Jita Park Speakers Corner

To quote myself in a blog I did recently: "A lot of people asked me why I was running for CSM when I had already worked at the company. You know who didn't ask me? The people still working at the company. "

Here is another blog entry that might shed some light as well:

CSM vs. CCP Employee

Basically, there are a lot of people that think the CSM is some sort of silly propaganda machine or PR puppet show. Having been on both sides of the table I can just say that I wouldn't put the time into it that I have if I believed that. As an employee, there are rules of interaction that you have to follow and you have to watch yourself that you are not stepping too outside of the box. A CSM member just has to make sure we don't say 'secret stuff'. The number of CCP employees that come up to us at the Summits or that we talk to in the bars or daily on Skype tells me that we make an impact. I'm of the firm opinion that the CSM has and can continue to make a difference.

punkturis is a guy ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdQguGTBnZw

Posted on your blog, but going to here as well :


Theory crafting here...

I agree Sov mechanics are crap and will be crap until something new or interesting happens.

As a low sec dweller, I want to say that the idea that you have to just go in and "take your space" is putting the emphasis on projection of power rather than "upkeep" costs. The Sov Mechanic is to some degree broken because OF that HP Buffer in the first place. There shouldn't be an HP Buffer between me controlling SOV or Not, it should be how much force I can apply when I'm living there. The scalable nature always becomes an issue "I have 1,000 people, suck it" is also an issue, but working out the system to focus more on activity/usage rather than how many HP buffers you can put between me and you would help. This does beg the question how do you keep "mega warfare" useful and fun while still implementing an idea that relies less on "Moar DPS!!"

My opinion for a resolution is simple... Have multiple ways to take over SOV through game mechanics - Military (HP Buffer), Industrial, Social, Economic, etc. This will force SOV defenders to look at multiple avenues of defense and offense that fit to different styles of play.

I can be on an offensive Industrial attack and defend heavily against a Military attack by stacking ridiculous amounts of HP, but it leaves me vulnerable to an Economic take over.

I know this is very vague and "broad" but I think you can see how that dynamic is more relevant than "Moar DPS!!!"

---

I think any player outpost should have a limited # of supercaps that can be docked in it, as well they should literally be "docked" to the physical station on the exterior and be visible to everyone when done so, but invulnerable. They can't be directly targeted without destroying the object they are docked to/until the station is vulnerable or whatever and destroyed - but that would be a more reasonable balance.


It forces a couple compromises with docking

#1 - You can SEE where your enemy has his supercaps. You get a luxury, but you sacrifice the secrecy.
#2 - It limits and prioritizes the docking bay and gives purpose to having more than one Outpost as a supercap hub, spreading out the force as necessary and it produces internal politics - who gets to dock their supercap.
#3 - When the Outpost falls, so do the Supercaps, either open for capture or destruction. Reducing the idea that they are "Safely docked".
#4 - It is more vulnerable in that position

I think this can be pretty easily implemented with current technology as well and also give some supercaps pilots the ability to dock but not at a cost to their safety or their strategic value.


There would also be something pretty cool about pulling up to a Null Sec Outpost and seeing 3-4 titans parked right alongside it as mega structures.

No game stays the same for five years and there are parts of EVE that have been the same way for over eight.



Ummmm... yeah, I wish I had a crystal ball too, m8. If I had known a flycathcer could tank an AoE doomsday, I wouldn't have lost a Titan. If I had known that letting a CSAA come out of reinforced in Russian prime in 2007 was a bad idea, I wouldn't have lost Hel in build. If I had known that such a thing as Sig Radius and explosion velocity would one day affect my missile damage, I would never have started a Caldari character.



Can't do what? I thought I was following your train of thought but it kind of derailed here....

At least the name of your Corporation fits you well.




Welcome to politics, someone wants to screw you over so that they don't get screwed over. You're just being obvious at this point that Seleene's interests don't line up with your interests. I recommend you come up with a better argument than saying "Seleene doesn't care about me!!"

Ya, Titans are massive and I've seen my share. I think that only adds to the arguments about not letting these massive things dock inside that are that huge.


Right, I know there's some big challenges coming up ahead for CCP, but I think this is the time to put the dev time into making SOV into something more sophisticated. As I wrote in another post, the days of EVEs "Pre-Industrial, Exploration and Resource and hunter gatherer" society is a bit behind us. We're in the industrial age, so to speak, and the game has to accommodate a more sophisticated level of gameplay and structure. There is only so much "space" you can keep adding for expansion.

Players have conquered EVE much like the Steamboat and Airplane helped us conquer the world - it's time to focus on developing the tools for players to wage industrial age warfare and politics.

---

I'm surprised Titans external docking would be that complicated overall. Not that I'm an expert by any means. Simply being able to click on the outpost service, say "Dock" and then freezing the titan into place and then allowing the player to get off onto the station.

The new wave of resources and Devs at CCP have been impressing me so far, so I'm hoping that they review some of these options and go, "it's time to make these happen."

Your thoughts on the ultrabear who abhors conflict at any and all costs and wants pvp to be opt-out? Is this a problem for EVE? What should/could be done with regards to it and war mechanics?

Ok, I think there is some misunderstanding. Sorry, my english is not as good as I whish it would be :(

I am not opposed to change.
I also think that NPCs are boring atm.
I think that your idea would make NPCs more interresting. Thats a good thing.
I think that with a fresh start in standings it could make things meaningful and fun.

But there are currently standing vales stored in the TQ database that come from activities that happened a long time ago.
From a time where there were officially little (just agent access and market tax. oh, and empire POS stuff. I don't mention FW because some of that data is older than FW) consequences.
From activities that were made by people that understood game mechanics.

I just think that applying these old values for new mechanics is not such a great idea.
Imagine someone living in a NPC 0.0 region for 4 years, ratting for income (nobody ever told us that is wrong), and after the expansion he will be literaly kicked out of his home region, with little hope to ever be able to return there.

But wiping out all old standing data doesn't sound like a good idea either. That would affect all mission runners, market players, everyone who has a POS up in >= 0.4 systems and all faction warfare players (might be I forgot something).

So perhaps some new number? But would you call that? Standing II? That's just confusing.

So, TL;DR:
I am concerned about the transition.

And about bribing: Good idea, but how do you want to make sure that standing/sec status would remain meaningful in the long run? When I started playing the price for a capital ship was a big deal for most players. Today not so much. And in three years?
So, how much should bribing cost?
Because if bribing costs just a trivial amout of ISK standing/sec status would be meaningless, which would contradict the whole exrecise.

I hope that clears up what I mean.

Play a different game. That may sound harsh, but PVP is part of EVE. Be it in space, the market or whatever, that's just the way it has always been. It's what makes EVE... 'work'. Just to be clear - I don't go out of my way to grief random people. I'm not talking about dudes that get mauled in low-sec as anyone that makes the jump to 0.4 and below even gets a warning message about it. I mean stuff like I've never suicide ganked in Empire and I've never even done the 'Hulkageddon' thing. Some players derive a form of maniacal glee from that sort of thing but I don't. I do enjoy competing against other people though and have spent my entire time in EVE doing so. Allowing players to "opt out" of what essentially makes EVE what it is... no. Then it's not EVE anymore.



I would like to see the war dec mechanics evolve and have additional layers added for both sides of the equation. There is currently no in-game functionality that enforces a 'surrender' or allows for any sort of negotiated settlement of a dispute. I said this in an earlier post but even Master of Orion had this back in 1993. Or are you asking me if I think no one should be able to 'declare war' ever?

Well, one must assume that the current system is 'flawed' right now, which can be debated on endlessly. Personally, I prefer the direct voting method to a 'parliamentary' system because it's simple. Introducing some sort of 'party' system would be... I'm not even sure CCP would allocate or have the resources to code / properly track that sort of thing in an official capacity. The best we could come up with that they can do atm is requiring a candidate to have a sufficient number of 'likes' in order to secure a right to even be voted for.

What do you feel like is missing from the current process in terms of voters having the ability to vote in a candidate that represents their interests? How would you limit the number of CSM slots in order to ensure that a 'Parliamentary system' would even work?