These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Issler Dainze for CSM7! Hear the bears roar!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#221 - 2012-02-05 09:48:26 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Gizu Ichosira wrote:


I can't find better statistics about the number of players active in each region. Since most players are paying a subscription fee to play, this data seems to indicate that Empire PvE is an important source of revenue for CCP, right? They probably care about that.


I can happily refer the group here to said statistics. John Turbefield AKA CCP Diagoras has a fantastic twitter feed where he dumps out all sorts of EvE statistics, and you can request info via twitter to him as well. He's a pretty cool dude. I suggest you "follow" him if you use twitter.

Anyways, here's the data from the latest graph he published, the data is less than two weeks old. The damn forums keep screwing up the link, I apologize.

20% Nullsec residents.
5% Wormholers.
8% Lowsec residents.
67% Highsec residents.

Keep in mind these are simply characters and where they reside, there is absolutely no way to prove how many of those are alts or mains of someone living in a different region.

All claims about who's an alt of whom are pure speculation.


Hisec, that useless, unconsequential part of the game... certainly there is no need that its dwellers are represented in the CSM... Roll
Gizu Ichosira
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#222 - 2012-02-05 09:59:11 UTC
Traxev wrote:

Its time the game was more enjoyable for every gameplay style in nullsec then it is in highsec.

You're not the only one who wants that. I suggest you take your suggestions for gameplay improvements and give them to a potential candidate who can represent your position on the CSM. That is how this works.

Traxev wrote:

Your post again picks a single point and then does nothing to refute anything in my follow up post or my main post.

It is the most efficient way to conduct forum discussions. You do it too.


We have null-sec players attempting to hijack the discussion. This is a good sign. They fear the organized carebears Roll
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#223 - 2012-02-05 10:38:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Hans Jagerblitzen
Gizu Ichosira wrote:


Thanks! I was unsure about that. The official wiki page is confusing and there is conflicting information in player forum posts and blogs.

Back to my proposed change: do you think it would be good to introduce a 'lite' component of FW that applies to all members of NPC corporations, but only in low-security space? I think it will encourage new players to form fleets for PvP without taking away their feeling of safety in high-sec space.


No joke. The Faction Warfare guide is difficult for the average player to find, and there is very little in-game to even show us basic things like intel on the progress of a system takeover. The whole interface and militia tab is horrendously outdated and more or less useless.

As for FW-lite, I'm not really in favor of forcing more people into Faction Warfare type situations until they fix the fundamental issues facing Faction Warfare to begin with. That was my only objection to them allowing Alliances in - I'm not against having more people to fight against, or having more new players come try it out, but they need to fix the core "carrot on a stick" motivational issue for people to fight over occupancy to begin with.

I argued when Soundwave first mentioned the change that it was a waste to open FW up to Alliances when most Alliances have no real reason to join right now in the first place. And that's precisely what happened, no alliances joined FW. Cause its still broke. Several of our corps have formed alliances, but only for easier sharing of bues and the like.

As for people doing more casual PvP in lowsec, I'm all for it. I think there should definitely be more ways for sec status to be less of an issue so that more "weekend warriors" can engage in lowsec pew without Concord giving a crap so much once you're back in highsec. I think there's a real strong difference between the mentality of lowsec pilots who pew for the challenge of it, and highsec gankers that do it just to **** people off. Most militias pilots only have negative sec status because we attack "suspected enemy neutral support" Blink, not because we've spent time ganking people in high sec.

Even than, the reason you see so many FW pilots engaging in lowsec piracy in their spare time is that the abundance of actual FW pilots has dwindled. Fix Faction Warfare, and you'll see most of us "behaving ourselves" and getting back to just fighting flashy oranges again.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#224 - 2012-02-05 10:48:15 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Gizu Ichosira wrote:


Thanks! I was unsure about that. The official wiki page is confusing and there is conflicting information in player forum posts and blogs.

Back to my proposed change: do you think it would be good to introduce a 'lite' component of FW that applies to all members of NPC corporations, but only in low-security space? I think it will encourage new players to form fleets for PvP without taking away their feeling of safety in high-sec space.


No joke. The Faction Warfare guide is difficult for the average player to find, and there is very little in-game to even show us basic things like intel on the progress of a system takeover. The whole interface and militia tab is horrendously outdated and more or less useless.

As for FW-lite, I'm not really in favor of forcing more people into Faction Warfare type situations until they fix the fundamental issues facing Faction Warfare to begin with. That was my only objection to them allowing Alliances in - I'm not against having more people to fight against, or having more new players come try it out, but they need to fix the core "carrot on a stick" motivational issue for people to fight over occupancy to begin with.

I argued when Soundwave first mentioned the change that it was a waste to open FW up to Alliances when most Alliances have no real reason to join right now in the first place. And that's precisely what happened, no alliances joined FW. Cause its still broke. Several of our corps have formed alliances, but only for easier sharing of bues and the like.

As for people doing more casual PvP in lowsec, I'm all for it. I think there should definitely be more ways for sec status to be less of an issue so that more "weekend warriors" can engage in lowsec pew without Concord giving a crap so much once you're back in highsec. I think there's a real strong difference between the mentality of lowsec pilots who pew for the challenge of it, and highsec gankers that do it just to **** people off. Most individuals like myself that live in lowsec only have negative sec status because we attack "suspected enemy neutral support" Blink, not because we've spent time ganking people in high sec.

Even than, the reason you see so many FW pilots engaging in lowsec piracy in their spare time is that the abundance of actual FW pilots has dwindled. Fix Faction Warfare, and you'll see most of us "behaving ourselves" and getting back to just fighting flashy oranges again.


I already suggested a nifty proposal to get hisec consensual PvP for "sports" so people could learn to PvP in a casual, friendly manner. Was another twist in the "arena" concept but a pretty solid one IMO; getting blast to pieces by an overkill is not exaclty going to tech you to PvP, and also PvP is economically inviable for most of the learning curve.

Here's the thread:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=297847#post297847
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#225 - 2012-02-05 11:04:36 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

I already suggested a nifty proposal to get hisec consensual PvP for "sports" so people could learn to PvP in a casual, friendly manner. Was another twist in the "arena" concept but a pretty solid one IMO; getting blast to pieces by an overkill is not exaclty going to tech you to PvP, and also PvP is economically inviable for most of the learning curve.


Arena PvP? Really? Did WoW just shut down recently and we got all their players? Not sure how you think your idea will teach players to PvP when it has so little in common with what EVE PvP is like.

BTW looking at your signature you do know those percentages for "EVE Residents" are for Characters not Players?
Gizu Ichosira
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#226 - 2012-02-05 11:36:43 UTC
Xorv wrote:

do know those percentages for "EVE Residents" are for Characters not Players?


Do statistics exist for Players? It seems safe to assume that the number of Characters correlates with revenue for CCP, which means the statistic is relevant to this discussion. I could be wrong about this P
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#227 - 2012-02-05 11:43:47 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

I already suggested a nifty proposal to get hisec consensual PvP for "sports" so people could learn to PvP in a casual, friendly manner. Was another twist in the "arena" concept but a pretty solid one IMO; getting blast to pieces by an overkill is not exaclty going to tech you to PvP, and also PvP is economically inviable for most of the learning curve.


Arena PvP? Really? Did WoW just shut down recently and we got all their players? Not sure how you think your idea will teach players to PvP when it has so little in common with what EVE PvP is like.

BTW looking at your signature you do know those percentages for "EVE Residents" are for Characters not Players?


So what? There is no way to draw conclussions from that stats aside that, effectively, there are 3 characters in hisec for each one in nullsec.

Which begs the question on why nullsec is deemed so important when, spin it as you want, there's always 3 times more chars in hisec than nullsec.

Demographics-wise, nullsec is in the losing end of any argument.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#228 - 2012-02-05 11:50:56 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

I already suggested a nifty proposal to get hisec consensual PvP for "sports" so people could learn to PvP in a casual, friendly manner. Was another twist in the "arena" concept but a pretty solid one IMO; getting blast to pieces by an overkill is not exaclty going to tech you to PvP, and also PvP is economically inviable for most of the learning curve.


Arena PvP? Really? Did WoW just shut down recently and we got all their players? Not sure how you think your idea will teach players to PvP when it has so little in common with what EVE PvP is like.

BTW looking at your signature you do know those percentages for "EVE Residents" are for Characters not Players?


So what? There is no way to draw conclussions from that stats aside that, effectively, there are 3 characters in hisec for each one in nullsec.

Which begs the question on why nullsec is deemed so important when, spin it as you want, there's always 3 times more chars in hisec than nullsec.

Demographics-wise, nullsec is in the losing end of any argument.


So because 0.0 players are - if not forced to have them, they're shall we say heavily disadvantaged if they don't have a couple of hi-sec alts, you conclude from this that 0.0 doesn't need any attention?

Remember when that Dev asked why CCP should "waste time" fixing AFs when nobody flew them? You're literally as bad as he is.

Additionally, if, as is my experience, 0.0 players have at least 1 empire character for every 0.0 "main", then the demographic argument actually loooks pretty bad for hi-sec focused players: they're actually in a numerical minority.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Ghazu
#229 - 2012-02-05 12:31:02 UTC
Indahmawar Fazmarai your arena idea is only acceptable only if the ships used are bought from the market.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
Vasya Kosyakov
X-Exclusion-X
#230 - 2012-02-05 13:22:25 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Goonswarm Recruitment wrote:
Goonswarm Federation, the one true Photobucket alliance hereby declares its support for the VOR. I also hereby declare my intention to make sure everything on Photobucket is VORPORN, (Voice of Reason Party Organizationally Recognized Newbees)


Thats why no one should take GSF serius


They should all be shot and removed from the "game", Racist, Bigoted, Eve Nazis that they are......
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#231 - 2012-02-05 14:21:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:

I already suggested a nifty proposal to get hisec consensual PvP for "sports" so people could learn to PvP in a casual, friendly manner. Was another twist in the "arena" concept but a pretty solid one IMO; getting blast to pieces by an overkill is not exaclty going to tech you to PvP, and also PvP is economically inviable for most of the learning curve.


Arena PvP? Really? Did WoW just shut down recently and we got all their players? Not sure how you think your idea will teach players to PvP when it has so little in common with what EVE PvP is like.

BTW looking at your signature you do know those percentages for "EVE Residents" are for Characters not Players?


So what? There is no way to draw conclussions from that stats aside that, effectively, there are 3 characters in hisec for each one in nullsec.

Which begs the question on why nullsec is deemed so important when, spin it as you want, there's always 3 times more chars in hisec than nullsec.

Demographics-wise, nullsec is in the losing end of any argument.


So because 0.0 players are - if not forced to have them, they're shall we say heavily disadvantaged if they don't have a couple of hi-sec alts, you conclude from this that 0.0 doesn't need any attention?

Remember when that Dev asked why CCP should "waste time" fixing AFs when nobody flew them? You're literally as bad as he is.

Additionally, if, as is my experience, 0.0 players have at least 1 empire character for every 0.0 "main", then the demographic argument actually loooks pretty bad for hi-sec focused players: they're actually in a numerical minority.


And in my experience, nullsec is full of AFK cloakers and bots, which means that many nullsec chars are not actual players, whcih means that both them and their "2 alts per player" are still a tiny minority. So you still lose. Roll

Seriously, with 3 chars in hisec for each one in nullsec, how can you dare to claim that hisec is not more important to nullsec? Even with your off-the-hat nonsense about "2 alts per char", then, why would they bother to have hisec alts if they weren't more relevant in hisec than in nullsec?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#232 - 2012-02-05 14:27:12 UTC
Ghazu wrote:
Indahmawar Fazmarai your arena idea is only acceptable only if the ships used are bought from the market.


Of course, who said otherwise? The PvP agents are for grief prevention (Concord spawns, entry fees and rules of engagement), but otherwise still is PvP and each player would determine how much to risk.
Traxev
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#233 - 2012-02-05 19:26:22 UTC
Gizu Ichosira wrote:
Traxev wrote:

Its time the game was more enjoyable for every gameplay style in nullsec then it is in highsec.

You're not the only one who wants that. I suggest you take your suggestions for gameplay improvements and give them to a potential candidate who can represent your position on the CSM. That is how this works.

Traxev wrote:

Your post again picks a single point and then does nothing to refute anything in my follow up post or my main post.

It is the most efficient way to conduct forum discussions. You do it too.


We have null-sec players attempting to hijack the discussion. This is a good sign. They fear the organized carebears Roll


You had 5 csms to make MEANINGFUL changes to the csm and increase its effectiveness. You barely scratched the surface compared to what csm 6 has done for the game. Why should we allow you the chance to waste a seat?
Indahmawar Fazmarai
#234 - 2012-02-05 20:20:38 UTC
Traxev wrote:
Gizu Ichosira wrote:
Traxev wrote:

Its time the game was more enjoyable for every gameplay style in nullsec then it is in highsec.

You're not the only one who wants that. I suggest you take your suggestions for gameplay improvements and give them to a potential candidate who can represent your position on the CSM. That is how this works.

Traxev wrote:

Your post again picks a single point and then does nothing to refute anything in my follow up post or my main post.

It is the most efficient way to conduct forum discussions. You do it too.


We have null-sec players attempting to hijack the discussion. This is a good sign. They fear the organized carebears Roll


You had 5 csms to make MEANINGFUL changes to the csm and increase its effectiveness. You barely scratched the surface compared to what csm 6 has done for the game. Why should we allow you the chance to waste a seat?


There is also a chance that CSM6 worked only because it learned from, and fixed, the mistakes incurred by the previous CSM, independently of their composition.
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#235 - 2012-02-05 20:23:24 UTC
Vasya Kosyakov wrote:
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Goonswarm Recruitment wrote:
Goonswarm Federation, the one true Photobucket alliance hereby declares its support for the VOR. I also hereby declare my intention to make sure everything on Photobucket is VORPORN, (Voice of Reason Party Organizationally Recognized Newbees)


Thats why no one should take GSF serius


They should all be shot and removed from the "game", Racist, Bigoted, Eve ***** that they are......


So your answer to a racist, bigoted group infesting the game is to round them all up, shoot them, and remove them from the game. That's not hypocritical at all, not one bit! Roll

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#236 - 2012-02-05 21:19:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Alavaria Fera
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vasya Kosyakov wrote:
They should all be shot and removed from the "game", Racist, Bigoted, Eve ***** that they are......

So your answer to a racist, bigoted group infesting the game is to round them all up, shoot them, and remove them from the game. That's not hypocritical at all, not one bit! Roll

Hahaha, lots of people tried doing that, but it results in explosions and ~gudfites~ so it is sort of rewarding us.

I think after the recent war started, a bunch of vets resubbed because we now have things to fight that aren't POSes.


That said, yeah we woudn't count as an unrepresented mass, we have The Mittani ~<3

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Arcathra
Technodyne Ltd.
#237 - 2012-02-06 07:15:51 UTC
Malcanis wrote:

So because 0.0 players are - if not forced to have them, they're shall we say heavily disadvantaged if they don't have a couple of hi-sec alts, you conclude from this that 0.0 doesn't need any attention?

Remember when that Dev asked why CCP should "waste time" fixing AFs when nobody flew them? You're literally as bad as he is.

Additionally, if, as is my experience, 0.0 players have at least 1 empire character for every 0.0 "main", then the demographic argument actually loooks pretty bad for hi-sec focused players: they're actually in a numerical minority.

No, actually it seems that Null-Sec and High-Sec are about even when it comes to numbers. 20% nullsec, 67% high-Sec. Assumed that every nullsec players has at least one high sec alt, the numbers would change to 40% nullsec and 47% high-sec. Even when adding the lowsec crowd to the nullsec people, we have 48% vs. 47%.

You and many other nullsec players admit that high-sec has an importance to nullsec players because of alts. What do you do with these alts? Carebearing of course to sustain your nullsec characters. So polishing of highsec is as beneficial for you nullsec players as for us high-sec players.

Of course this doesn't mean that nullsec don't needs any attention. I'm well aware that there is much that has to be done out there. But it means that high-sec needs at least as much attention.

No matter how you look at it, there is a big playerbase who likes the low-risk life of high-sec (including any nullsec player who has a high-sec alt) and that player group is as big as the nullsec player group. If CCP destroys the game experience for the high-sec crowd, they will loose about half of their player base in addition to any high-sec alts the nullsec players pay for, because they also wouldn't be practical any more. I'm not sure if EVE or CCP could survive that.

The game has two big and very different player groups and there are "zones" that more or less seperate them. But they still have a good impact on each other. I don't see any problem there, everyone can do what he likes and it is far from unreasonable to ask for some more dev support for PvE and high-sec or (at least) for one or two high-sec representatives in the CSM to bring that to CCPs attention.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#238 - 2012-02-06 07:31:39 UTC
Arcathra wrote:
You and many other nullsec players admit that high-sec has an importance to nullsec players because of alts. What do you do with these alts? Carebearing of course to sustain your nullsec characters. So polishing of highsec is as beneficial for you nullsec players as for us high-sec players.

My market alt only spends money, not makes it.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#239 - 2012-02-06 07:48:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Arcathra wrote:

No, actually it seems that Null-Sec and High-Sec are about even when it comes to numbers. 20% nullsec, 67% high-Sec. Assumed that every nullsec players has at least one high sec alt, the numbers would change to 40% nullsec and 47% high-sec. Even when adding the lowsec crowd to the nullsec people, we have 48% vs. 47%.

You and many other nullsec players admit that high-sec has an importance to nullsec players because of alts. What do you do with these alts? Carebearing of course to sustain your nullsec characters. So polishing of highsec is as beneficial for you nullsec players as for us high-sec players.

These statements are correct right up until we hit your last sentence. Most nullsec players don't want to have (at least) one alt in highsec. They'd rather keep both in null, but are put at an extreme disadvantage when competing against other null players, corps and alliance if they choose to do that.

Due to the built-in limitations of 0.0 sov, non-capital industrial/mining corps are put into obsolescence by a few jump freighters. Because why mine low-ends in 0.0 when you can just import low-end mins from empire. The roids are the same, the hulk is the same, except there are more refineries in highsec, that yield a better refine rate and CONCORD instanukes anyone who breathes at you as a bonus. Why manufacture modules or research anything in nullsec when you can just build or buy everything behind a dec shielded/NPC corp alt with 100% safety, with even your POSs enjoying ridiculous protection? And if you don't do that you can bet your enemies will, and they will beat you thanks to that edge in efficiency. So there's no point in bothering to import PvErs in ones' alliance, and not much point from the bears' perspective either. And that's a loss for both them and the people who want to find targets when they go on roams.

With ever increasing safety and isk fountains into highsec without corresponding risk, more and more once nullsec-only players are using highsec for all their PvE needs, making null an ever more quiet desert beyond the tightly packed fleet roam. I believer very few nullsec players would care if the game was rebalanced to the point where it made sense that they did all their PvE in null, so long as it meant their competition had to as well.

This is what is meant when you hear CSM6 talking about "Farms & Fields" slogan, and it should be an alarm bell when the drone russian delegates are pushing for economic reform.
Arcathra
Technodyne Ltd.
#240 - 2012-02-06 08:02:07 UTC
You are right. As far as I can tell (never was in nullsec) that seems to be one of the bigger problems in nullsec. The dependency or perceived dependency of high-sec. I agree with you that there has to be done something about that. No one should be dependent on a part of the game that he don't wants to play. But that also applies to high-sec players. They don't want to be forced into something because it benefits nullsec in some way. Not that surprising that they feel a little bit left out even though they are not that tiny minority that some nullsec people always try to make of them.

The questions are what can be done to make the situation for nullsec better? Maybe some changes have to come to high-sec but this has to be dicussed with the high-sec people. I'm sure there can be found some kind of middle ground both can live with. At the moment it seems that it is perceived by a lot of high-sec players that nullsec players try to force changes to get rid of them and their playing style. Considering that we have as much high-sec players as nullsec players that can't be the way to go, can it?

That is the reason we need one or two good candidates to make that discussions even possible.