These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kinis Deren
Mosquito Squadron
D0GS OF WAR
#61 - 2013-01-14 11:11:52 UTC
Would you care to reveal your thoughts concerning moon goo (specifically, from tech moons)? Do you think the alchemy changes went far enough, do you think a geographical redistribution of tech moons is warranted or do you have something else in mind?

Are you in favour of "wormhole stabilizers" or other such mechanics to grant WH access to large fleets?

Low sec appears to take the crown for most active PvP region in New Eden (2012 Dotlan stats kills/jump). Do you think sov null is close to achieving "blue donut" status (i.e. an equilibrium state maintained through NIPs, NAPs & other inter-coalition agreements)? How would you encourage conflict in sov null or do you think the current drivers are sufficient?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#62 - 2013-01-14 11:20:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Kinis Deren wrote:
Would you care to reveal your thoughts concerning moon goo (specifically, from tech moons)? Do you think the alchemy changes went far enough, do you think a geographical redistribution of tech moons is warranted or do you have something else in mind?


The current situation with tech moons is still Dumb™

Obviously alchemy has helped to mitigate the issues, but the fundamental problems are still there, most specifically the terrible distribution of Technetium moons.

What I'd really like to see is the solution proposed by a clever person whose name temporarily escapes me, which is to basically completely redo the distribution of the R64s, so that each R64 is heavily concentrated in a single quadrant of the map. And then to redo the moongoo requirements for tech 2 items such that each race relies on a different R64. So it might be possible for a coalition to dominate the R64 for Caldari ships or Minmatar ships, but it would require them to control the whole of 0.0 to monopolise the top earning moons in the way that we see now.

In any case, the top-earning moons still earn far too much. Alliances should derive their wealth from the activity of their memberbase, not from lifeless structures which are milked by an elite few.

Kinis Deren wrote:

Are you in favour of "wormhole stabilizers" or other such mechanics to grant WH access to large fleets?


No I am not. To me they directly destroy one of the things that makes W-space distinct from 0.0. If you want big fleet action, then you should be looking at sov null. Building might empires and having epic huge space battles between them is what sov 0.0 is for. Bringing big fleet action into W-space would change it as radically as bringing CONCORD into lo-sec.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#63 - 2013-01-14 11:30:45 UTC
Kinis Deren wrote:

Low sec appears to take the crown for most active PvP region in New Eden (2012 Dotlan stats kills/jump). Do you think sov null is close to achieving "blue donut" status (i.e. an equilibrium state maintained through NIPs, NAPs & other inter-coalition agreements)? How would you encourage conflict in sov null or do you think the current drivers are sufficient?


I've been playing long enough to have seen 3 or 4 previous iterations of "A new era of peace of prosperity" imposed on 0.0. They didn't last long because humans gonna :human:, and boredom leads to squabbling leads to grudges leads to hate leads to awesome spacefights.

I think the current situation is maybe a little different because the 2 largest blocs have far better internal political stability, and also a culture that promotes the value of the humble grunt. This makes them more durable, and also more inclined to like each other because of similar ideology. But as I said above, much of the problem is structural: once you've claimed the good moons, who cares enough about the actual space to fight for it for any reason other than to score points over the current owners (Eg: the recent HBC campaign vs -A- was definitely not fought because the HBC wanted -A-'s valuable space, but because they wanted -A- as an organisation extirpated).

Basically once the space itself, rather than just a few good moons, is worth fighting for, I think we'll see more fighting for it. When more of the economy is local, more of the politics will be as well. At the moment, the fighting pilots of the whole CFC can go help SMA defend their tech in Venal. When doing that means leaving their mining ops, research POS, trade good haulers, etc, in Fade or Cloud Ring vulnerable I think we'd start to see some cracks appear pretty quickly. In those circumstances, I'd expect blocs like the CFC and the HBC to radically consolidate the area of space they want to directly claim. The follow on consequence from that is that local politics will follow the EVE pattern of "Yes but what have you done for me lately?" and the squabble -> grudge -> hatred -> spacebattles chain will quickly result.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Scatim Helicon
State War Academy
Caldari State
#64 - 2013-01-14 12:51:24 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kinis Deren wrote:
Would you care to reveal your thoughts concerning moon goo (specifically, from tech moons)? Do you think the alchemy changes went far enough, do you think a geographical redistribution of tech moons is warranted or do you have something else in mind?


The current situation with tech moons is still Dumb™

Obviously alchemy has helped to mitigate the issues, but the fundamental problems are still there, most specifically the terrible distribution of Technetium moons.

What I'd really like to see is the solution proposed by a clever person whose name temporarily escapes me, which is to basically completely redo the distribution of the R64s, so that each R64 is heavily concentrated in a single quadrant of the map. And then to redo the moongoo requirements for tech 2 items such that each race relies on a different R64. So it might be possible for a coalition to dominate the R64 for Caldari ships or Minmatar ships, but it would require them to control the whole of 0.0 to monopolise the top earning moons in the way that we see now.

In any case, the top-earning moons still earn far too much. Alliances should derive their wealth from the activity of their memberbase, not from lifeless structures which are milked by an elite few.

Just restoring the supremacy of r64s would go a long way towards fixing moon materials - nobody complained about moon distribution when dyspro and promethium were kings of the hill since although there were good regions and bad regions they were much more widely distributed, its only when that title fell to a regionalised r32 material that it became an issue. Moonshuffling has its own set of associated problems - not least that it hands the initiative to large organised groups who have the manpower to quickly scan down areas of space for the new moon locations (there's still no complete and accurate moon map after nearly 10 years).

R64 supremacy plus some secondary method of sourcing materials (whether that be ring mining or something else) to allow bottom-up supply of the market would put Eve in a much healthier position.

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#65 - 2013-01-14 12:58:39 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Kinis Deren wrote:
Would you care to reveal your thoughts concerning moon goo (specifically, from tech moons)? Do you think the alchemy changes went far enough, do you think a geographical redistribution of tech moons is warranted or do you have something else in mind?


The current situation with tech moons is still Dumb™

Obviously alchemy has helped to mitigate the issues, but the fundamental problems are still there, most specifically the terrible distribution of Technetium moons.

What I'd really like to see is the solution proposed by a clever person whose name temporarily escapes me, which is to basically completely redo the distribution of the R64s, so that each R64 is heavily concentrated in a single quadrant of the map. And then to redo the moongoo requirements for tech 2 items such that each race relies on a different R64. So it might be possible for a coalition to dominate the R64 for Caldari ships or Minmatar ships, but it would require them to control the whole of 0.0 to monopolise the top earning moons in the way that we see now.

In any case, the top-earning moons still earn far too much. Alliances should derive their wealth from the activity of their memberbase, not from lifeless structures which are milked by an elite few.

Just restoring the supremacy of r64s would go a long way towards fixing moon materials - nobody complained about moon distribution when dyspro and promethium were kings of the hill since although there were good regions and bad regions they were much more widely distributed, its only when that title fell to a regionalised r32 material that it became an issue. Moonshuffling has its own set of associated problems - not least that it hands the initiative to large organised groups who have the manpower to quickly scan down areas of space for the new moon locations (there's still no complete and accurate moon map after nearly 10 years).

R64 supremacy plus some secondary method of sourcing materials (whether that be ring mining or something else) to allow bottom-up supply of the market would put Eve in a much healthier position.



Moonshuffling can't possibly give the "large organised" groups more of an advantage than they already have, since the largest, best organised groups already own all the tech moons right now.

Agreed re: secondary methods, although Alchemy is already one such method.

Oversupplying moongoo would shift the bottleneck to invention, which would mean datacores, which would mean that the T2 revenue went to hi-sec. I am anxious to avoid this outcome.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Di Mulle
#66 - 2013-01-14 14:39:30 UTC
Bad news for my current CSM representatives... Sad

Malcanis will definitely steal some of my votes.

Fully endorsing and wishing all the best.
<<Insert some waste of screen space here>>
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#67 - 2013-01-14 14:51:01 UTC
Di Mulle wrote:
Bad news for my current CSM representatives... Sad

Malcanis will definitely steal some of my votes.

Fully endorsing and wishing all the best.



No no, it's great news for them. They will be able to read my posting in the CSM forum as well as the public one! Blink

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#68 - 2013-01-14 15:57:09 UTC
Your views on the place of moongoo are excellent. "An organizational perk, but not absolutely necessary to be remotely competitive" is about as perfect a place for moongoo as you can get. I'd be willing to state that the majority of people who comment on moongo don't even know that it was never the intent for technetium to be the bottleneck, nor even the nature of the bottlenecking inherent in current t2 extraction and production that is the ultimate cause of all the moongoo issues.

The knee-jerk reaction seems to be "remove moons" or something else similarly extreme, while even in their broken state they have provided half a decade of decent gameplay. If done right for once, moons absolutely have a place in Eve, as they are an organizational reward and, all else being equal, an excellent way to provoke fights.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#69 - 2013-01-14 16:02:59 UTC
:Tinfoil: and rumours abound about how exactly the moongoo rebalance that was supposed to reduce the Dysp/Prom bottleneck came to create an even tighter, more geographically concentrated bottleneck. The best that can be said about the change was that it occurred in a period when CCP didn't listen to the players as attentively as they do now.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#70 - 2013-01-14 16:27:34 UTC
Malcanis is a solidly good poster who clearly has thought about EVE a lot and really understands the game. Pretty much everyone should give him a serious look, as I'm sure the CSM would be a lot better with him on it: he is one of the people who will be able to understand what something CCP is proposing will do and understand the flaws in it well enough to give meaningful feedback that will improve the final product.

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#71 - 2013-01-14 16:31:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Weaselior
Malcanis wrote:
:Tinfoil: and rumours abound about how exactly the moongoo rebalance that was supposed to reduce the Dysp/Prom bottleneck came to create an even tighter, more geographically concentrated bottleneck. The best that can be said about the change was that it occurred in a period when CCP didn't listen to the players as attentively as they do now.

I think the NDA breach at the time made it clear nobody realized this was going to make tech the big deal: a CSM member got booted for mass-purchasing neodymium after being told of the changes. As it turned out, you needed to do some fairly careful math to realize neo wasn't the bottleneck: clearly, CCP and the CSM at the time didn't do it. (edit: also given the public rationale for the changes the guy doing the changes clearly didn't even know what bottlenecking was)

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-01-14 16:49:54 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Your views on the place of moongoo are excellent. "An organizational perk, but not absolutely necessary to be remotely competitive" is about as perfect a place for moongoo as you can get. I'd be willing to state that the majority of people who comment on moongo don't even know that it was never the intent for technetium to be the bottleneck, nor even the nature of the bottlenecking inherent in current t2 extraction and production that is the ultimate cause of all the moongoo issues.

The knee-jerk reaction seems to be "remove moons" or something else similarly extreme, while even in their broken state they have provided half a decade of decent gameplay. If done right for once, moons absolutely have a place in Eve, as they are an organizational reward and, all else being equal, an excellent way to provoke fights.


Having discussed and commented on the issue extensively all over the place, I can confirm that the bolded statement is true.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Zulimu
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#73 - 2013-01-14 16:58:04 UTC
Good thing you´re running this time m8, makes voting so much easier :)

+1 vote
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#74 - 2013-01-14 20:11:41 UTC
Wescro wrote:
What do you mean by "no troll this time"? What happened last time?

Also woe befall any noob who accidentally jumps out of his 1.0 crib system and gets locked out in the woods with all the bad bad high sec pirates. The idea is right (protect noobs) but the policy is bad (super secure crib system). It cuts noobs off any meaningful interaction until they are outside, which is self-defeating. Also, it's far too easy to accidentally venture out and get locked out.

Why am I an expert in noob care? I tried to get 3 of my friends into EVE, on 3 different occasions. None of them made it past the trial period. The problem is noobs get too little interaction, not too much.

I say drop them smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation.


^^

This, so many times.

EVE is a complicated game, but the solution is to ease them into it, not to allow them to learn habits that will serve them poorly in the long term. Social engagement is critically important to retention, and right now it's haphazard at best. There are lone wolves who carve their own way just fine, but that should not be the expectation in a "massively multi-user" anything, and all of the most successful player organizations in EVE are a testimony to the importance of new players meeting and joining up with other players. Lone wolves will always be able to take care of themselves, or at least convince themselves that they can.

One possibility would be to split newbies up over the various 1.0 to 0.8 systems, so that none of them got too crowded. This would make it easier for the people who hang out in the NPC corps as helpers: They wouldn't necessarily have to handle questions from hundreds of new players at once. To make this work, have Aura appear as an agent wherever you are (after all, she's with you all the time) until you complete her tutorial missions. Then, allow the career agent missions (at the very least) to be accepted and completed remotely by players in the relevant factions, so that you don't have to spam the career agents all over high sec.

The main reason for the above is that Corp chat, and even Local, are better resources for new players than Rookie Help. Rookie Help isn't useless, but it's unbelievably spammy, and there are trolls. All of the best advice that I got as a true newbie was from an old pirate hanging out in the NPC Corp channel.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#75 - 2013-01-14 20:19:52 UTC
When I made that off-the-cuff suggestion, I conceived that the new players wouldn't remain in the 'gated' systems very long, since they'd be pretty boring. They'd literally just be a place to learn basic gameplay/UI skills and starting tutorials. But it's not a policy I have any firm ideological commitment to or anything. Don't read too much into it.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#76 - 2013-01-14 20:24:50 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
:Tinfoil: and rumours abound about how exactly the moongoo rebalance that was supposed to reduce the Dysp/Prom bottleneck came to create an even tighter, more geographically concentrated bottleneck. The best that can be said about the change was that it occurred in a period when CCP didn't listen to the players as attentively as they do now.

I think the NDA breach at the time made it clear nobody realized this was going to make tech the big deal: a CSM member got booted for mass-purchasing neodymium after being told of the changes. As it turned out, you needed to do some fairly careful math to realize neo wasn't the bottleneck: clearly, CCP and the CSM at the time didn't do it. (edit: also given the public rationale for the changes the guy doing the changes clearly didn't even know what bottlenecking was)


Hmm that doesn't accord with my recollection: I seem to remember that the elite spreadsheet crew in Market Discussion (particularly Akita T) spotted the tech bottleneck almost immediately, and tried quite hard to get CCP to acknowledge. But CCP were pretty much "We're done talking about this, enjoy your :18 months: while we focus on spacebarbie monocoles"

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#77 - 2013-01-14 20:31:36 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
When I made that off-the-cuff suggestion, I conceived that the new players wouldn't remain in the 'gated' systems very long, since they'd be pretty boring. They'd literally just be a place to learn basic gameplay/UI skills and starting tutorials. But it's not a policy I have any firm ideological commitment to or anything. Don't read too much into it.


That's cool. And anyway, it's less important than connecting newbies to more experienced players; even if the systems were 'gated' (they already are, in terms of ganking) there would at least be someone around to tell the new players what they should get used to and what they shouldn't.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Frying Doom
#78 - 2013-01-14 22:02:38 UTC
Varius Xeral wrote:
Your views on the place of moongoo are excellent. "An organizational perk, but not absolutely necessary to be remotely competitive" is about as perfect a place for moongoo as you can get. I'd be willing to state that the majority of people who comment on moongo don't even know that it was never the intent for technetium to be the bottleneck, nor even the nature of the bottlenecking inherent in current t2 extraction and production that is the ultimate cause of all the moongoo issues.

The knee-jerk reaction seems to be "remove moons" or something else similarly extreme, while even in their broken state they have provided half a decade of decent gameplay. If done right for once, moons absolutely have a place in Eve, as they are an organizational reward and, all else being equal, an excellent way to provoke fights.

Actually the current top down financing and the fact that it is afk mining to the extreme needs to go.

Active moon mining via a ship would be great and give industrialists something else to stare at for hours.

But I wont ramble more in Malcanis's thread.

Vote Malcanis for a better tomorrowSmile

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#79 - 2013-01-14 22:12:02 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
:Tinfoil: and rumours abound about how exactly the moongoo rebalance that was supposed to reduce the Dysp/Prom bottleneck came to create an even tighter, more geographically concentrated bottleneck. The best that can be said about the change was that it occurred in a period when CCP didn't listen to the players as attentively as they do now.

I think the NDA breach at the time made it clear nobody realized this was going to make tech the big deal: a CSM member got booted for mass-purchasing neodymium after being told of the changes. As it turned out, you needed to do some fairly careful math to realize neo wasn't the bottleneck: clearly, CCP and the CSM at the time didn't do it. (edit: also given the public rationale for the changes the guy doing the changes clearly didn't even know what bottlenecking was)


Hmm that doesn't accord with my recollection: I seem to remember that the elite spreadsheet crew in Market Discussion (particularly Akita T) spotted the tech bottleneck almost immediately, and tried quite hard to get CCP to acknowledge. But CCP were pretty much "We're done talking about this, enjoy your :18 months: while we focus on spacebarbie monocoles"


Weaselior's point was exactly that, though - the conclusion to draw from the insider trading scandal was that CCP didn't do the math and ignored players who did, which is why the dude who did the inside trading thing bought Neo. I know that I looked at the market myself around the time and saw his buy (they didn't say what he bought but moongoo was the obvious assumption), and I don't remember there being anything but Neo. Not even Thulium.

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#80 - 2013-01-14 22:13:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Ah, I misread his "nobody realised...". He meant nobody realised until the changes were released. Gotcha.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016