These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Recent CSM/Mittani High Sec/Null Sec issues
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#61 - 2012-02-03 00:07:38 UTC
met worst wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
testobjekt wrote:
Tell me one change or point me to one detail in CSM minutes that would suggest that CSM6 is doing damage to your highsec-no-risk paradise. As far as i can see, the changes in the last year made highsec safer (insurance payout any1?)

They can't. I've asked several of the tinfoil hatters to list one thing CSM6 has done to hurt high sec and have never been provided with an answer.

CSM 6 did NOTHING for highsec. It wasn't on their radar. THAT'S why it hurt highsec.

Another year wasted for the majority of Eve (in all it's guises) while the majority of changes suggested, for the betterment of 0.0, were implemented with gusto.

It's that kind of limited geographic CSM input combined with CCP's lack of understanding on where our game is heading that is the problem.

I will state categorically the CSM is not entirely to blame (contrary to popular belief) because empire could do a damn sight more to get off their collective asses to change the status quo.


What changes were implemented to specifically help 0.0 this year?
Was it when CCP without warning wiped out the value of billions of ISK in Sov upgrades and made it harder to make money in Null, thus depopulating null of ratters?
Or when JBs were nerfed?
Oh, I know, surely it must have been the Supercap Nerf, right?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Olleybear
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2012-02-03 00:08:11 UTC
Just out of curiosity, I am inserting a random thought into this debate to see how both CSM and Issler respond if they decide to.

Hulks and Makinaws - Should 3 tech 1 fit destroyers be able to gank either of these 150mil - 200mil isk ships before concord can destroy those 3 destoyers in a 0.5 hi-sec system? If yes, why? If no, why?

If anyone feels compelled to respond, please answer with more than just, "'Cause hi-sec shouldn't be 100% safe", or "Cause people should be safe in hi-sec"

Feel free to ignore the question as well. Its just a random tidbit in the middle of the debate here.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#63 - 2012-02-03 00:19:52 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I am inserting a random thought into this debate to see how both CSM and Issler respond if they decide to.

Hulks and Makinaws - Should 3 tech 1 fit destroyers be able to gank either of these 150mil - 200mil isk ships before concord can destroy those 3 destoyers in a 0.5 hi-sec system? If yes, why? If no, why?

If anyone feels compelled to respond, please answer with more than just, "'Cause hi-sec shouldn't be 100% safe", or "Cause people should be safe in hi-sec"

Feel free to ignore the question as well. Its just a random tidbit in the middle of the debate here.


That is an iteresting question that demonstrates the challenges of balance in Eve.

The gut says, no, that seems out of balance in terms of risk/reward. Clearly something or enough somethings should be able to suicide gank anything in high sec if you are willing to risk enough to do it.

On the surface this seems unbalanced. Again, this is quick off the top of my head answer but I'd be inclined to solve this with buffs to the stats on the T2 mining barges. At some point there is going to be a point where enough small cheap ships could always suicide gank almost anything.

Time for concord to start podding... Blink

I'm looking forward to some other responses! Big smile
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2012-02-03 00:32:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
decrease mackinaw ice yield, give retrievers an ice mining bonus
market adjusts so that ice per unit commands a higher price corresponding to a lower net yield; mackinaws are no longer so strongly required to be economically competitive. Net effect is more players feel comfortable ice mining in retrievers, discouraging suicide ganking, whereas dedicated mack pilots run the risk for a maximum ice yield. Kind of like now, but you're no longer gimping yourself to such a degree ice mining in a non-mack.

Nicolo CSM7 - ban npc corps
Nephilius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-02-03 00:37:13 UTC
Jayem See wrote:
...I also understand that most of them want what is good for Eve....


OMG, you win Lul of the day. They want what's good for them, and forget the rest of the player base, let alone the game itself.
"If."
RubyPorto
RubysRhymes
#66 - 2012-02-03 00:43:27 UTC
Olleybear wrote:
Just out of curiosity, I am inserting a random thought into this debate to see how both CSM and Issler respond if they decide to.

Hulks and Makinaws - Should 3 tech 1 fit destroyers be able to gank either of these 150mil - 200mil isk ships before concord can destroy those 3 destoyers in a 0.5 hi-sec system? If yes, why? If no, why?

If anyone feels compelled to respond, please answer with more than just, "'Cause hi-sec shouldn't be 100% safe", or "Cause people should be safe in hi-sec"

Feel free to ignore the question as well. Its just a random tidbit in the middle of the debate here.


Yep.

3 T1 Glass Cannon Combat Ships vs 1 T2 Industrial ship fit for max yield at the expense of tank should easily be over before the police can arrive. Their relative hull prices have absolutely nothing to do with it. The Hulk and Mack are industrial vessels (the Hulk can easily tank 3 dessies until Concord arrives, you just have to sacrifice some yield), the three destroyers are high damage combat vessels.



RL Analogy: The horn of Africa; Multimillion Dollar Freighters/Tankers/Whatever are captured by guys in fishing boats regularly.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." -Abrazzar "the risk of having your day ruined by other people is the cornerstone with which EVE was built" -CCP Solomon
Krixtal Icefluxor
INLAND EMPIRE Galactic
#67 - 2012-02-03 01:58:16 UTC
Chiggy W wrote:
The forums are currently filled with tears, rage and a generally feeling that high sec is getting screwed by the current CSM. This has peaked my interest because to date, I have seen no evidence of the Mittani or other CSM members causing high sec to be nerfed. Please answer the following if you can:

1. What has been "nerfed" in high sec recently as a direct result of the CSM? More to the point, what in high sec has been nerfed recently, regardless of CSM involvement?




Not really a nerf......but war on Blue Ice wasn't exactly a help.

......and the addition of unneeded glass cannon cheap Gankboats as the NEEDED new ship class. B S.

"He has mounted his hind-legs, and blown crass vapidities through the bowel of his neck."  - Ambrose Bierce on Oscar Wilde's Lecture in San Francisco 1882
Theodoric Darkwind
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-02-03 02:13:37 UTC
Karn Dulake wrote:



The main beef with a lot of people is that Mighty Mittans is only interested in nullsec and not interested in lowsec/highsec.

Secondly he wears the title of CSM chairman but he actively scams people using that title which is not what it was invented for.

and he and his neckbeard army get the drop on all future plans for the game far in advance of everyone else and his alliance is there to ruin the gameplay of other people.

Stuff like that


1. There is nothing that says he has to pander to highseccers, yet highsec has in fact received small buffs (aside from the general improvements from crucible) i.e. the removal of insurance payouts for suicide gankers.

2. There is nothing that says he cant grief, pirate, scam, etc as CSM, he is allowed to play the game as he chooses (so long as hes not violating EULA or his CSM NDA)

3. Not if he wants to keep his position, he signed an NDA like all CSM members, he cannot disclose inside information to anyone outside of the CSM or CCP.
Olleybear
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#69 - 2012-02-03 02:22:40 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:

I'm looking forward to some other responses! Big smile



Aye, me too. It's why I havn't responded to anyone who has given their answer so far as I don't want to influence the answer of a CSM member should they choose to respond.

When it comes to PvP, I am like a chiwawa hanging from a grizzley bears pair of wrinklies for dear life.
Firh
Duct Solutions
#70 - 2012-02-03 02:27:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Firh
Give me a lowsec representative!

- Nerf all lvl 4 highsec missions and similar activities
- Boost lowsec missions, belt rats and roids - a lot
- Increase module drop rate from player wrecks
- Make frozen corpses salvageable for implants (small chance)
- Remove war decs from highsec (it's just a bad griefing tool as is)
- Revamp moons and capital ship construction, moons should only new materials unique to capital ship components - and maybe low level ore like trit. T2 materials should be moved to belts.
- Add more lowsec systems to cater to the new population there, perhaps make some highsec into lowsec (due to the incursions or whatever)

In short, put more people into harms way and reward them enough for being there,. Make physically controlling space actually matter. Make lowsec into NPC controlled nullec with gate and station guns, essentially a nullsec for those who do not wish to meddle in alliance affairs.

Make EVE fun again.
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#71 - 2012-02-03 02:51:22 UTC
Chiggy W wrote:
Karn Dulake wrote:

Secondly he wears the title of CSM chairman but he actively scams people using that title which is not what it was invented for.
1. I am unaware of any scams he has been involved in, especially one involving the CSM title, please provide evidence/info

Likely the highly publicized AdmiraI Thrawn affair is one example of what is being referred to.

Is it normal to get scammed by The Mittani, Chairman of CSM ???
Jester’s Trek: Bonus Quote of the Week: Coddled

Scam or not, in my opinion it doesn't look like The Mittani did anything wrong in this particular instance.
Vel Igunen
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2012-02-03 02:53:42 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:

On the surface this seems unbalanced. Again, this is quick off the top of my head answer but I'd be inclined to solve this with buffs to the stats on the T2 mining barges. At some point there is going to be a point where enough small cheap ships could always suicide gank almost anything.


This is why nullsec players don't want to see high sec players in the CSM. The idea of buffing mining barges tanking abilities is absurd, if you are so concerned about being ganked by three t1 destroyers than fit some tank.

With this train of thought influencing the games development it wouldn't be long till the game is reduced to WoW in space.
Shazzam Vokanavom
Doomheim
#73 - 2012-02-03 09:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
There is nothing that says he has to pander to highseccers, yet highsec has in fact received small buffs (aside from the general improvements from crucible) i.e. the removal of insurance payouts for suicide gankers.


I think the Mittani should campaign for an improved education system, most goonies and affiliates are incapable of reading previous points, and simply march in with the usual approved propoganda spiel (Can I suggest to the Mittens to maybe at least linking the "Sesame street" series in his campaign forums for all goonies?)

from above wrote:
To the insurance payouts that I expect you think nerfed suidcide ganking, it was already pre-emptied it would never impact it. Certain suicide gankers have been reporting they can earn a plex in an afternoon from the activity, might be largley to do with the new tier 3 BC's that are a large alpha gun platform much cheaper than a BS, or the improvement to dessies. And you seem to think your hard done by, and nothing went in your favour?


To demonstrate: How to kill a Hulk in high sec from C&P.

So to say that "high seccers" are being coddled by changes is pure fiction. And its just another Meta interest afforded to the War efforts in High sec like hulkageddon and ice interediction. Case and point to the topic material, well done.
Aineko Macx
#74 - 2012-02-03 09:29:01 UTC
Chiggy W wrote:
2. Why the hate on the Mittani?

Answer: I met him at fanfest.

iveeCore 3.0: The PHP engine for industrial activities and CREST library
Cailais
The Red Pill Taker Group
#75 - 2012-02-03 13:37:01 UTC
Actually if you look at EVEs development over the tenure of Mittani's Chairmanship relatively little has changed in EVE.

For the most part null sec warfare remains defined by sluggish campaigns and stagnant alliance power blocks, low sec has few development resources effecting its game play (although destructable POCOs remain something that could play out over the longer term) and WiS development has ceased.

Judging by Mittens comments above about welcoming another political adversary he'd be delighted to see any "anti-Mittani" emerge. As it is he and the CSM are sat on their collective thrones and I imagine such an uncontested position is quite boring.

C.
Imma outbidYOU
Doomheim
#76 - 2012-02-03 13:52:48 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
Karn Dulake wrote:
Chiggy W wrote:
The forums are currently filled with tears, rage and a generally feeling that high sec is getting screwed by the current CSM. This has peaked my interest because to date, I have seen no evidence of the Mittani or other CSM members causing high sec to be nerfed. Please answer the following if you can:

1. What has been "nerfed" in high sec recently as a direct result of the CSM? More to the point, what in high sec has been nerfed recently, regardless of CSM involvement?

2. Why the hate on the Mittani? Despite my personal views on Goons, I think he has done a pretty good job, but it seems that tons of you disagree with this, why?

3. Why the rage over CSM candidates playstyles? Although I might not be a scammer or a so called "griefer", I understand that they are valid playstyles, and therefore deserve CSM representation if enough people get behind a candidate to make them a CSM.

4. Do people not understand why more people in null are motivated to vote, and why we have a largely (not completely) null sec based CSM (hint is has nothing to do with moon goo, if you don't understand it, please don't sperge about it)? Why are people claiming that the 66% of characters in high sec means that high sec should have automatically get representation?

I know I will get trolled to high heaven, but I'm genuinely interested in what people have to say about the above.



The main beef with a lot of people is that Mighty Mittans is only interested in nullsec and not interested in lowsec/highsec.

Secondly he wears the title of CSM chairman but he actively scams people using that title which is not what it was invented for.

and he and his neckbeard army get the drop on all future plans for the game far in advance of everyone else and his alliance is there to ruin the gameplay of other people.

Stuff like that


There are no CCP rules regarding what the CSM and CSM chairs must be interested in. It's also silly to think that there could be even an way to make sure an CSM person keeps interest in everything uniformly.

He has never scammed anyone using the title, heck he tends to stay out of getting involved in scams directly but often is implicated indirectly.

Right, because goons clearly forsaw the future plan was to nerf tech moons, so they decided to take a region full of tech moons?



you sir are 100% foolish. mittens was dirctly tied into a scam not to long ago with the sale of a few super caps.

goons have csm members and ccp members in the alliance, we all have read the leaked mails about intel of exspansions coming out and things to be nerfed. in my opinion this is a direct violation of the NDA and should be considered anti-trust and insider trading.
bilingi
Grandeur Illusions
#77 - 2012-02-03 14:49:34 UTC  |  Edited by: bilingi
Actually i realized how stupid he was when he thought Worm Holes where 0.0... Not to mention him and the other useless CSMs waiting till after the Jita protests to suddenly JUMP on the bandwaggon and then try and take credit for stopping CPPs stupid crap they where trying to pull and still are.....

Other than that Mit has done not one damn thing... thats why i voted for him cause he is useless hahahahah

All YALL fan boy defenders need to actually provide proof where CSM got some thing done... That ccp wasnt already thinking of doing... you cant..
Luh Windan
green fish hat bang bang
#78 - 2012-02-03 15:38:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Luh Windan
tl;dr - he's just bad right. Yeah. because. like you know: bad! don't need no reasons because we know he's a bad influence. yeah....

The OP asked some sensible questions. Amazing how many people haven't even tried to answer it.

anyway - not why I am posting. I was far more intrigued by the question about should destroyers be able gank hulks.

Essentially every time you undock in anything you are entering into a risk/reward calculation (if you don't think about it like that then more fool you).

This is very well understood for hauling - cost of cargo - cost of gank = C. If C a big positive number then your risk is high.

If I took a 200m hull out un tanked and didn't nothing to evade attack, say a cynabal, would I expect it to be blown up. I've got to say the answer is yes there.

Can you do anything to protect your hulk? yes you can. So why don't people? well basically the risk of being blown up is overwhelmed by the additional income you make by not tanking and therefore being blown up once in a while.

Is 3 destroyers the optimal balance? doubt it because it's a complex equation and it's unlikely they've got it spot on.

However every way I analyse it I've got to say it\s not far off and I think the thing that totally underlines this is that people *could* protect their mining boats more and the fact that they choose not to means that they have balanced out the risks and rewards and decided that it's optimal to take that risk. If they were losing money you would see bigger tanks on mining boats.

Do they like being blown up occasionally? well no of course not hence all the emo rage on the forums but I don't think anyone should be making decisions based on that (except of course to gank a mining boat for all those lovely forum tears)
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#79 - 2012-02-03 15:44:28 UTC
*piqued

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log
Bumblefck
Kerensky Initiatives
#80 - 2012-02-03 15:48:12 UTC
Krixtal Icefluxor wrote:
Chiggy W wrote:
The forums are currently filled with tears, rage and a generally feeling that high sec is getting screwed by the current CSM. This has peaked my interest because to date, I have seen no evidence of the Mittani or other CSM members causing high sec to be nerfed. Please answer the following if you can:

1. What has been "nerfed" in high sec recently as a direct result of the CSM? More to the point, what in high sec has been nerfed recently, regardless of CSM involvement?




Not really a nerf......but war on Blue Ice wasn't exactly a help.

......and the addition of unneeded glass cannon cheap Gankboats as the NEEDED new ship class. B S.



Awww, did someone lose their Hulky Wulky?


A-bloo bloo bloo

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log