These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

The CSM – Council of Sov. Management.

First post
Author
Retar Aveymone
DJ's Retirement Fund
Goonswarm Federation
#201 - 2017-04-22 00:19:03 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Retar Aveymone wrote:
there is a thing very stupid people do, where they say x, then when that gets smashed, they say they never said x, they said y

it doesn't work very well on forums where your dumbassery is there to quote

how, precisely, do you think that null is less risky than highsec, which you already admitted is risk-free

have we discovered the secrets of negative risk


/sigh....anyone watching local chat in sov null will literally never get killed when PvE-ing. It's the safest place in the game to make ISK. In terms of risk, LS and WHs are the only places left in game that are actually challenging. Being in goons nearly made me quit the game given how easy/boring it was. I like a challenge, and to the topic at hand I don't like the idea of CSM getting a disproportional share in an area of space that's not challenging and easy.

Next time you're in HS ask yourself if you know every person in local chat. If the answer is no, sov null is safer. Get rid of local in null and we're onto something.

i got bored in goons and wanted a challenge, says the man who was actually in SMA, not goons, and then went to highsec
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#202 - 2017-04-22 00:20:19 UTC
Retar Aveymone wrote:
i got bored in goons and wanted a challenge, says the man who was actually in SMA, not goons, and then went to highsec


Today I learned you think wormholes are highsec. I've played this game for five years and lived in HS for two months of that time.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#203 - 2017-04-22 00:22:15 UTC
Did people in SMA actually identify as goons? Dear god.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#204 - 2017-04-22 00:26:06 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Querns wrote:
Ah, here we go -- we're finally starting to strip away the dross and find the real hatred buried within.

So in your previous posts, you claimed that I should move my alts to nullsec, so I would have to endure risk. However, in this post, you claim that there is no risk in 0.0. Which is it?


I'd have you move to LS or WHs personally, if you actually want a challenge. I can break it down for you though.

HS NPC corps (or one man HS corps) are the least risky. These aren't mains for 90% of people, they are alts, we both know this, and know that's why I said what I did.
sov null alliances are next.
HS in a corp comes after that.


But lowsec has local chat, as well. By your own words, local allows you to be 100% safe in all circumstances. Thus, lowsec is identical to nullsec in terms of risk profile. In fact, it may be safer, since there are no bubbles.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#205 - 2017-04-22 00:28:01 UTC
Querns wrote:
Did people in SMA actually identify as goons? Dear god.


Yes/No, were they part of the alliance when I was there? I can give you a hint if you'd like.

You seem to take pride in being part of the biggest carebear part of the game, why is that?
Sonya Corvinus
Grant Village
#206 - 2017-04-22 00:30:40 UTC
Querns wrote:
But lowsec has local chat, as well. By your own words, local allows you to be 100% safe in all circumstances. Thus, lowsec is identical to nullsec in terms of risk profile. In fact, it may be safer, since there are no bubbles.


Have you ever lived in LS? It doesn't have massive intel networks that are in sov null. It's rare to find a group of 15+ systems with ONLY blues.

I get why you wouldn't understand. Your killboard says you're one of the most risk averse people in the game.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#207 - 2017-04-22 00:34:53 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Querns wrote:
But lowsec has local chat, as well. By your own words, local allows you to be 100% safe in all circumstances. Thus, lowsec is identical to nullsec in terms of risk profile. In fact, it may be safer, since there are no bubbles.


Have you ever lived in LS? It doesn't have massive intel networks that are in sov null. It's rare to find a group of 15+ systems with ONLY blues.

I get why you wouldn't understand. Your killboard says you're one of the most risk averse people in the game.


You didn't say anything about blues. You said local chat makes you 100% safe in all circumstances.

If you don't have enough blues, that's your problem. If you don't have a "massive intel network," that's also your problem. Nullsec doesn't have a special property that uniquely allows for intel or blues, when compared to lowsec.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#208 - 2017-04-22 00:42:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Soel Reit
Querns wrote:
Nullsec doesn't have a special property that uniquely allows for intel or blues, when compared to lowsec.


> bubbles aka gay camps ~ check
> systems outside jump ranges ~ check
> 200 systems/jumps before arriving in the nullsec carebears area ~ check
> watch intel and local and you'll never get killed ~ check

null sec empires are the safer places of eve.
that's a fact.

so safe that people rat in titans/supers!
then obviously get dropped cuz they suck and don't watch intel/local ehehheheheheheheheheh
Pirate
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#209 - 2017-04-22 00:46:30 UTC
Soel Reit wrote:
Querns wrote:
Nullsec doesn't have a special property that uniquely allows for intel or blues, when compared to lowsec.


> bubbles aka gay camps ~ check
> systems outside jump ranges ~ check
> 200 systems/jumps before arriving in the nullsec carebears area ~ check
> watch intel and local and you'll never get killed ~ check

null sec empires are the safer places of eve.
that's a fact.

so safe that people rat in titans/supers!
then obviously get dropped cuz they suck and don't watch intel/local ehehheheheheheheheheh
Pirate

None of these neanderthrashings have anything to do with intel or blues.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Soel Reit
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#210 - 2017-04-22 00:47:18 UTC
Querns wrote:
Soel Reit wrote:
Querns wrote:
Nullsec doesn't have a special property that uniquely allows for intel or blues, when compared to lowsec.


> bubbles aka gay camps ~ check
> systems outside jump ranges ~ check
> 200 systems/jumps before arriving in the nullsec carebears area ~ check
> watch intel and local and you'll never get killed ~ check

null sec empires are the safer places of eve.
that's a fact.

so safe that people rat in titans/supers!
then obviously get dropped cuz they suck and don't watch intel/local ehehheheheheheheheheh
Pirate

None of these neanderthrashings have anything to do with intel or blues.


go back ratting! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#211 - 2017-04-22 00:48:18 UTC
i normally use "neanderthrashings" in jest but i think it might actually be accurate here

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Cade Windstalker
#212 - 2017-04-22 00:53:53 UTC
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Most people in null log in and just hit F1 when the FC says so, or rat/mine and dock up when a red comes in system. That's hardly engagement either. As a non-HS resident, representation on CSM should be proportional to the population that lives in that part of space. By character, not by player. That's a consequence of having HS alts.


Yeah, but logging in and hitting F1 where someone tells you to is still more keyed into the game than someone who logs in to run missions or run their little trading empire and doesn't really interact with other players unless forced. At the very least someone being told to F1 can be told to go vote.

If you made representation proportional then you'd end up with Null groups putting forward HS alts of well known Null players or something similar.

There's no way CCP ever could or would try to enforce a system like that.
Aryth
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#213 - 2017-04-22 16:36:05 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Sonya Corvinus wrote:
Most people in null log in and just hit F1 when the FC says so, or rat/mine and dock up when a red comes in system. That's hardly engagement either. As a non-HS resident, representation on CSM should be proportional to the population that lives in that part of space. By character, not by player. That's a consequence of having HS alts.


Yeah, but logging in and hitting F1 where someone tells you to is still more keyed into the game than someone who logs in to run missions or run their little trading empire and doesn't really interact with other players unless forced. At the very least someone being told to F1 can be told to go vote.

If you made representation proportional then you'd end up with Null groups putting forward HS alts of well known Null players or something similar.

There's no way CCP ever could or would try to enforce a system like that.


We already had plans for exactly that years ago. Shills were even made as I recall.

Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal.

Creator of Burn Jita

Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.

Djsaeu
Doomheim
#214 - 2017-04-22 16:46:44 UTC
If you want player feedback that is not affected by the big alliances, then why not make it where a CSM can not be in or affiliated with any big alliance.

There are Pro's and Con's with this.

Pro : You get more feedback from the little guys.

Con : There would be a lot of bribes flying around.

I am not a wizard at this, shoot..... I know nothing about it, but it is just my opinion on that matter.
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#215 - 2017-04-22 16:53:54 UTC
Djsaeu wrote:
If you want player feedback that is not affected by the big alliances, then why not make it where a CSM can not be in or affiliated with any big alliance.

There are Pro's and Con's with this.

Pro : You get more feedback from the little guys.

Con : There would be a lot of bribes flying around.

I am not a wizard at this, shoot..... I know nothing about it, but it is just my opinion on that matter.


We'd just run false-flag characters, or spread out among multiple alliances below the cap.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#216 - 2017-04-22 17:48:45 UTC
Chainsaw Plankton wrote:
Kirell wrote:
3) This is what needs to change most.

Eliminate the high sec ganking of players. It's the new blood that usually suffers the most. but it's also the old blood that is trying to play in high sec to actually get some game time in where they don't have to be on high alert all the time (you know... a lot of us have kids and can't get too involved in things, so mining, ratting hauling etc in high sec at least we get a feel of having some semblance of game time.... When these people get ganked in their haulers, their mining ships or their expensive mission ships....

Since so many of them lose all their belongings to high sec gankers who are mostly just bored, and aren't looking for a return on their gank (just in it to grief/ collect a killmail) they leave and never return. CCP has bled out more players to this than anything else.

The people that do the ganking, sure they would be pissed that griefing people is no longer an option. They might quit. But I bet 99% of them would stay.

You'd also lose fewer people, and you can be damn sure people would come back knowing they can play without being hassled.

but EVE is a Niche game you'll argue....

Sorry no, it isn't. They lost that title a long time ago. Especially after it went FREE TO PLAY.

But we know CCP will not change any of this.

So the outcome will be obvious. There will be those that will hang on simply because of the investment of time in EVE.

But EVE will die down to the point it will be a shadow of it's former self.

I know I'm waiting for that one well known space sim....I'm gone when it comes out.


lol Roll

been running missions for 10+ years, been ganked 0 times. I also have been hauling for most of that time, and even dabbled in mining for a bit. If you put all your eggs in one basket and lose everything on one ship loss well that's a you problem.

ungankable highsec likely results in a bunch of isk printing which isn't really a good thing.



Same here. Never ganked in a mission, only even so much as bothered in a mission 3 times.

All in 10 years.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#217 - 2017-04-22 17:51:10 UTC
People use CSM to get the game play the way they want it.

Ironically nothing has destroyed the play of this game more than giving everybody what they wanted.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

oiukhp Muvila
Doomheim
#218 - 2017-04-22 20:21:04 UTC
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
People use CSM to get the game play the way they want it.

Ironically nothing has destroyed the play of this game more than giving everybody what they wanted.



I can certainly agree with this, and that was talked about when the CSM was first proposed.

A certain block of players are able to keep getting elected due to the nature of the game, and influence the development to more suit their tastes at the expense of other play styles.

That has happened.

Kind of like letting the players of a game to decide the rules instead of the referees. It doesn't always work out for the good of the game.




Shiloh Templeton
Cheyenne HET Co
#219 - 2017-04-23 20:06:28 UTC
Shae Tadaruwa wrote:
Shiloh Templeton wrote:
Except, it's not a democracy.
How are CSM members appointed each year?
This thread is a complaint about how the CSM doesn't represent the whole playerbase. I agree, but it's still a democratically elected group of individuals.
I don't consider the CSM a democracy because it has no power.

We're not voting on how the game is developed. Most likely CCP would be developing exactly the same things if the CSM was all HS players. That's why I think the solution depends on having a high-level CCP employee to make sure all areas of Eve are being considered.

Cade Windstalker
#220 - 2017-04-23 21:27:22 UTC
Aryth wrote:
We already had plans for exactly that years ago. Shills were even made as I recall.


Heh, one of them wouldn't happen to have been named Dinsdale would he? Lol

Djsaeu wrote:
If you want player feedback that is not affected by the big alliances, then why not make it where a CSM can not be in or affiliated with any big alliance.

There are Pro's and Con's with this.

Pro : You get more feedback from the little guys.

Con : There would be a lot of bribes flying around.

I am not a wizard at this, shoot..... I know nothing about it, but it is just my opinion on that matter.


Because that would basically deny representation to a huge chunk of the active playerbase, and be effectively impossible to enforce in any meaningful way?

oiukhp Muvila wrote:
Herzog Wolfhammer wrote:
People use CSM to get the game play the way they want it.

Ironically nothing has destroyed the play of this game more than giving everybody what they wanted.



I can certainly agree with this, and that was talked about when the CSM was first proposed.

A certain block of players are able to keep getting elected due to the nature of the game, and influence the development to more suit their tastes at the expense of other play styles.

That has happened.

Kind of like letting the players of a game to decide the rules instead of the referees. It doesn't always work out for the good of the game.


People keep making this claim, and yet when asked to point out anything that has actively hurt their playstyle that was done at the insistence of the CSM the evidence is generally pretty sparse.

That's because the people with reps on the CSM wish it had more power to influence development, and the people who feel under represented or unrepresented believe the CSM has all the power and things would be different if only their voices were on there...

Something something green grass. *shakes head*