These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mike Azariah for CSM8 - Representing YOU

First post First post
Author
Frying Doom
#21 - 2013-03-12 23:26:06 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
mynnna wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

Ok so having seen that you seem to have no idea about the current concerns of people on these forums, failed to answer on the question of loss of voting power

so oh well.


You are a person on this forum. Some other people might share your concerns about "loss of voting power." This does not mean, as you subtly imply, that all people share those concerns.

You are completely correct

I am sure there are plenty of people around who do not care about the CSM, I think the voting stats prove that pretty well.


The voting stats do not prove that there are plenty of people who do not care about the CSM; the voter stats prove only that there are plenty of people who do not vote, and offer no insight into the reason why. I know it's kind of your "thing" but let's try to limit the spurious leaps of logic around here, shall we?

But while where here maybe you would like to support the rest of my arguments on the CSM
like the fact that player education is what is needed, and alterations to the voting system are completely unnecessary while the percentage of voters are so low?

Oh and that accounts should have to be active for 90 days prior to the election to vote, to close that old account loop hole.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Wescro2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-03-12 23:29:31 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
If you asking whether I agree with Jamie-boy in regards to nerfing hisec incursions to the point of removing them from hisec completely, hell NO


You don't agree with James, thanks for bringing that to our attention.

That's not what I asked though. Let's try this again. Since you are presenting yourself as a high sec candidate, what are the major issues facing high sec and how do you plan on fixing them.

Mike Azariah wrote:
Trying to improve the game by depopulating the most populated part of it is the act of an idiot.


That's a valid opinion, but I disagree with it. High sec is over populated because there is too much reward for too little risk. The game is in imbalance.

Mike Azariah wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you James 315's alt or just campaign manager?


I am James 315's alt, like everyone else in New Order Logistics and all the shareholders and gankers.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2013-03-12 23:36:25 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

But while where here maybe you would like to support the rest of my arguments on the CSM
like the fact that player education is what is needed, and alterations to the voting system are completely unnecessary while the percentage of voters are so low?

Oh and that accounts should have to be active for 90 days prior to the election to vote, to close that old account loop hole.



I totally agree with more voter education needed. It is not that people don't care about the CSM so much as it is that a LOT of them are not even aware of it. I have spoken to channels where only a few out of a hundred have a clue about what the election is or why it is held.

The borderline for where the voting rights starts is a debatable one. I agree that if there is a method by which the ballot box can be stuffed for free via buddy invites and plex rewards then that needs to be looked to.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-03-12 23:48:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Azariah
Wescro2 wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
If you asking whether I agree with Jamie-boy in regards to nerfing hisec incursions to the point of removing them from hisec completely, hell NO


You don't agree with James, thanks for bringing that to our attention.

That's not what I asked though. Let's try this again. Since you are presenting yourself as a high sec candidate, what are the major issues facing high sec and how do you plan on fixing them.


I do not see as hisec needing any huge fix, not to the extent that the other parts of Eve do. Tweeks, here and there, balance issues, yes, but I disagree with your assertion that hisec is broken. Please, enlighten me as to where you see it being bad for the game overall? Does voilence upon ships happen in hisec? Yes, look at a map and check pods or ships destroyed in the past 24 hours. Do wars happen in hisec? Yes. griefing and scams and trade and mining and all the rest of it? Yes

Is it safe? No.

Should it be? No.

If your goal is to get people to go to other parts of New Eden and away from hisec then give them a reason to do so by improving the content elsewhere. Making the most popular part of the game uninhabitable could kill the game, not push us to create content elsewhere. THAT I am against.

Mike Azariah wrote:
Out of curiosity, are you James 315's alt or just campaign manager?


Wescro2 wrote:
I am James 315's alt, like everyone else in New Order Logistics and all the shareholders and gankers.


I am sorry you found it required to answer sarcastically. I was asking a serious question. YOU have the main James 315 campaign thread running. I seem to have missed where he posted that he is running, here in Jita Park. Now if you would kindly point me to the thread where HE has announced his candidacy and platform, here in Jita Park, I would appreciate it.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Wescro2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2013-03-13 00:18:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro2
Mike Azariah wrote:
I do not see as hisec needing any huge fix, not to the extent that the other parts of Eve do. Tweeks, here and there, balance issues, yes, but I disagree with your assertion that hisec is broken.


You want to represent high sec, but you think it isn't too bad right now. Would it be fair to say you are the status quo candidate (ie, keep things as they are)?

Mike Azariah wrote:

Please, enlighten me as to where you see it being bad for the game overall? Does voilence upon ships happen in hisec? Yes, look at a map and check pods or ships destroyed in the past 24 hours. Do wars happen in hisec? Yes. griefing and scams and trade and mining and all the rest of it? Yes

Is it safe? No.

Should it be? No.

If your goal is to get people to go to other parts of New Eden and away from hisec then give them a reason to do so by improving the content elsewhere. Making the most popular part of the game uninhabitable could kill the game, not push us to create content elsewhere. THAT I am against.


It's safe enough in high sec that people can go months, even years without being engaged in what is supposed to be a cold, harsh universe. Miners often argue that it is profitable still to fit for max yield and get ganked occasionally, than to sacrifice yield for tank and survive ganks. It's not a very engaging game when a miner sees himself being ganked and says, "yep, that's fine, I make more money this way." Something about that is fundamentally broken.

Also, ganking is at historic lows, according to the CSM minutes.

A disproportionately large number of the population is in high sec not necessarily because they prefer high sec being safe. EVE is a competitive game, if your competition is using an imbalanced risk/reward system to line their pockets, so must you, even if you disagree with it in principle. As an industrialist, if my competition can charge a very small mark up on cost due to having fewer security related costs when manufacturing in high sec, no matter how much I want to produce in low or null, I can not because I will have to front security costs and the occasional gank. Industrialists are forced into high sec by competition, not by choice.

You seem to be against that specifically, using game mechanics to force people in to a play style/area. The current high sec does that in reverse, the excessive safety forces people to remain there.

Mike Azariah wrote:
I seem to have missed where he posted that he is running, here in Jita Park. Now if you would kindly point me to the thread where HE has announced his candidacy and platform, here in Jita Park, I would appreciate it.


James 315 has outlined his problem with Jita Park here.
None ofthe Above
#26 - 2013-03-13 00:44:11 UTC
Wescro2 wrote:


You want to represent high sec, but you think it isn't too bad right now. Would it be fair to say you are the status quo candidate (ie, keep things as they are)?


Much like how many of the wormhole and NRDS candidates want to make sure the areas they represent don't get crushed when changes are made to serve other constituencies. Seems reasonable to me.

Wescro2 wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I seem to have missed where he posted that he is running, here in Jita Park. Now if you would kindly point me to the thread where HE has announced his candidacy and platform, here in Jita Park, I would appreciate it.


James 315 has outlined his problem with Jita Park here.


It's a good example of how James doesn't fit in and would be fairly useless on the CSM. Heir to Darius 3, I would say. He could have announced here and the Miner Bumping site as well, but no, can't do it in a way that cooperates with any one else. Does not bode well for his effectiveness if he be elected.

I'll be putting Mike high on my ballots. Got to know him last year during the CSM 7 campaign, follow his blog and listen to him on podside. Good guy with a sharp mind and a perspective that needs representing.

Go get 'em, Mike.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Wescro2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2013-03-13 00:58:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro2
None ofthe Above wrote:
It's a good example of how James doesn't fit in and would be fairly useless on the CSM. Heir to Darius 3, I would say. He could have announced here and the Miner Bumping site as well, but no, can't do it in a way that cooperates with any one else. Does not bode well for his effectiveness if he be elected.


Jita Park has it's problems, some of which Mike Azariah pointed out in his interview with Xander. The sense I got from James' criticism was that the forums are split too much, and this makes them less populated and they get less traffic for it. It's consistent with the piece he wrote on the rise and fall of the CAOD, and how he has kept his own websites forum uncategorized for the most part.

I'm pretty sure James holds the record for the longest (and indisputably greatest) EVE-O post ever, so if you think he'll be useless for engaging too little, I don't know if we are talking about the same James 315.

Mike's a good candidate,and I find some things agreeable. However we don't share the same opinion on the risk/reward imbalance.
None ofthe Above
#28 - 2013-03-13 01:23:10 UTC
Wescro2 wrote:
None ofthe Above wrote:
It's a good example of how James doesn't fit in and would be fairly useless on the CSM. Heir to Darius 3, I would say. He could have announced here and the Miner Bumping site as well, but no, can't do it in a way that cooperates with any one else. Does not bode well for his effectiveness if he be elected.


Jita Park has it's problems, some of which Mike Azariah pointed out in his interview with Xander. The sense I got from James' criticism was that the forums are split too much, and this makes them less populated and they get less traffic for it. It's consistent with the piece he wrote on the rise and fall of the CAOD, and how he has kept his own websites forum uncategorized for the most part.

I'm pretty sure James holds the record for the longest (and indisputably greatest) EVE-O post ever, so if you think he'll be useless for engaging too little, I don't know if we are talking about the same James 315.

Mike's a good candidate,and I find some things agreeable. However we don't share the same opinion on the risk/reward imbalance.


Oh I've read more than I care to recall of James's opus posts. And don't really disagree about the dead subforums and over categorization. But this is the one forum were CSM candidates should be posting on EVE-O. His own forums is fine as well, but it speaks volumes the way he is conducting his campaign. Not getting any of my votes.

I am not knocking him for his lack of forum posting. I knock him for his ability to cooperate with others (outside of his own circle).

Anyway, glad we agree on Mike as a good candidate.

It is going to be interesting this time around with STV. Can put together a ballot for a good balanced CSM that represents the many different aspects of the game.

The only end-game content in EVE Online is the crap that makes you rage quit.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2013-03-13 01:26:54 UTC
Wescro2 wrote:

Mike's a good candidate,and I find some things agreeable. However we don't share the same opinion on the risk/reward imbalance.


I can live with that, matter of fact, I encourage that. The CSM NEEDS people with different viewpoints or opinions, otherwise they would only need one person on the council.

Please encourage James to post here, if you will. Even the dev blog about the application process mentions Jita Park.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Jerod trd
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Reckless Contingency.
#30 - 2013-03-14 08:17:26 UTC
In the interests of disclosure, I support Mike for CSM, So I'm not going to throw him easy questions... I tend to agree with him that Hi-sec is OK as is, if you feel it's 'too safe' for everyone involved, I'd agree... and as soon as you set this game up so that if you are involved in a suicide gank you lose your pod I'll endorse making ganking 'easier'.

You like to talk about 'risk vs reward' and I'd say that with ganking, it's skewed in favor of the ganker... yeah, most exhumers and mining barges got a buff, they've needed it, but they are still destroyable, yet a fast-warping dessy in a high-sec, high-traffic system (Like Sivala) is VERY hard to catch and kill, even if you have kill-rights... so gankers are safe in over 90% of their time with the use of alts... how is this different than the situation you complain about with miners?

As for the reduction in ganks, I think you can thank goonswarm for that (shudders) as they pretty much burned out the novelty of it with their 'bounty for exhumers' policy.... lot less fun doing it when every man and his dog is doing it.
Wescro2
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-03-14 08:35:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro2
Jerod trd wrote:
In the interests of disclosure, I support Mike for CSM, So I'm not going to throw him easy questions... I tend to agree with him that Hi-sec is OK as is, if you feel it's 'too safe' for everyone involved, I'd agree... and as soon as you set this game up so that if you are involved in a suicide gank you lose your pod I'll endorse making ganking 'easier'.


For people who use low SP dedicated alts, and even those who don't, losing your pod is no big deal. You really shouldn't need to fit implants to gank, getting a buddy is just better and cheaper.

Jerod trd wrote:
You like to talk about 'risk vs reward' and I'd say that with ganking, it's skewed in favor of the ganker... yeah, most exhumers and mining barges got a buff, they've needed it, but they are still destroyable, yet a fast-warping dessy in a high-sec, high-traffic system (Like Sivala) is VERY hard to catch and kill, even if you have kill-rights... so gankers are safe in over 90% of their time with the use of alts... how is this different than the situation you complain about with miners?


I've been ganking for a while now so let me speak from experience. A smart player who takes precautions can almost always make themselves less attractive of a target while doing whatever they were doing (mining, hauling, etc). Are they gankable, sure? Will they be ganked, not until the supply of less tanked lazy/uninformed players runs out.

When faced with the latter category, when the gankers choose to engage, they have an advantage. I agree. However, since the nerfs to ganking, the profit motive is largely diminished or removed, to be able to gank an afk player, a player whose great tactical achievement is letting go of the controls and alt-tabbing/walking away, it takes several, skilfull, disciplined, well trained pilots to execute near flawlessly to achieve a kill.

So yea, if you frame it solely in terms of firepower and chance of survival, the miners seem to be at a disadvantage, but when you throw all the other variables; the need for coordination, timing, teamwork and the ability to eat a financial loss, then it is not so skewed anymore.

Allow me to present undeniable evidence that the miner does not fear getting ganked. There is absolutely no reason to mine ice is 0.5 systems. Ice does not run out. It is available in the same quantity in 0.7 systems. The high sec ice miner clearly completely disregards system security when they jam into a 0.5 ice belt. This is clear indication that they do not die often enough for it.

As for destroyers, they get destroyed in the suicide gank. It can be alpha'ed easily before it can gank a miner, and its range is horrible.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-03-14 18:56:12 UTC
Quote:
For people who use low SP dedicated alts, and even those who don't, losing your pod is no big deal. You really shouldn't need to fit implants to gank, getting a buddy is just better and cheaper.


That, right there, is one of the best proofs that ganking can be a social, rather than antisocial activity.


Quote:
So yea, if you frame it solely in terms of firepower and chance of survival, the miners seem to be at a disadvantage, but when you throw all the other variables; the need for coordination, timing, teamwork and the ability to eat a financial loss, then it is not so skewed anymore.


Unless, of course, the gankers are subsidized to the tune of more than 4 billion. Then the financial does not enter into it. Well, not in that way. If I knew the system that the Order was going to hit then I would have bought a large amount of the appropriate ice ahead of time, then the price shift due to the pressure of the Order would become a financial boon. Well worth sponsoring the dessies till the end of days

Quote:
Allow me to present undeniable evidence that the miner does not fear getting ganked. There is absolutely no reason to mine ice is 0.5 systems. Ice does not run out. It is available in the same quantity in 0.7 systems. The high sec ice miner clearly completely disregards system security when they jam into a 0.5 ice belt. This is clear indication that they do not die often enough for it.


Darwinism in action

I HAVE said that I am in favor of tweeks to the balance of ganker and target. I have NEVER said hisec needs to be made totally safe nor did Jerod (above).

The absolute criminal maybe should be more fearful, even in a pod, in hisec. The higher he goes the better the chance he will be vulnerable right off the bat. Pod or no.

BUT

I also am in favor of a corrupt system where bribery will smooth over the waters, Tags for Sec status.

So it is a carrot and stick. Carrot - buy your way clear of your dark past
Stick - We'll shoot you in High hisec if you don't

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#33 - 2013-03-14 21:18:05 UTC
Oh look, the arrogant Podside carebear CSM candidate.

Just find the time to listen to him, this guy is always spreading his disgusting themepark message, you can feel his hate when we talks about emergent gameplay and everything that makes sandbox mmo-rpg's great.

The Tears Must Flow

Jerod trd
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Reckless Contingency.
#34 - 2013-03-16 04:12:21 UTC
Vaju Enki wrote:
Oh look, the arrogant Podside carebear CSM candidate.

Just find the time to listen to him, this guy is always spreading his disgusting themepark message, you can feel his hate when we talks about emergent gameplay and everything that makes sandbox mmo-rpg's great.



?? Kay?

Who are you talking about? Never heard Mike endorse a 'theme park' eve, but I've heard lots of people accuse people like me of 'not playing eve right' when we (Gasp) cooperate in large-scale industrial projects, WITHOUT the use of bots, to produce everything from a fleet of frigates, to Dreadnaughts and Titans.

The Death Race is emergent gameplay, 'Bring Me the head of Kirith Kodachi' is emergent gameplay... Mike has been involved in BOTH of these events.

Ganking someone because you think you can make a profit may be a form of emergent gameplay, but simply because those of us who have been targeted at some time in the past (Never lost a mining ship due to ganking yet that I can recall, lost a hulk to a stealth bomber when I was in null, and a retriever when I fell asleep at the keyboard while mining in a belt) lack the ability to fight back in any meaningful way when we are targeted, and attempt to either find ways to strike back, or argue against the 'let us kill the high-sec miner, he's tasty' crows when they claim we're all bots, DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE SAND BOX!

I have a copy of X3: Albion Prelude when I don't want to deal with real people, and an active Star Wars: The Old Republic account for when I feel like the theme park ride, I enjoy eve as it is, and I enjoy the social aspect when my stupid Time Zone actually lines up with like-minded people, I would oppose anyone who tried to make it either a PvP free-for-all everywhere you went, or a hand-holding themepark ride.

I support mike because at the end of the day, I believe he will bring the high-sec/low-sec/null-sec casual player perspective to the CSM, and that is something that I think is lacking at this time, I may have time for a few hours of eve at a time... but I can't do alarm-clock ops, and I sometimes won't log in for days if my timetable does not permit it. The reason I'm not in a null-sec corp or alliance isn't that I'm risk averse, it's that I simply can't make the required commitments.

Now, can we actually have discussion and questions in here instead of cries of 'carebear' and 'theme-park advocate'?
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
#35 - 2013-03-16 08:05:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Jerod trd wrote:


Ganking someone because you think you can make a profit may be a form of emergent gameplay, but simply because those of us who have been targeted at some time in the past (Never lost a mining ship due to ganking yet that I can recall, lost a hulk to a stealth bomber when I was in null, and a retriever when I fell asleep at the keyboard while mining in a belt) lack the ability to fight back in any meaningful way when we are targeted, and attempt to either find ways to strike back, or argue against the 'let us kill the high-sec miner, he's tasty' crows when they claim we're all bots, DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE SAND BOX!

CONCORD, kill rights, bounties and at the end of the day war dec and/or mercs to do it for you.

How many more tools do you need? If you're NOT opposed to the sand box what nerf, buff, or level of protection at the cost of emergent gameplay would be "enough" to get the aforementioned "we" to finally stop the endless lobbying for CCP handouts at the expense of the unique draw of EVE Online?

By the way, over the last 2 years?

-CONCORD has been buffed repeatedly
-Insurance has been removed from suicide gankers
-Mining barges received a substantial HP increase
-Kill rights have been turned from a nearly useless feature to a sellable/transferable "kill my ganker" card
-Bounties have been turned from a nearly useless feature to an actually meaningful socioeconomic PVP activity

AND

-The removal of mineral loot from the 0.0 drone regions sent highsec mining profits through the roof

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
No Response
#36 - 2013-03-16 08:35:56 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
-The removal of mineral loot from the 0.0 drone regions sent highsec mining profits through the roof


yay more targets

http://www.wormholes.info

Jerod trd
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Reckless Contingency.
#37 - 2013-03-16 22:04:08 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Jerod trd wrote:


Ganking someone because you think you can make a profit may be a form of emergent gameplay, but simply because those of us who have been targeted at some time in the past (Never lost a mining ship due to ganking yet that I can recall, lost a hulk to a stealth bomber when I was in null, and a retriever when I fell asleep at the keyboard while mining in a belt) lack the ability to fight back in any meaningful way when we are targeted, and attempt to either find ways to strike back, or argue against the 'let us kill the high-sec miner, he's tasty' crows when they claim we're all bots, DOES NOT MEAN WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE SAND BOX!

CONCORD, kill rights, bounties and at the end of the day war dec and/or mercs to do it for you.

How many more tools do you need? If you're NOT opposed to the sand box what nerf, buff, or level of protection at the cost of emergent gameplay would be "enough" to get the aforementioned "we" to finally stop the endless lobbying for CCP handouts at the expense of the unique draw of EVE Online?

By the way, over the last 2 years?

-CONCORD has been buffed repeatedly
-Insurance has been removed from suicide gankers
-Mining barges received a substantial HP increase
-Kill rights have been turned from a nearly useless feature to a sellable/transferable "kill my ganker" card
-Bounties have been turned from a nearly useless feature to an actually meaningful socioeconomic PVP activity

AND

-The removal of mineral loot from the 0.0 drone regions sent highsec mining profits through the roof


I'm actually opposed to any further nerfs to any of the playstyles...my reaction is more towards people who demand that people like me must be forced to move to low-sec so they can shoot us whenever the feel like it, or should be able to be killed more easily.... you are right about the kill-rights and bounties feature edits, and I touched on the mining barge buffs in an earlier comment... I believe the key to 'fixing' low-sec and high-sec would be to fix the player interactions... this is another form of emergent gameplay, and has to be run by the players... I'm opposed to more nerfs, and buffs to high-sec and low-sec to force the needed changes... I'd like to see players with better corportaion tools, better Player Owned Stations (Spikes) and better inter-corporation/alliance tools to allow people to have a little trust, without betting the whole damn farm on their cooperation.

If this to you sounds like asking for the end of the sandbox? then I think it has already died.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2013-03-17 21:10:17 UTC
Aleks makes some good points. NOT everything in the changes to game are about rule changes or buffs and nerfs.

You want to see changes to the game then change the tools you give us. Make more things possible and more things will come of it.

Yes there will be exploitation and bending of the rules, that is what players do in Eve. Yes, there will be unexpected consequences. Again, this is Eve, dammit.

But better tools, more things to manipulate/modify/apply. From camera tools to better corp management, a more streamlined method for sharing bookmarks, these are the real little things that will help Eve grow and change for a better game.

In the end that is why I am running. I like this game and I want it to be even better, tomorrow. I am willing to help, if I can, make that happen.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Varnoka
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-03-18 14:11:00 UTC
Been following Mike since he started his blog way back. He generally has excellent ideas and well thought out, logical post. If you play the game casually, but still seriously, then you need to look into supporting Mike.

He's got my vote.
Paxton Brimstone
Comms Black
#40 - 2013-03-18 22:17:25 UTC
I've listened to him on Podside as well as the Crossing Zebras interview. After reading this post I have further affirmed he dose not have a clue. His answers are always well thought out non committal jabber. He uses a formula taken from RL political and I had hoped he would have had the fortitude to make a stand on something more substantial than just " I'm a good communicator". Even if you don't agree with James 315 views he at least has a firm platform and so you know what your electing with a vote for said candidate. The only reason I could see to vote for Azariah is to perhaps hear a Podside broadcast from Iceland one day. sorry Mike I'm gonna have to pass and perhaps spend some voting power on other guys running come election day. If by chance you do get elected I hope you show all of us wrong and do good work.