These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

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

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Justin Credulent
Luv You Long Time
#21 - 2011-11-04 15:29:25 UTC
Quote:
his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position


Yes they do.

Null-Sec needs to HTFU and stop crying to CCP. If null-sec wants PvP, they need to stop being carebears and start fighting eachother - after years of bot-mining, they have the ships!
Mai Khumm
172.0.0.1
#22 - 2011-11-04 15:46:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Mai Khumm
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:
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.


I'd prefer sec status hit without Concorde intervention, otherwise why isn't Concorde fighting the incursions since the incursions itself is against the law...

Ninja edit...

Unless mass abduction/slavery/invasions/theft (just to Name a few offenses) is allowed but a noob shooting a can permits Concorde intervention...
Poetic Stanzitroll
Doomheim
#23 - 2011-11-04 16:24:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanzitroll
The Mittani wrote:

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.


The prospect of what you state coming to fruition frightens me greatly. In preparation I've ordered a brand new thesaurus and grammar book.

-Check out my blog, it's the best!
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2011-11-04 19:14:56 UTC
I remember a certain roundtable where null sec's farm/field issues were discussed. If I recall correctly, you shot down most, if not all, of the ideas. I was wondering what ideas you have or have seen that you would support if CCP asked CSM for input on that issue. Assuming they haven't already.
Ladie Harlot
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#25 - 2011-11-04 19:23:53 UTC
Justin Credulent wrote:
Quote:
his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position


Yes they do.

How so?

The artist formerly known as Ladie Scarlet.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2011-11-04 19:30:58 UTC
Ladie Harlot wrote:
Justin Credulent wrote:
Quote:
his actions as head of the goons do NOT reflect on his CSM position

Yes they do.

How so?

How he plays is how he's going to represent his position on the CSM. The activities he enjoys in-game are the sorts of activities he's going to push for improvement on.

(I've got no problem with the way he plays. His Ice Interdiction is fine with me, other than that it might push CCP towards making highsec even safer.)
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2011-11-04 19:36:49 UTC
Ajurna Jakar wrote:
whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking?


First, reverse the anomaly nerf. Soundwave has already indicated in the just-released video blog about balancing that the value of anomalies in nullsec will be increased, so CCP is taking our feedback into account.

Beyond that I'd like to see less emphasis on technetium, either a rebalancing of moon minerals across the board so 3/4ths of the nullsec moon space isn't worthless, or a 'quick fix' like R32 alchemy.

I'd also like to see exploration expanded and made more interesting. More variety in sites, more profit in neglected professions like archaeology, hacking, etc, and a big boost to this behavior in null. Exploration-based income is also more difficult to automate.

~hi~
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#28 - 2011-11-04 19:39:56 UTC
Bomberlocks wrote:
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


FW is among the 'abandoned features' that the CSM has already championed at the May summit for CCP to stop neglecting. However, it would be kind of silly for me to give specific advice towards fixing FW as I know absolutely nothing about it.

FW is part of the litany of 'things that need iteration' that is slightly below the CSM priority of 'sucking chest wounds'. Many of the sucking chest wounds are being addressed in Winter though, so I suspect the 'merely awful and shameful' will be up for fixes next.

~hi~
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#29 - 2011-11-04 19:40:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
The Mittani wrote:
Ajurna Jakar wrote:
whats your suggestion for fixing nullsec isking?
First, reverse the anomaly nerf. Soundwave has already indicated in the just-released video blog about balancing that the value of anomalies in nullsec will be increased, so CCP is taking our feedback into account.

Instead of increasing the value of anomolies, why not decrease some of the rewards from other regions, such as highsec incursions (which are already grossly imbalanced with respect to risk/reward.) This, in turn, would increase the inherent value of anomolies. There's already more than enough ISK flowing into the system, do we really need more? It's simply causing inflation. CCP should be looking at removing some of the ISK flowing into the system, not increasing the flow.

Was the CCP economist one of the people laid off? It would seem so.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2011-11-04 19:47:19 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
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.

My issues with E-Uni are not the point. If CCP is making highsec safer, that's the problem. And it is a big problem.

When I do make an issue of connecting E-Uni to the highsec issues, that's to give people someone to point to. People get behind issues a lot quicker when there's an obvious scapegoat (look at how many people enjoy scapegoating Goonswarm over pretty much anything.) Considering CCP sees E-Uni has their highsec golden child, attaching E-Uni to the issue is not particularly difficult.

(But in deference to you, I refrained from doing that in my original reply in this thread.)
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#31 - 2011-11-04 19:50:30 UTC  |  Edited by: The Mittani
Mike deVoid wrote:
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?


1. I don't mind CCP making money on vanity items as long as it doesn't impact the sandbox. Ship skins will actually generate capital for CCP unlike ~high fashion~.

If CCP actually gets some business sense they'll probably opt for a range of options with some skins being cheap and destructible, some being permanent but expensive, etc.

2. I want ship skins. I don't give a crap about clothes. I want my Taranis to look like my Ares, I want Kaalakiota paintjobs on basically everything, I want to never see another godawful orange/brown Lai Dai ship in one of my hangars. Oh - and I want a red Zealot.

I'm not a kneejerk anti-Aurum, anti-microtransactions zealot because this is EVE, and if I want to have a ship skin I'll sell a gullible idiot a Titan made of vapor and buy PLEX off the market. I haven't given CCP any of my actual money in years.

~hi~
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2011-11-04 19:53:25 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
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.
Nullsec does not live in a bubble (so to speak.) New Eden is a complex ecosystem, where what affects one area of the game has a ripple effect throughout the rest of the game.

Make highsec safer, less risk for more reward, then people will start to migrate to highsec, this in turns lowers the population of nullsec (and w-space and lowsec.) This in turn increases ISK in the system, causing inflation. Etc. Etc. Etc.

You cannot ignore one area of the game thinking it has no downstream effects on the area you're most interested in.

Attempt to have a larger world view, Mittens.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#33 - 2011-11-04 19:57:14 UTC
Khanh'rhh wrote:
Has the CSM seen any figures on WHspace population changes in the last 6-8months?


I seem to recall being shown a chart somewhere that indicated the population of w-space was gradually increasing over time, but I don't remember when or where I saw it.

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


More likely, you're seeing less population in w-space because fewer people are playing EVE across the board, because CCP went on some lengthy, deluded vision quest which resulted in their core product being neglected for years.

The misappropriation of risk and reward in hisec isn't Incursions, in my view, but L4 Missions being run by bots. You're more likely to at least lose a ship in an Incursion than in a L4.

Quote:
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?


It's not really something I'm going to champion or expend political capital on, sorry. There's bigger issues and sucking chest wounds that have to be addressed. I like Incursions. I think they're the best spaceship content we've had in 2 years, which isn't really fair because it's basically the /only/ spaceship content we've had in 2 years. Ugh.

~hi~
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#34 - 2011-11-04 19:59:55 UTC
FloppieTheBanjoClown wrote:

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.


It's a huge difference because the distribution of agents means it's much easier to hide bots. Previously one could pinpoint them in the L4Q20 areas and police them, potentially; now with them spread about willy-nilly, that 'report bot' function isn't going to get used much.

Not like it's easy to tell when a missionrunner is bot or not to begin with, since missionrunning is such a skullcrushingly awful activity.

~hi~
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#35 - 2011-11-04 19:59:55 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
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.


Removing the dec shield question, which i agree requires a lot of effort to maintain and is therefore balanced, perhaps you'd like to address the other aspects of the GM War Dec Ruling besides without pointing to the EVE UNI straw man?

This change has made highsec POS effectively invulnerable for all but sov holding alliances and nearly crippled mercenary corps (partic those younger ones not able to start alliances or compete for 0.0 work) ability to complete contracts.

Still simply not worth your time to object to or just wasn't considered by the CSM? If it was considered did CCP respond and how?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#36 - 2011-11-04 20:03:13 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:

Removing the dec shield question, which i agree requires a lot of effort to maintain and is therefore balanced, perhaps you'd like to address the other aspects of the GM War Dec Ruling besides without pointing to the EVE UNI straw man?

This change has made highsec POS effectively invulnerable for all but sov holding alliances and nearly crippled mercenary corps (partic those younger ones not able to start alliances or compete for 0.0 work) ability to complete contracts.

Still simply not worth your time to object to or just wasn't considered by the CSM? If it was considered did CCP respond and how?


I said it was dumb, they did it anyway. vOv

Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually possess orbital mind control lasers.

~hi~
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#37 - 2011-11-04 20:05:44 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, I don't actually possess orbital mind control lasers.
People say you're a frickin' shark, though. ;)
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#38 - 2011-11-04 20:09:06 UTC
Bagehi wrote:
I remember a certain roundtable where null sec's farm/field issues were discussed. If I recall correctly, you shot down most, if not all, of the ideas. I was wondering what ideas you have or have seen that you would support if CCP asked CSM for input on that issue. Assuming they haven't already.


Roundtables are full of dumb ideas. I don't remember specifics of what I shot down, though; since I've spent a lot of time championing the concept of Farms and Fields, I doubt you.

In May we spent a lot of time brainstorming with CCP on Farms and Fields, as discussed in the May minutes. It's a very high priority for CSM6: not just making nullsec worthwhile in terms of risk/reward, but providing targets for smaller entities to set fire to.

~hi~
Sephiroth Clone VII
Brothers of Tyr
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2011-11-04 20:53:50 UTC
When are you going to get voted out like Finis Valorum Chancellor of the galactic republic in episode one?

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Finis_Valorum

Pubbie ice miner -"I was not elected ceo in my corp to watch my miners suffer and die while you discuss the gallente industrial blockade in a committee. If this body is not capable of action, I suggest new leadership is needed. I move for a Vote of No Confidence in CSM chairman Mittani's leadership."
FloppieTheBanjoClown
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
#40 - 2011-11-04 21:21:43 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
I'd also like to see exploration expanded and made more interesting. More variety in sites, more profit in neglected professions like archaeology, hacking, etc, and a big boost to this behavior in null. Exploration-based income is also more difficult to automate.

Make that happen, and I'll vote for you from now until the end of time. I'll also have your manbabies.
The Mittani wrote:
It's not really something I'm going to champion or expend political capital on, sorry. There's bigger issues and sucking chest wounds that have to be addressed. I like Incursions. I think they're the best spaceship content we've had in 2 years, which isn't really fair because it's basically the /only/ spaceship content we've had in 2 years. Ugh.

I'm curious what you think of my proposal of diminishing returns for farming incursions. It's an attempt at a "best of both worlds" solution where the initial payout is high, but the economic incentive is geared toward getting sansha out of the constellation in a reasonable time, not to keeping them there as long as possible.
The Mittani wrote:
It's a huge difference because the distribution of agents means it's much easier to hide bots. Previously one could pinpoint them in the L4Q20 areas and police them, potentially; now with them spread about willy-nilly, that 'report bot' function isn't going to get used much.

Ahh, I understand now. I agree that missionbots are a problem, but for the non-bots missioning wasn't affected much with the Q20 change, except it became a lot more user-friendly. I think the solution is to introduce SOMETHING that would require a thinking human response to start/continue/complete the mission. Even a captcha every 3-5 missions wouldn't be out of the question so long as CCP did a good job of explaining it in-game for those who don't read the news updates.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.