These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next pageLast page
 

The Office of the Chairman: A ~chill place~ for constituent issues

First post
Author
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1 - 2011-11-04 00:41:39 UTC
This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.

In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.

While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.

I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.

~hi~

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#2 - 2011-11-04 02:04:09 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Something I said in one of the anti-Mittani threads that probably bears repeating here: his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position because he would be choosing those actions anyway. They aren't ganking miners because Mittens is CSM, they're ganking miners because it benefits them (and is fun). Take away the CSM tag, they're still ganking miners. Don't confuse his decision as an alliance leader with his role as CSM chair.

Lest you think I'm a goon alt or just stroking his e-peen, I've been critical of the CSM and Mittani in the past. I call it how I see it, and in this case the dude has done nothing wrong. There, got that out of the way.

Since my group started our campaign against these isk factories a week ago, I've heard from a lot of people who support what we do because they see incursions as detrimental to the rest of the Eve landscape. I'm hearing that C1-C4 wormholes are largely being abandoned in favor of the security and conveniences of high sec. Others are saying that lowsec exploration and nullsec ratting have been dropping off, and there's a general sense among the guys who have contacted me that this is due more to incursions being so profitable than incarna ragequits or any other reason. If this is true, Incursion has damaged Eve more than Incarna, in that it is diluting the rest of the game with the draw of low-risk iskmaking equal to that of wormholes and k-space nullsec.

So my questions:
What's your take on highsec incursions?

If you think they need to be rebalanced, do you have any ideas on how to do so?

edit: y u hate wromhols?

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#3 - 2011-11-04 02:44:26 UTC
Have you stopped beating your wife in the wormholes you hate so much?

No, seriously, no actual questions from me at the moment but I think you doing this thread is a great idea, I hope you get some good questions.

Issler
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#4 - 2011-11-04 06:15:36 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

So my questions:
What's your take on highsec incursions?

If you think they need to be rebalanced, do you have any ideas on how to do so?

edit: y u hate wromhols?


I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.

So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them.

~hi~

Steelshine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#5 - 2011-11-04 07:27:14 UTC
The Mittani wrote:


I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.

So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them.


Are you happy with the profitability/risk of hisec incursions compared to other pve activities, such as 0.0 anomalies, wormholes, etc?
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#6 - 2011-11-04 08:04:41 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap.

~hi~

Kata Amentis
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2011-11-04 08:08:12 UTC
The Mittani wrote:

I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit.


Very true, the social side is by far the best thing about incursions. The isk is nice, but the social side takes away the boring grind of making isk.

The Mittani wrote:

And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.


Not quite true... you do see some highly suspect groupings of characters in incursion sites, fleets made up exclusively of the 1 month old single member corps with highly suspect names, not seen too many, but it's still something that needs to be kept an eye out for and reported Big smile / shot at Pirate

Curiosity killed the Kata... ... but being immortal he wasn't too worried about keeping a count.

Steelshine
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#8 - 2011-11-04 08:14:49 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap.


I'd be willing to settle for bullet points.

or a picture of your dog.
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#9 - 2011-11-04 08:28:39 UTC
Steelshine wrote:


Are you happy with the profitability/risk of hisec incursions compared to other pve activities, such as 0.0 anomalies, wormholes, etc?



There can be no argument: the anomaly nerf was an unmitigated disaster on a number of levels. It impacted logins dramatically. It ruined the already tenuous risk/reward balance of nullsec. It disproportionately impacted the line members of alliances, and alliances which do not have technetium income (most of them). It was implemented in a brief period between CSM5 and CSM6 with no consultation with the CSM, so there was no sanity firewall to prevent CCP from doing a dumb thing. The dev blog introducing it was full of reasoning so spurious as to be laughable - reasoning which has all been disproven in practice since the nerf was implemented.

It was bad. Anyone advocating for the anom nerf should feel bad about themselves.

Restoring the balance of risk and reward to nullsec is a high priority of most of CSM6, once the sucking chest wounds ruining the game have been addressed (lag, supercaps, ship balance, hybrids, etc).

Wormhole risk/reward is probably fine. I know little about w-space and mostly rely on Two Step, who seems both rich and smug, and certainly we haven't heard cries of poverty from w-space residents besides hysterical, tinfoil-clad miners.

Hisec has received a huge buff from the L4/Q20 adjustment, with every L4 agent now having the same, maximal quality. When you can use a botting Tengu to solo these things 23/7 with virtually no risk (if you have the brain cells necessary to avoid pimping your mission Tengu, so you don't attract gankers) or make barely the same isk scraping away in nullsec with no protection whatsoever, it's no wonder that null has depopulated and interest in EVE has flatlined during this era of neglect.

I don't mind hisec incursions. Like I said, they're social and are at least more difficult to bot than missions. I mind L4 missions vomiting isk willy-nilly into the economy via bots while the common nullsec ratter starves.


~hi~

Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2011-11-04 08:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lord Zim
The Mittani wrote:
The forums ate my reply. I'm very much against the fact that the new forums devour posts and 'get ganked' all the time. What a pile of crap.

My personal take on the "get ganked" bullshit is that we're looking at 2 or 3 nodes (or more) in a loadbalanced cluster, and one of them is down. The fact I'm redirected to another URL so I can't just refresh is also annoying as all ****, and I've lost count of how many posts have been eaten because I didn't copy them before doing post or preview, and apparently took more time while writing them than some arbitrary session timeout or something.

It would be awesome if someone on the forum team (with their awesome track record so far) could get a hard kick up the behind, for it is, as you say, atrocious.

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

RIP Vile Rat

Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#11 - 2011-11-04 09:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Do you support the de-risking of HighSec? CCP has effectively removed wardeccing as a mechanic for aggression (since alliance hopping and super-sized inexpensive decshields are now allowed.) Hilmar has expressed a desire to beef up CONCORD.

Since the CSM (with you as Chairman) were presented with the wardec policy change and approved them, I wonder if the sandbox (outside nullsec) means anything to you?

I think you've done a pretty good job this year as CSM chairman, but I wonder why you'd let such an obvious game-changer, with respect to the PvP sandbox, get by you, even if it was focused on protecting carebears in HighSec space.
The Groundskeeper
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#12 - 2011-11-04 09:24:12 UTC
Do you support an immediate and forceful crackdown to deal with the ongoing Bring Stabity question?
The Mittani
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2011-11-04 09:47:43 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Do you support the de-risking of HighSec? CCP has effectively removed wardeccing as a mechanic for aggression (since alliance hopping and super-sized inexpensive decshields are now allowed.) Hilmar has expressed a desire to beef up CONCORD.

Since the CSM (with you as Chairman) were presented with the wardec policy change and approved them, I wonder if the sandbox (outside nullsec) means anything to you?

I think you've done a pretty good job this year as CSM chairman, but I wonder why you'd let such an obvious game-changer, with respect to the PvP sandbox, get by you, even if it was focused on protecting carebears in HighSec space.


Even a blind man can identify your well-known and rather obsessive stalking of Eve University and penchant for freaking out at anything that benefits them. Your question is full of hyperbole and you should feel bad about it; only the largest hisec entities have the intelligence and organization to manage dec-shields.

I think dec-shields are dumb; I think the entire corporate war mechanic as it stands is dumb. Hell, I miss the Privateers days where you could wardec hundreds of corporations and not care. When CCP mentioned changing the policy I noted that I didn't like it, but it wasn't worth dealing with the endless petitions the existing system was spawning - since the GMs are usually overloaded anyway.

Ideally I'd like to see a completely new war system, but I haven't given it much thought as this is firmly outside the realm of most of my constituents.

Hilmar's random tweets don't concern me.

As for your fears of 'carebears' and your obsession with Eve-Uni, if I truly felt that they were spawning weakness and not teaching people how to PvP, I'd just wardec them myself. However, around the time of the dec-shield change, I investigated their practices and Kelduum is running a solid shop with lots of PvP training opportunities - and I expect to see him on CSM7, so get your tinfoil badposts ready.

~hi~

Ajurna Jakar
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#14 - 2011-11-04 11:38:27 UTC
whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking?

http://eve-corp-management.org/ 

Bomberlocks
Bombercorp
#15 - 2011-11-04 12:09:58 UTC
Dear Mittens,
is it true that you eat a kitten each morning for breakfast, washed down with a delicious glass of exhumer tears before you go off to your day job of skinning baby whales alive?

Also, given that us FW babbies are babbying very much at the moment about what is going to become of our beloved, but somewhat stagnant FW, do you have a position on what you willbe discussing with CCP at the summit.

Yours Truly
-- BabbyBomb
Mike deVoid
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2011-11-04 12:17:52 UTC
CCP recently stated that the NEX store should have been filled with stuff current players wanted - ship skins and corp/alliance logos - rather than clothes and monocles ( http://uk.gamespot.com/news/6339021/microtransaction-missteps-in-eve-online )

Once CCP make good progress through, or complete the V3 upgrade process for ships they will be able to begin to implement custom ship skins and corp/alliance logos. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J42F4WkeFQ4#t=203s )

Where do you stand on this functionality being available through the NEX store - I.E. someone has to pay AURUM at some point. If CCP don't introduce this via the NEX, arguably they will have missed the opportunity to ever do so. There are really 2 angles to consider here, so I will ask 2 separate questions:

1. Where do you stand as a player on requiring AURUM for shipskins/logos? High cost but 'indestructable' - ala current NEX items? Low cost but destructable? Would not stand for any AURUM cost?

2. How or when should CCP approach attempting re-utilise the NEX store/AURUM for a purely vanity feature like this?
Khanh'rhh
Sparkle Motion.
#17 - 2011-11-04 12:24:19 UTC
Has the CSM seen any figures on WHspace population changes in the last 6-8months?

It seems, both to myself and to many (many) people I speak to, that the number of people running PVE in wormholes (sleeper sites) has gone down drastically. It is my opinion (and the stated preference of people I have spoken to) that this is because you can effectively do the same type of PVE in highsec, earn MORE ISK doing it, with much much less risk. Yep, Incursions. You also don't need to go looking for them, they're just there.

Wormholes that were teaming with life (C2 holes with a highsec static for instance) now seem devoid of anyone in them. We find a lot of towers abandoned, and the corp is still active, but back living in highsec.

The price of melted nanoribbons (sleeper salvage) has been climbing since early this year (up almost 50%), and does not seem to be slowing down.

My point? I believe highsec Incursions are killing WH space by misappropriated risk/reward.

It occurs to me, that highsec incursions are actually about right, income wise, for the reasons you outlined above. What is not right, is that they are exploited (by not completing the mom site) turning them into 23.5/7 ISK factories, rather than as the unique encounters I was lead to believe they were envisaged as. Incursions lack all of the immersion, when content designed to be "fighting back the sansha" are turned into a grind. You may as well remove the mom site, and the incursion constellation effects, since that seems irrelevant now. They were actually fun and engaging when they were first put into the game; they're now just a beacon on the overview and an ISK printing machine.

Would you/the CSM support tweaking the incursion dynamic so you could earn the same ISK/hr, have the same (or better) experience, but not be able to grind them all day, every day?

"Do not touch anything unnecessarily. Beware of pretty girls in dance halls and parks who may be spies, as well as bicycles, revolvers, uniforms, arms, dead horses, and men lying on roads -- they are not there accidentally." -Soviet infantry manual,

FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#18 - 2011-11-04 13:44:09 UTC  |  Edited by: FloppieTheBanjoClown
Oh ffs. Forums ate my response, too. Seriously, CCP...there have been really good forums on the web for more than a decade now. Why did you have to reinvent the wheel?

To sum up my thoughts:

I'm all for incursions. I have been since they came out. I think anything that teaches people to work in fleets and deal with other players more is a good thing.

I agree that wormholes are fine the way they are. The problem is that highsec incursions pay about as well as wormholes now, with much less risk and investment. That's a problem.

I disagree that the L4/Q20 buff was significant. "Serious" mission runners were already using the highest quality agents, the only people who saw increased income were casual missioners and players grinding their way up to Q20 on a new faction...and they only got there a few weeks early. It's not a huge difference.

There seems to be a common theme around here that something should be done about botting. Bot miners, bot missioners, bot ratters....clearly the consensus is that bots are putting too much into the economy. CCP needs to find ways prevent bots from doing what they do instead of trying to detect them. Things like putting ore into grav sites would at least slow the bots down and require more effort by their owners.

I have an idea for correcting the imbalance that exists with highsec incursions:

The idea behind incursions is that the Sansha are invading and Concord needs our help pushing them out. Concord pays us for this help. When we spend days opting to wait for more Sansha to arrive so we can shoot them and collect more bounties, does it make sense that Concord just accepts this? I would expect them, at some point, to say "Would you hurry up and just get rid of them?"

So I would suggest two things: First, that vanguard sites have diminishing returns. The longer an incursion is active, the lower the payout gets for vanguard sites, down to roughly 60% their current rate. This makes farming less profitable and creates a compelling reason for finishing the incursion and getting a fresh one started elsewhere.

If that doesn't work, the second idea is to do the same with the mothership payout: increase the base reward for winning the mothership battle, and then reduce it over time as Concord grows impatient. The reward would be in quickly dispatching the invasion rather than sitting in the middle of the invasion and shooting the smaller ships so you get more bounty.

edit: A third idea: highsec incursions shouldn't be available all day, every day. There needs to be a break in them so that people can't run from one incursion to the next doing nothing but farming them.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#19 - 2011-11-04 13:56:46 UTC
The Mittani wrote:


I think Incursions are superior in all ways to L4 missions. They generate content, socialization, and in some cases PvP. They're a great way for corps to form and recruit. And, unlike a L4, they can't be botted into being an endless fountain of isk.

So I'm in favor of Hisec incursions being profitable, as at least humans are profiting from them instead of bots, and they drive social interaction between players rather than being a mindless, boring, awful solo activity. Missions bore the hell out of me and I can't imagine doing them for any length of time. Hell, even Incursions get repetitive, but at least you can chat while you do them.


I agree with high sec incursions being more profitable aswell. On the same note they should have more risk involved aswell. An idea would be to make all incursion areas as open pvp (function as 0.0, or at least low sec) would you support this idea?
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#20 - 2011-11-04 15:18:27 UTC
Mai Khumm wrote:
I agree with high sec incursions being more profitable aswell. On the same note they should have more risk involved aswell. An idea would be to make all incursion areas as open pvp (function as 0.0, or at least low sec) would you support this idea?


There should definitely still be a sec status hit, so lowsec. Or maybe just significantly drop the concord response so that it would be possible to gank the shiny battleships, but you would be concorded for it.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

123Next pageLast page