These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#441 - 2012-03-05 21:46:09 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
With WiS (and Walking in Ships While They're in Stations), would I be able to undock with someone else in my ship? Like, have passengers that aren't exotic dancers or homeless people? As in, actual players? This has interesting gameplay implications, since I could then in theory fly someone with -10 sec into hisec in any ship.


I never did get an answer to this. I think it's a fair question.


I think passengers in ships is an interesting idea.

Issler


So someone tries to take you seriously and engage you as a candidate on this issue, and this is all you have to offer? This is what you'll say to CCP when you're on the CSM and they say, "Hey, we think it might be cool if you could smuggle players around as passengers in ships, what do you think?" Because, as you know, that's what your role will be, and as the primary (and probably only) advocate of WiS, you're the one the CSM would likely turn to for this issue. And what will you give them? That you think it's an interesting idea?

Personally, I don't really care about walking in stations or passengers in ships or riverini's panty dropper button, but I do think that if something is proposed that would alter gameplay significantly (like bypassing security/standings would), a CSM member should be able to formulate an opinion on it or at least run through what some of the implications might be.
Flamespar
WarRavens
#442 - 2012-03-06 00:01:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Flamespar
Johnny Marzetti wrote:

Personally, I don't really care about walking in stations or passengers in ships or riverini's panty dropper button, but I do think that if something is proposed that would alter gameplay significantly (like bypassing security/standings would), a CSM member should be able to formulate an opinion on it or at least run through what some of the implications might be.


Imagine the fun to be had in tricking someone you don't like to jump on as a passenger, taking an unexpected detour to a low sec system, ejecting them at a remote location, and then watching their face as your corp mates decloak and make them go pop.

Or imagine the kill mail fun to be had when you destroy a frigate only to discover that it was carrying a full load of monocle wearing capsuleers all with expensive implants.

If CCP went down this path, the would probably need to do it in conjunction with other features with a 'shady deals/black market' focus to give players a compelling reason to not fly their own ship, but to fly undercover in someone elses.
Taiwanistan
#443 - 2012-03-06 01:37:07 UTC
Issler Dainze wrote:
Taiwanistan wrote:
what do you say issler?

Indahmawar Fazmarai wrote:
Hai Boiz wrote:
People like to chit chat.

They do it at home. They do it at work. And they do it in eve-o. People have been chatting in this thread alone for months and months and 170 pages.

Some like to chat while flying in space. Some like to chat while spinning their ship. I'd like to sit across from someone in a station and chat. Why would a ship spinner want to deny me that little pleasure? Let me have a guest over for a nice quaffe and a little quality conversation.

XX



As I've pointed out several times, social gameplay is the mother of emergent gameplay. It needs a minimal investment in infrastructure and can keep players amused like forever. Just hand out some tools and allow people use them. Organized gameplay is cool to have, NPC interaction is cool, but from a cost/profit POV there is nothing as effective as just let people interact through avatars. Throw in some "hologram" technology so they're not forced to be aboard the same station and ther you go. Now add some advantages to physically being there (I already suggested stuff like kissing, caressing, punching, slapping... or dancing, if CCP were up to a tough ball; i've been iterating on the dance concept and I am figuring ways so two players can syncronize their moves within EVE's 1 second server frames... I don't mean "hit dance emote, do silly moves", rather "press the right keys at the right time so the server is fed the right "combos" from both sides at the right time and plays the right animation... in my limited knowledge, nobody ever tried that online...)

Err, to the point, there are lots of things that can be done as tools for friendly social interaction. If someone wants avatar PvP, they may have it, as long as it is not shoved down the throat of every player. Stations are griefing free zones and should stay like that. The worst that can happen in a station is being scammed and that must stay like that.



Is there a question in there?

Issler Dainze
The Miner's Friend
CSM 7 Candidate


not really a question, just hope you read what your constituents have in mind. and are you really going to condone this kind of crap and bring this crap to the devs if elected.

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."
None ofthe Above
#444 - 2012-03-06 01:50:10 UTC
Refr King wrote:
Dez Affinity wrote:
Refr King wrote:
Agreed on your points Issler.

To the Above Comment

ยง106A. Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
Exceptions.

(1)
The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2)
The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
(3)
The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work in, upon, or in any connection with any item described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of the definition of "work of visual art" in section 101 [17 USC 101], and any such reproduction, depiction, portrayal, or other use of a work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in paragraph (3) of subsection (a).


Did you even read what you are quoting?


Yes and this falls under the parody exception so long as the Rights holder is not being harmed in anyway and there are no claims that they are representative of the products or services in question.


FYI - Not that I am taking sides or anything, but arguing this under copyright law is off the mark. What you want is trademark law, particularly trademark dilution.

I am not a lawyer, but I have been accused of being a satirist, to the point of getting cease and desist letters on the subject. So I guess that makes me something of an expert. What?

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.
Taiwanistan
#445 - 2012-03-06 01:51:48 UTC
"I don't mean "hit dance emote, do silly moves", rather "press the right keys at the right time so the server is fed the right "combos" from both sides at the right time and plays the right animation... in my limited knowledge, nobody ever tried that online..."
there you go indahamar farwahwhiney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GekyXMQ7U8Y


christ that dude wants eve online to go full on korean style sandbox. and i am really afraid of these new changes because i am so narrow-minded

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."
Ka P'lah
Doomheim
#446 - 2012-03-06 03:34:57 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:


[Issler not taking the bait of stale old fear tactics (i.e.: They wanna make EVE into some kind of pathetic spacepantsglitterdisco! AAAA! AAAA!) ]




...Is there a question in there?

Issler Dainze
The Miner's Friend
CSM 7 Candidate


not really a question, just hope you read what your constituents have in mind. and are you really going to condone this kind of crap and bring this crap to the devs if elected.


Oh come on. Thinking it's a good idea to keep a very close eye on how CCP develops EVE to try and influence them to do WiS / avatar-based gameplay stuff right and not repeat the disaster of incarna while keeping the proper balance of their resources allocated towards FiS stuff first but not ignoring the idea of WiS done right = wanting the spacedisco thing you're trying to scare people with?

Minta Contha
Emergent Entity
#447 - 2012-03-06 14:07:39 UTC
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
With WiS (and Walking in Ships While They're in Stations), would I be able to undock with someone else in my ship? Like, have passengers that aren't exotic dancers or homeless people? As in, actual players? This has interesting gameplay implications, since I could then in theory fly someone with -10 sec into hisec in any ship.


I never did get an answer to this. I think it's a fair question.


I think passengers in ships is an interesting idea.

Issler


So someone tries to take you seriously and engage you as a candidate on this issue, and this is all you have to offer? This is what you'll say to CCP when you're on the CSM and they say, "Hey, we think it might be cool if you could smuggle players around as passengers in ships, what do you think?" Because, as you know, that's what your role will be, and as the primary (and probably only) advocate of WiS, you're the one the CSM would likely turn to for this issue. And what will you give them? That you think it's an interesting idea?

Personally, I don't really care about walking in stations or passengers in ships or riverini's panty dropper button, but I do think that if something is proposed that would alter gameplay significantly (like bypassing security/standings would), a CSM member should be able to formulate an opinion on it or at least run through what some of the implications might be.


Would you rather that Issler gave you a glib detailed paragraph of her thoughts on this just off the top of her head, without consulting other players, so that when she describes something you disagree with you can scream, "that would never work!" and make her look like she doesn't think things through?
It's far more honest of her to admit that it's an interesting idea but she has not yet thought out how it should be implemented just yet. It's not the job of all CSM members to have an exact blueprint in their heads of how every single minute aspect of Eve and all the ideas people come up with should be made to work. Passengers in ships is a very complex issue.

My cooking is like my lovemaking - fast, greasy, and unsatisfying.
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#448 - 2012-03-06 14:55:39 UTC
Minta Contha wrote:

Would you rather that Issler gave you a glib detailed paragraph of her thoughts on this just off the top of her head, without consulting other players, so that when she describes something you disagree with you can scream, "that would never work!" and make her look like she doesn't think things through?
It's far more honest of her to admit that it's an interesting idea but she has not yet thought out how it should be implemented just yet. It's not the job of all CSM members to have an exact blueprint in their heads of how every single minute aspect of Eve and all the ideas people come up with should be made to work. Passengers in ships is a very complex issue.


Am I talking to Issler now? Can you let me talk to Issler? Is this Peggy? Vanessa? What happened in the green kitchen?
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#449 - 2012-03-06 19:25:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Issler Dainze
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Issler Dainze wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
With WiS (and Walking in Ships While They're in Stations), would I be able to undock with someone else in my ship? Like, have passengers that aren't exotic dancers or homeless people? As in, actual players? This has interesting gameplay implications, since I could then in theory fly someone with -10 sec into hisec in any ship.


I never did get an answer to this. I think it's a fair question.


I think passengers in ships is an interesting idea.

Issler


So someone tries to take you seriously and engage you as a candidate on this issue, and this is all you have to offer? This is what you'll say to CCP when you're on the CSM and they say, "Hey, we think it might be cool if you could smuggle players around as passengers in ships, what do you think?" Because, as you know, that's what your role will be, and as the primary (and probably only) advocate of WiS, you're the one the CSM would likely turn to for this issue. And what will you give them? That you think it's an interesting idea?

Personally, I don't really care about walking in stations or passengers in ships or riverini's panty dropper button, but I do think that if something is proposed that would alter gameplay significantly (like bypassing security/standings would), a CSM member should be able to formulate an opinion on it or at least run through what some of the implications might be.


I have stated repeatedly is is not my role as a member of the CSM to be the "good idea" fairy. I am looking to work with the player base to filter and refine what to bring to CCP. I like the idea that you suggested and would definitely include it and invite you as well in the conversation related to the future of ambulation. I'm sorry I didn't provide an answer down to the color of the doors and the shape of the portals. I gave you a general answer because I liked your idea and I didn't think this is the time or place, or even the correct audience to "design" this feature.

If you want a feature design discussion I'd suggest the WiS thread I started referenced recently in the dev blog about Team Avatar.

Issler Dainze
The Miner's Friend
CSM 7 Candidate
Johnny Marzetti
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#450 - 2012-03-06 20:36:24 UTC
Actually this was all just meant to lead to a punch line along the lines of "an in-game way for me to give someone a ride on my rocket" but I'm too bored to continue with this farce.
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#451 - 2012-03-06 21:30:07 UTC
Johnny Marzetti wrote:
Actually this was all just meant to lead to a punch line along the lines of "an in-game way for me to give someone a ride on my rocket" but I'm too bored to continue with this farce.


I will try and be more interesting in the future.

Issler Dainze
The Miner's Friend
CSM 7 Candidate

(keep working on that rocket ride.... I'm sure you will find someone in Eve that would take you up on that! Big smile)
Aedh Phelan
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#452 - 2012-03-07 04:00:38 UTC
She's my CEO. So, yes, I should have a high opinion of her. Otherwise, I should seek a beter CEO.
She's never demanded we do anything we didn't have time or desire to do. Actually, she's never made a demand that was cogent to our membership except perhaps the fact that we exercise restraint and respect in our dealings with new players.
She doesn't expect us to want what she wants. She only asks for our opinions and preferences, which she tries very hard to make a part of the fabric of Tada-O if it is not damaging to the corporation.

I support her candidacy for CSM7. I expect she will bring a similar model of communication in her representation of Empire needs to CSM7. More importantly, There absolutely needs to be members of the CSM that support the needs of the Empire player base beyond the ancilliary benefits generated by the nullsec power bloc agenda.

This affirmation, in no way suggests that I discount positive accomplishments made by members of CSM6, however, the significant weighting of the current membership toward the lowest security occupation combined with the highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls creates an environment in which no reasonable person should be expected to trust the CSM membership to properly represent all facets of the sandbox objectively.

Issler Dainze for CSM7.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#453 - 2012-03-07 04:04:58 UTC
Aedh Phelan wrote:
This affirmation, in no way suggests that I discount positive accomplishments made by members of CSM6, however, the significant weighting of the current membership toward the lowest security occupation combined with the highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls creates an environment in which no reasonable person should be expected to trust the CSM membership to properly represent all facets of the sandbox objectively.


Yet CSM6 managed to represent all facets of the sandbox objectively without demanding things (like neglecting Eve gameplay for more WiS nonsense) that would be harmful to the future of the game.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Aedh Phelan
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#454 - 2012-03-07 04:29:31 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Aedh Phelan wrote:
This affirmation, in no way suggests that I discount positive accomplishments made by members of CSM6, however, the significant weighting of the current membership toward the lowest security occupation combined with the highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls creates an environment in which no reasonable person should be expected to trust the CSM membership to properly represent all facets of the sandbox objectively.


Yet CSM6 managed to represent all facets of the sandbox objectively without demanding things (like neglecting Eve gameplay for more WiS nonsense) that would be harmful to the future of the game.


IYHO and note: "highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls"
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#455 - 2012-03-07 05:31:28 UTC
Aedh Phelan wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Aedh Phelan wrote:
This affirmation, in no way suggests that I discount positive accomplishments made by members of CSM6, however, the significant weighting of the current membership toward the lowest security occupation combined with the highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls creates an environment in which no reasonable person should be expected to trust the CSM membership to properly represent all facets of the sandbox objectively.


Yet CSM6 managed to represent all facets of the sandbox objectively without demanding things (like neglecting Eve gameplay for more WiS nonsense) that would be harmful to the future of the game.


IYHO and note: "highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls"


Do you have any evidence of CSM6 doing something that was harmful to any group of people in Eve? I keep hearing how CSM6 was totally focused on nullsec issues and did horrible things to highsec dwellers but I have yet to see a single example of this. By watching what happened over the course of the year and reading the CSM minutes all I can see is a CSM that was good for all Eve players.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#456 - 2012-03-07 05:48:05 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Aedh Phelan wrote:
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Aedh Phelan wrote:
This affirmation, in no way suggests that I discount positive accomplishments made by members of CSM6, however, the significant weighting of the current membership toward the lowest security occupation combined with the highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls creates an environment in which no reasonable person should be expected to trust the CSM membership to properly represent all facets of the sandbox objectively.


Yet CSM6 managed to represent all facets of the sandbox objectively without demanding things (like neglecting Eve gameplay for more WiS nonsense) that would be harmful to the future of the game.


IYHO and note: "highly aggressive nature of the power bloc forum trolls"


Do you have any evidence of CSM6 doing something that was harmful to any group of people in Eve? I keep hearing how CSM6 was totally focused on nullsec issues and did horrible things to highsec dwellers but I have yet to see a single example of this. By watching what happened over the course of the year and reading the CSM minutes all I can see is a CSM that was good for all Eve players.


"Neglet", encompasses a huge spectrum of harmfull failings in my book. It is not an unknown view of who or what certain individuals represent.

The Mittani wrote:
Politics is about power and conflict. Some lie about it. I don't have to

&

Every CSM represents their own constituents. Some have delusions about 'representing everyone'. I do not.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#457 - 2012-03-07 06:02:38 UTC
So you still can't come up with one example of how anybody playing Eve was hurt by CSM6?

The truth is, Issler, that everybody benefited from CSM6's work whether they voted for any of them or not. You're mad that they helped CCP see how much all the WiS nonsense was hurting the game and your entire candidacy is based on that but without the CSM's help during the Summer of Rage Eve would be a wasteland right now. No amount of sock puppets is going to change that.

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Delici Feelgood
Doomheim
#458 - 2012-03-07 06:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Delici Feelgood
Ladie Harlot wrote:
So you still can't come up with one example of how anybody playing Eve was hurt by CSM6?


I guess your capacity for understanding can only be determined by tangeable pain inflicted as a result of something being created as opposed to being ignored. Hard to prove the absence of something especially if not discussed in the minutes. As would be neglected issues.

However, even though not implemented (and seem in some cases to have dimished interest seeing as the first point was relegated to bugs and other features in the December minutes) here are some example of high sec prejudice evident in the CSM minutes and other sources:

CSM minute May 2011 wrote:
The CSM believes that nullsec needs to be more self-sufficient from hisec, at the industrial level. The CSM suggested that nullsec should be able to produce T2 goods at higher margins than in hisec. Many ideas were thrown around, such as making T2 production superior in nullsec compared to hisec as well as adding many more factory and research slots in nullsec outposts. The CSM suggested that high technology products come from nullsec - they can be done in hisec, but with better margins in null. The CSM was intrigued by the idea of allowing meta-level item production in lowsec, creating a continuum of t1 - meta - t2 across hi/low/null. Most of the CSM favored the idea of increasing invention chances in 0.0 compared to hisec.


and

The Mittani wrote:
I'd kind of like to see Learning Implants vanish ........ However, this isn't really a major priority for me. I might bring it over beer in Islenskibarinn, but it's not going to be a summit topic and something I expend vast amounts of political capital on, like I have on supercaps.

and then from recent CSM Minutes:

One CSM stated a point in favor of removing learning implants, as that would be a nerf to highsec income, and he is always in favor of those where possible. Other members of the CSM were quick to object to that suggestion. Another CSM objected to "his peeps being thrown under the bus


Ladir Harlot wrote:
The truth is, Issler, that everybody benefited from CSM6's work whether they voted for any of them or not. You're mad that they helped CCP see how much all the WiS nonsense was hurting the game and your entire candidacy is based on that but without the CSM's help during the Summer of Rage Eve would be a wasteland right now. No amount of sock puppets is going to change that.


Which came first the chicken or the egg?

According to what the Mittani would like to have you think; the redirection of CCP due to Incarna had nothing to do in terms of player demonstrations or other more commercial influences like cancelled subs, even though CCP have attributed their U-turn on incarna to player interest. Or that the CSM used it for argument in the emergency summit:

CSM minutes wrote:
The second leg of the session involved showing the CSM how Incarna was received in terms of subscriber numbers and trends as well as informing them of other business and analytics metrics.


Seems the point had been made even before the emergency summit as a result.

Logically you should be aware the CSM would not exist without revenue of course. And I doubt it's lost to many as to the relevance of income to a commerical company.
Taiwanistan
#459 - 2012-03-07 06:20:55 UTC
yet issler is openly against the slow-burn state of wis development.
she wants to squander more resources on wis, that is not acceptable to many players.

TA on wis: "when we have a feature that is its own functional ecosystem of gameplay then hooks into the greater ecosystem of EVE as a whole, and it provides good replayability."
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#460 - 2012-03-07 08:26:51 UTC
Taiwanistan wrote:
yet issler is openly against the slow-burn state of wis development.
she wants to squander more resources on wis, that is not acceptable to many players.


Your incorrect interpretation of my position.

I believe ambulation has the potential to grow Eve more than any other element in Eve. If you want to know what I really think about ambulation and find the largest thread in the new forums, sit down and read the nearly 200 pages and you will find many posts on where I think ambulation fits in the future of Eve, while you are reading that notice how many other players agree with me.

So thanks for the random goon snipe/bump.

Issler Dainze
The Miner's Friend
CSM 7 Candidate