These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#381 - 2013-02-18 06:40:49 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:


The fact that you posted on the goons' version of Pravda DOES mean you are affiliated with them, or have like-minded views.


The fact that you would say this shows how completely ignorant of any actual facts you truely are. Good job. The writers of TMC have one single thing in common with goons: They hate Riverini and his Faux News24.

I think he'll be fine though, even without your vote.


Malcanis is a good man, I've known him for years, and he knows his EVE stuff (even the parts nobody else cares about).

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#382 - 2013-02-18 08:45:48 UTC
Just my opinion:

1. Leave the carebears alone! They are cute and cuddly... most are also ransomable. (Not that I would ransom them... honest. Roll)

Correct me if I'm wrong:
You seem to believe that a lucrative high-sec hurts other areas of the game. And that players aren't making full use of the risk vs reward of low/null sec.

Fact is, many pvpers, especially full-time ones are funded by high-sec alts who mine, mission, run incursions, station trade, jita scam and do other high sec gimmicks. Most PVP is pointless destruction done for kill-mails, and for enlarging e-p******.

Very few things in low-sec is worth the risk of certain death. Unless we join you "safe" null-sec coalitions, there's really not much industry to be done outside of high-sec.

2. I believe that in outpost destruction, EVERYTHING should burn. If I kill your infrastructure, I want to hurt you bad... You null-sec dwellers afraid to lose your shiny ships? That's as hilarious as E-Uni vets refusing to take risks on roams because they're wearing billion isk-implants...

When you undock, you agree to lose your ship. When you enter 0.0, you agree to risk everything you have there.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#383 - 2013-02-18 11:59:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Just my opinion:

1. Leave the carebears alone! They are cute and cuddly... most are also ransomable. (Not that I would ransom them... honest. Roll)

Correct me if I'm wrong:
You seem to believe that a lucrative high-sec hurts other areas of the game.


You are 100% wrong here. I have stated many times and will do so again here: hi-sec should definitely offer high level gameplay. However it is incontestable that certain aspects of hisec need rebalancing. Hi-sec stations are far too good compared to player built stations, and as a point of principle as well as game balance, I believe that NPC elements shouldn't overshadow player actions. CCP have correctly removed NPC supplied trade goods, POS, POS mods, etc, in favour of allowing the player economy to supply these items, and I think it's time to similarly start gradually deprecating NPC facilities in favour of player created ones.

Amyclas Amatin wrote:
And that players aren't making full use of the risk vs reward of low/null sec.


Not quite sure what you mean by this. Please amplify.

Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Fact is, many pvpers, especially full-time ones are funded by high-sec alts who mine, mission, run incursions, station trade, jita scam and do other high sec gimmicks. Most PVP is pointless destruction done for kill-mails, and for enlarging e-p******.
Very few things in low-sec is worth the risk of certain death. Unless we join you "safe" null-sec coalitions, there's really not much industry to be done outside of high-sec.


I don't see what's wrong with pvpers having alts for non combat activities. I do see a very great problem with nullsec players being forced to keep those alts in hi-sec because it's not viable to conduct those activities in their own space. The risk you speak of exists, even in so called "safe" nullsec. That risk (including the long term actuarial risk of losing the space and the stations altogether) is one that needs to be accounted for when we're discussing a hi-sec/0.0/lo-sec industry rebalance.


Amyclas Amatin wrote:
2. I believe that in outpost destruction, EVERYTHING should burn. If I kill your infrastructure, I want to hurt you bad... You null-sec dwellers afraid to lose your shiny ships? That's as hilarious as E-Uni vets refusing to take risks on roams because they're wearing billion isk-implants...

When you undock, you agree to lose your ship. When you enter 0.0, you agree to risk everything you have there.


I wholly agree; what player hands can build, player hands should be able to destroy. In fact I made the original outpost destruction proposal, which was accepted by CSM5 and presented to CCP. However, making outposts destructible would make the need to improve their utility even stronger.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#384 - 2013-02-19 01:04:50 UTC
Quote:
You are 100% wrong here. I have stated many times and will do so again here: hi-sec should definitely offer high level gameplay. However it is incontestable that certain aspects of hisec need rebalancing. Hi-sec stations are far too good compared to player built stations, and as a point of principle as well as game balance, I believe that NPC elements shouldn't overshadow player actions. CCP have correctly removed NPC supplied trade goods, POS, POS mods, etc, in favour of allowing the player economy to supply these items, and I think it's time to similarly start gradually deprecating NPC facilities in favour of player created ones.


I'm not sure if the answer is in nerfing high-sec. Perhaps a null-sec buff would be better? Otherwise, from the perspective of high-sec dwellers, it would seem that you are trying to drag them down to your level.

Quote:
Quote:
And that players aren't making full use of the risk vs reward of low/null sec.


Not quite sure what you mean by this. Please amplify.


I'm referring to the carebear problem. Many players avoid PVP like the plague. And I feel that the current incentives to go into low or null-sec to carebear just isn't high enough. I do some of my PVE/carebearing in low-sec because it's FUN. I'm a nut who likes looking over my shoulder to check the d-scan every 10 seconds. But... it's not as profitable as grinding level 4 missions in high-sec.

Quote:
I don't see what's wrong with pvpers having alts for non combat activities. I do see a very great problem with nullsec players being forced to keep those alts in hi-sec because it's not viable to conduct those activities in their own space. The risk you speak of exists, even in so called "safe" nullsec. That risk (including the long term actuarial risk of losing the space and the stations altogether) is one that needs to be accounted for when we're discussing a hi-sec/0.0/lo-sec industry rebalance.


Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.

Quote:
I wholly agree; what player hands can build, player hands should be able to destroy. In fact I made the original outpost destruction proposal, which was accepted by CSM5 and presented to CCP. However, making outposts destructible would make the need to improve their utility even stronger.


I fully support any proposal that lets us blow things up. But I think the asset loss thing could be more hardcore. Everything should be destructible/steal-able... that way outpost bashing could even become a business. But according to the CSM notes, CCP seems concerned about how asset loss would hurt/anger players. In a null-sec situation, I think fear of loss is hilarious.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Mallak Azaria
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#385 - 2013-02-19 01:57:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Mallak Azaria
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.


Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#386 - 2013-02-19 02:23:13 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.


Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option.


So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#387 - 2013-02-19 03:41:32 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.


Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option.


So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?

There is only so much one can buff really. So long as perfect efficiencies are attainable in NPC stations you have no room to buff player built installations. In the end the answer to your question is yes, though mainly because industry outside highsec is largely irrelevant right now.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#388 - 2013-02-19 07:29:13 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.


Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option.


So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?


His point is that in an eve where both highsec and nullsec had 50 build slot stations with perfect refines everywhere and the only difference was that the multi-billion isk outpost could be destroyed with everything in it, people (industrialists especially) are going to pick the highsec stations every time. That's the whole point behind "nerf highsec" here. Some people want to simply stomp it into the ground, others - myself and Malcanis included - see it as more like a heavy missile vs heavy assault missile sort of situation. To give the necessary room to make HAMs viable, HMs had to be nerfed a bit. In the case of stations, you can't make an outpost better than perfect, so unless things like faster build times or more slots are enough of an advantage (unlikely), something in highsec has to give.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#389 - 2013-02-19 09:33:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.


Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option.


So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?


In order to make productive professions viable in 0.0, CCP would literally have to pay people, and pay them quite a bit, to do them there to make them competitive with the incredible subsidies that hi-sec gets. Since I'm not in favour of nerfing anything out of spite or the sheer lack of willingness to think of reasonable alternatives, I'd be delighted to incorporate your suggestions instead.

When you make them, please bear in mind that hi-sec production is done in stations that are provided for free, instead of costing 10s of billions of ISK, use of the production lines is so cheap it might as well be free, the stations can never change hands so there's no risk of being locked out and losing your investment or even having to spend the time to set up your supply chain again, there are no sovereignty bills or sov structure investments, there are multiple stations in a single system, reducing travel overhead and risk, CONCORD deter attack 24/7, for free, 100% refineries are readily available with minimum investment and skills.... and so on. All of that has a quantifiable value as a subsidy. A large value.

There are only so many efficiency advantages CCP can give to 0.0 industry. Somewhere along the line I simply can't see an alternative to reducing the subsidies that hi-sec industry gets. If you can provide one, then I will tip my hat to you, sir.

EDIT: To anticipate the reply which I suspect you will make, the value of Technetium has been reduced by almost 2/3 last I checked. I don't anticipate that hi-sec industry will need a nerf nearly as strong as that.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Sable Moran
Moran Light Industries
#390 - 2013-02-19 10:30:15 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
hi-sec production [... snip ...] use of the production lines is so cheap it might as well be free


What do you think of extending the office rent mechanism to manufacturing/research slot cost? I.e. if all slots are in use the cost per hour increases. Would that fix (even partially) this issue? Or would that perhaps hit new players too hard? I have no idea what new players would consider too high a price for a M/R slot.

Sable's Ammo Shop at Alentene V - Moon 4 - Duvolle Labs Factory. Hybrid charges, Projectile ammo, Missiles, Drones, Ships, Need'em? We have'em, at affordable prices. Pop in at our Ammo Shop in sunny Alentene.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#391 - 2013-02-19 14:22:56 UTC
Sable Moran wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
hi-sec production [... snip ...] use of the production lines is so cheap it might as well be free


What do you think of extending the office rent mechanism to manufacturing/research slot cost? I.e. if all slots are in use the cost per hour increases. Would that fix (even partially) this issue? Or would that perhaps hit new players too hard? I have no idea what new players would consider too high a price for a M/R slot.


That's certainly a possibility, and it would make a lot of sense. Youd end up with the high value, short duration jobs concentrating near the hubs (eg: building faction mods and ships), and the high bulk, low margin jobs like battleship production being distributed further out. I'd also be in favour of adding a variation that takes sec status into account. In addition to other considerations, this would be a useful ISK sink to help replace some of the big ones we've lost over the years as CCP have shifted us away from the NPC economy.

Long term, the real solution is to move productive activities to POS, such that using player owned facilities is preferable to NPC owned ones. But that needs CCP to rework POS to make the tolerable to use first. Meanwhile, let's at least balance between the facilities we have.

You can put in protections for new player systems by (for instance) harshly restricting the maximum job time to a few hours so that it's not possible to build 100 tier 3 BS at a time in a 1.0 station. Put in plenty of lines for noobs making their own Cormarant or whatever, but make them uneconomic with that type of restriction to use for high-level production.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Amyclas Amatin
SUNDERING
Goonswarm Federation
#392 - 2013-02-19 14:38:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
Maybe your stations need a buff. Nerfing high-sec will result in a lot of screaming.


Nullsec stations do need a buff but highsec stations also need a huge nerf, otherwise buffing nullsec stations would be pointless. People would keep using the better & safe option.


So in essence, you want to nerf one form of play-style to make your own more relevant?


In order to make productive professions viable in 0.0, CCP would literally have to pay people, and pay them quite a bit, to do them there to make them competitive with the incredible subsidies that hi-sec gets. Since I'm not in favour of nerfing anything out of spite or the sheer lack of willingness to think of reasonable alternatives, I'd be delighted to incorporate your suggestions instead.

When you make them, please bear in mind that hi-sec production is done in stations that are provided for free, instead of costing 10s of billions of ISK, use of the production lines is so cheap it might as well be free, the stations can never change hands so there's no risk of being locked out and losing your investment or even having to spend the time to set up your supply chain again, there are no sovereignty bills or sov structure investments, there are multiple stations in a single system, reducing travel overhead and risk, CONCORD deter attack 24/7, for free, 100% refineries are readily available with minimum investment and skills.... and so on. All of that has a quantifiable value as a subsidy. A large value.

There are only so many efficiency advantages CCP can give to 0.0 industry. Somewhere along the line I simply can't see an alternative to reducing the subsidies that hi-sec industry gets. If you can provide one, then I will tip my hat to you, sir.

EDIT: To anticipate the reply which I suspect you will make, the value of Technetium has been reduced by almost 2/3 last I checked. I don't anticipate that hi-sec industry will need a nerf nearly as strong as that.


A possible long-term improvement to player-owned outposts would be modular or upgradable outposts, just like the coming modular POSes. Perhaps billions of ISK could be invested to add yet even more research/manufacturing slots and/or improve refining efficiency.

I still disagree with nerfing high-sec production to create demand for null-sec production. As it is, the main reason for null production is a logistics base closer to home for the null alliances. There's no need to force the carebears into null using market pressure. High-sec industry players will hate it, a lot.

As it is, the wind seems to be blowing against a high-sec nerf. The latest patch added more manufacturing lines to high-sec space, and
Quote:
With really good skills, NPC corp standing and a 50% base output NPC station you can now actually get a 100% refinery output.
.

I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.

For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/

Remember that whenever you have a bad day in EVE, the correct reponse is "Thank you CCP, may I please have another?"
Farasoloni
North Eastern Swat
#393 - 2013-02-19 14:43:35 UTC
Malcanis is a good man, also he's one of the few duders that know how to make(and appreciate!) a proper Gin Tonic.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#394 - 2013-02-19 14:48:23 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:


I still disagree with nerfing high-sec production to create demand for null-sec production. As it is, the main reason for null production is a logistics base closer to home for the null alliances. There's no need to force the carebears into null using market pressure. High-sec industry players will hate it, a lot...


This isn't about forcing anyone to go anywhere. Please read more carefully what I've been saying. This is about making it viable for 0.0 players to bring their alts back home, because at the moment they're forced to operate them in hi-sec.


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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#395 - 2013-02-19 16:47:13 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
As it is, the wind seems to be blowing against a high-sec nerf. The latest patch added more manufacturing lines to high-sec space, and
Quote:
With really good skills, NPC corp standing and a 50% base output NPC station you can now actually get a 100% refinery output.
.

I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.


This was a display fix more than anything else. You could get 100% before but it would appear as 99.95% or something.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#396 - 2013-02-19 17:51:49 UTC
In any case I am perfectly fine with hi-sec having plenty of production slots so long as CCP make production in 0.0 more efficient to compensate for the subsidies that hi-sec gets.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#397 - 2013-02-19 17:56:06 UTC
Amyclas Amatin wrote:
A possible long-term improvement to player-owned outposts would be modular or upgradable outposts, just like the coming modular POSes. Perhaps billions of ISK could be invested to add yet even more research/manufacturing slots and/or improve refining efficiency.

Considering there are absolutely no shortage of manufacturing slots within 2 jumps or less of Jita, and the fact that perfect refines are easy as pie to achieve, I'd love to hear what sort of improvements you think would actually be enough to make me bring my industrial capacity away from hisec and into nullsec? Where would I be getting my minerals from?

Amyclas Amatin wrote:
I still disagree with nerfing high-sec production to create demand for null-sec production. As it is, the main reason for null production is a logistics base closer to home for the null alliances. There's no need to force the carebears into null using market pressure. High-sec industry players will hate it, a lot.

I find it interesting how, whenever this topic is discussed, no matter how reasonably it is put, someone inevitably always comes up with "don't force carebears into null!".

I don't want to force carebears into null, since most people who categorize themselves as carebears tend to be whiny about anything resembling risk. I'd rather CCP actually made it possible for nullsec to compete with hisec, and I don't think a full, well-developed nullsec region (I'm sure someone can bother thinking up how many billions has been spent even just putting up stations over the years) should have issues even matching a single hisec system 2 jumps from Jita.

Amyclas Amatin wrote:
I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.

So given the fact that I can find a system in hisec within 2 jumps of Jita with more industrial capacity than most regions in nullsec, with perfect refinery, mostly safe transport etc, all for free (I call paying 2k to manufacture a maelstrom in 3 hours and in perfect safety "free"), what sort of buffs and features should nullsec get to incentivize people like me back into nullsec with my industrial alts? Keep in mind that we'd prefer to avoid powercreep if we can.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#398 - 2013-02-19 18:00:10 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Amyclas Amatin wrote:


[quote=Amyclas Amatin]I respect your position, and I sincerely hope to see more null-sec buffs and features. But I can't agree with doing it at the expense of high-sec.

So given the fact that I can find a system in hisec within 2 jumps of Jita with more industrial capacity than most regions in nullsec, with perfect refinery, mostly safe transport etc, all for free (I call paying 2k to manufacture a maelstrom in 3 hours and in perfect safety "free"), what sort of buffs and features should nullsec get to incentivize people like me back into nullsec with my industrial alts? Keep in mind that we'd prefer to avoid powercreep if we can.


Even more than powercreep, we need to avoid being able to build a ship for less minerals than you can get from reprocessing it.

Really, if we want to make 0.0 production competitive with hi-sec, the only alternative to charging hi-sec producers vaguely realistic prices for using NPC facilities is for CCP to literally pay people to to produce in 0.0.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#399 - 2013-02-19 18:01:39 UTC
I was contemplating mentioning that. I'd make frigates and reprocess them all day erry day if it meant I made money. It wouldn't be very productive or healthy for the game, but I'd do it.

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Lapine Davion
Outer Ring Applied Logistics
#400 - 2013-02-19 18:39:29 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Sorry, you won't be getting my vote.
Our conversations have lead me to believe that you are the trying to play the "moderate" in the war of null sec against high sec.

Rest of the world, excuse the u.s.- centric analogy, but If the goons and their ilk are the Tea Party, you are Romney.
The fact that you posted on the goons' version of Pravda DOES mean you are affiliated with them, or have like-minded views.

And their views on the game are well-documented, which is the destruction of all space that they cannot control in game.
Putting you on the CSM would be no better, nor no worse, than most of the existing null sec mouthpieces.

I simply don't believe we need more null sec mouthpieces who espouse "balancing the game" at the expense of high sec.
If we went with representation by demographics, fully half of the CSM would be high sec.

Instead, we are faced with likely 9-12 of the 14 being null sec zealots or so-called null sec "moderates", which although you have never called yourself one, you have certainly done the dance of one, until you are of course elected.


Wait wait wait, Dinsdale Pirannha is known for being able to use sarcasm as a weapon, so does this mean I can't take anything you say seriously?

[b]Don't worry about posting with your main!  Post with your brain! "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."[/b]