UTC
Your suggestions on war decs are stupid, you talk about locking people into conflicts that they have no fun doing, no interest and no reward, so they either stay docked or go play another game for a week, possibly deciding not to bother at all and yet your carrots are a few extra percentages of yield, big deal, what a complete idiot!

If you want people to fight against war dec's then give them the benefit of immunities from war decs based on how many hits they get on enemies and how many kills they get, and then add that up and apply a block to all new war decs and then a block from that to the value of the benefit from fighting, then there is value in fighting against a war dec. Even giving them blocks of time for going out in space and not being cloaked!!!!

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#366 - 2015-02-18 19:49:33 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Your suggestions on war decs are stupid


I'm just sayin'. Twisted

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#367 - 2015-02-18 19:55:59 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
Your suggestions on war decs are stupid


I'm just sayin'. Twisted


Thank you for agreeing with me Twisted

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#368 - 2015-02-18 21:50:55 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
So people should be allowed to counter ganking by being AFK and making poor fitting decisions? Like it or not that's essentially what you're saying.
When did I ever say that? I'm certainly not advocating passive defense. In this particular instance we're not even talking ganking, we're talking wardecs. I don't believe a wardec should lock you in and force you to fight with guns to get out.

Tengu Grib wrote:
We would love to see the people who choose to resist us by force be provided with support in their efforts. Avoiding us is also a perfectly valid tactic, one that is already extremely effective. I would gladly support any changes that made active defense against ganking more successful, but I would NOT support any changes that made passive defense against us more successful.
And I agree. People should use decently fit ships, ECM drones and evasion to not get ganked. That said, I think ganking is too static. I like Black Pedro's idea that concord response times should vary for example, so sometimes you only get 10 secs, sometimes you get 50 for example. I also think the shocking overuse of catalysts highlights a balance issue there. I'd like to see a larger variety of ships and fits able to be used for various reasons. At no point will you ever find me saying that ganking should be removed or passive defense should be the way forward. Hell, I want freighters to be given more active and less passive defense methods specifically because they are too passive.

So yeah, if that's what you've managed to get from what Iv'e said, you very much misunderstand. I just don't think every situation needs to be resolved by fighting it out with guns. Some players don't like that playstyle, and that's OK.


Well then. I withdraw my objections in this particular instance. I apologize for misinterpreting your stance. If you happen to make it to FanFest in 2016 I'd love to sit down over coffee with you and discuss these sorts of topics in person, I'm buying.

As for the freighters I do not disagree with you. They are and should be easily killed when their pilot is incompetent or lazy, they should stand a chance when their pilot takes precautions. I'm of the opinion that they currently are at that point though I'm open to discussion on the topic.

As for wardecs, if there are ideas on how a defender could contribute to a war besides getting into a combat ship and fighting head on or guerrilla style, I'm all ears. That's not sarcasm, I'd actually love to hear any ideas along those lines.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#369 - 2015-02-18 22:24:14 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Well then. I withdraw my objections in this particular instance. I apologize for misinterpreting your stance. If you happen to make it to FanFest in 2016 I'd love to sit down over coffee with you and discuss these sorts of topics in person, I'm buying.

As for the freighters I do not disagree with you. They are and should be easily killed when their pilot is incompetent or lazy, they should stand a chance when their pilot takes precautions. I'm of the opinion that they currently are at that point though I'm open to discussion on the topic.

As for wardecs, if there are ideas on how a defender could contribute to a war besides getting into a combat ship and fighting head on or guerrilla style, I'm all ears. That's not sarcasm, I'd actually love to hear any ideas along those lines.
Sounds like a plan. I was there last year and am there this year, so all likelihood will be there 2016 too, so you're on.

I think on precautions they are there, but that's all they have. Once they are in the fight they are sitting there waiting for the gankers and their escorts to duke it out. I'd love to take some of the passive defense away, lowering their tank, and give them some form of actively defending themselves, be it some kind of ecm pulse (which doesn't make concord go nuts) or something else. Haven't really considered it enough to go into great detail. But the idea would be that if you are AFK, you are pretty likely to get pasted, but if you are there defending the gankers have to put in considerably more effort. Ideally I'd want it to be than a perfect fit AFK freighter takes about half the gankers it currently does, while a perfect fit active one takes 1.5 - 2x on average.

For wardecs I really don't know what can be done working with the current system. I'd be really tempted to consider going back to the drawing board altogether and looking at a system which causes wardeccers to fight over space and in-space assets on a smaller and more flexible scale than things like sov, with industry players playing a support role on either side. When RvB and the merc groups went all out over POCOs, that was some great content and I'd love to see more of that kind of things, and less of "I crush you because you can't do anything about it".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#370 - 2015-02-19 19:37:24 UTC
My only concern would be making sure that such a war system does not invalidate the "I'm smacking you down because you made me mad" wars. Beyond that, I think the points you mentioned here warrant further discussion. This is probably not the best place to go into greater details of such a discussion though.

I'm adding you to my list of "People to meet at Fanfest." And yes I have an actual list.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Hinata' Hyuga
WillPower and Courage Corporation
#371 - 2015-02-21 14:33:50 UTC
Read this for entertainment and lolz, yet you made arguments in line with my thinking. You have my vote! You should campaign on Reddit sometime, do an AMA.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#372 - 2015-02-21 16:18:28 UTC
Hinata' Hyuga wrote:
Read this for entertainment and lolz, yet you made arguments in line with my thinking. You have my vote! You should campaign on Reddit sometime, do an AMA.



I really like it when people read this thread for the lulz but like it.

I intend to set up a Reddit account and do just that.

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

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#373 - 2015-02-23 13:45:12 UTC
I know I already endorsed Sabriz, but I think given my new situation that it's appropriate that I reaffirm that.

"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.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#374 - 2015-02-24 00:10:03 UTC
This year I'm starting to have a look at the running CSM candidates in a bit more depth, and I've written a short review of your campaign, which can be found here.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#375 - 2015-02-24 02:37:07 UTC

Good luck in your campaign, Sab.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#376 - 2015-02-24 07:12:08 UTC
After some issues, the Vote Match profile is now up.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#377 - 2015-02-24 07:58:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Sabriz, after a discussion with another player I've been thinking about wardecs and it's made me want to revisit something we discussed earlier. Within this post and in your wardecs recording, you state that wardec evasion (via disbanding and reforming a corp) was deemed an exploit. Do you know where this was stated? At first when I've heard this said, I just accepted it and didn't really think about it, but since then I've been thinking and can't actually remember anything official or even coming from an official that confirmed it was an exploit. I've searched around and can't find it anywhere either, and I know that it wasn't an exploit in 2007, 2009 or 2011, so I'm not sure when or where this was said.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#378 - 2015-02-24 10:47:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz, after a discussion with another player I've been thinking about wardecs and it's made me want to revisit something we discussed earlier. Within this post and in your wardecs recording, you state that wardec evasion (via disbanding and reforming a corp) was deemed an exploit. Do you know where this was stated? At first when I've heard this said, I just accepted it and didn't really think about it, but since then I've been thinking and can't actually remember anything official or even coming from an official that confirmed it was an exploit. I've searched around and can't find it anywhere either, and I know that it wasn't an exploit in 2007, 2009 or 2011, so I'm not sure when or where this was said.



I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.

Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#379 - 2015-02-24 11:32:04 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.

Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog.
No problem.

Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#380 - 2015-02-24 20:42:36 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I didn't play at the time and have only anecdotal evidence for it. But I've heard it from quite a number of people.

Also thanks for your harsh but (from your position) fair comments on your blog.
No problem.

Any idea where people you heard it from heard it? It's one of those things I've heard a few times too and just assumed to be true, but now that I'm trying to source it, can't seem to find it anywhere. In fact I've found a couple of GMs stating the exact opposite, and now am beginning to wonder if it's just one of those things someone said once that just took hold.


James 315, Psychotic Monk and a few others but those are the two I can name.

Whilst the highsec predator community are often dishonest to outsiders, we aren't dishonest to each other (and Monk in particular took that as an absolute principle).

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