These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Osabojo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#621 - 2012-02-10 04:09:06 UTC
But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting? Would you be more inclined to attribute it to the moral failings of botters, or would you instead say that it has more to do with isk being a tedium based currency, and that botting would be less of a problem if earning isk were a byproduct of successfully playing the game in an enjoyable way? Or perhaps some other cause that I have unintentionally excluded?

Pseudo Ucksth
Camellia Void Cartographics
#622 - 2012-02-10 04:20:31 UTC
Osabojo wrote:
moral failings of botters


Haha. Oh wow.
Vordak Kallager
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#623 - 2012-02-10 04:30:39 UTC
JamesCLK wrote:
Cearain wrote:

:words::words::words::words::words::words: and more :words:


Mittens prefering to test 0.0 sov mechanics on FW, and Mittens (as the chairman) trying to push the CSM to advocate 0.0 sov mechanics to be tested on FW, are two entirely different arguments. His stance is from my understanding the former of the two.

Put the Drama Llama away? Shocked


If you test 0.0 mechanics on FW and Lowsec, you are going to get very different results and feedback than if you test them on the player base they are designed for.

FW/Lowsec inhabitants and 0.0 inhabitants differ greatly in their expectations of the game and why they play the game. Something that might work in 0.0 might not work in FW and vice versa. Therefore, it is a waste of time to try to use one player base as a "test-bed" for the other.

To use an extremely straightforward analogy that you might be able to more clearly understand:

CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Tyran Scorpi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#624 - 2012-02-10 04:35:55 UTC
Having read your thoughts on the Assembly Hall, where would you suggest bringing up an idea then?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#625 - 2012-02-10 04:35:57 UTC
Vordak Kallager wrote:
CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out.

The cat was buggy and crashed the bath.

Queue a day of bugfixing to restore the cat to its proper state of accepting baths.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#626 - 2012-02-10 04:41:26 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Thanks Jinli mei for doing the hard work of finding the official stance on the botting issue. I wanted to know, but was too lazy to do it myself.

I suppose the botting is a Two Final Solution. Either you hate bots so much you leave your alliance, or you love your allaince so much you stay and ignore the botting. Makes sense to me. Not much else you can do I suppose.

Also with the low sec test bed. When I read it, it seemed a way to add features to low sec, so its more fun and enjoyable and has things going for it. I never felt it would restrict low sec the way players feel about it. I actaully liked hearing about the test bed and it is a bit surprising the players reactions to it.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Vordak Kallager
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#627 - 2012-02-10 05:32:36 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Thanks Jinli mei for doing the hard work of finding the official stance on the botting issue. I wanted to know, but was too lazy to do it myself.

I suppose the botting is a Two Final Solution. Either you hate bots so much you leave your alliance, or you love your allaince so much you stay and ignore the botting. Makes sense to me. Not much else you can do I suppose.

Also with the low sec test bed. When I read it, it seemed a way to add features to low sec, so its more fun and enjoyable and has things going for it. I never felt it would restrict low sec the way players feel about it. I actaully liked hearing about the test bed and it is a bit surprising the players reactions to it.


So far, those "features" have been potential new 0.0 Sov Mechanics. We don't want "nullsec lite" in lowsec. There will be a lot of unsubs if we have to start doing 0.0 Sov war bullshit over in lowsec. Lowsec is about casual/instant pvp, not about long form ups/waits and alarm-clock ops.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#628 - 2012-02-10 05:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
yeah that's why nullsec voters came out in droves to vote in representatives
because they're really happy with the current sov war mechanics as is
so happy that clearly they want to make lowsec a copy of the current model
Vordak Kallager
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#629 - 2012-02-10 06:13:09 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah that's why nullsec voters came out in droves to vote in representatives
because they're really happy with the current sov war mechanics as is
so happy that clearly they want to make lowsec a copy of the current model


I don't think you understand what my point is, but thanks for the sarcasm anyway.

Sa souvraya niende misain ye.

Gallinarr
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#630 - 2012-02-10 09:42:55 UTC
Cearain wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
It might be a cat out of a bag for your people, but my people are happier with CCP not implementing ~grand ideas~ on null without testing them elsewhere first..



The people who do null sec sov war are after completely different things in eve than people who are in low sec or doing faction war. Your suggestion that the mechanics be the same, or one be a test bed for the other, completely misses this fundamental point. I will make an attempt to spell this out for you because you clearly don't get it.


Yes there currently are more people in null sec. However, if CCP spent as much time thinking about and iterating on faction war and low sec and left null sec abandoned like they have low sec and faction war then the numbers would be more than reversed. The potential playerbase that would be attracted to low sec and faction war is much larger than the playerbase who can be attracted to null sec sov warfar.


Sov null sec is for people who are willing to dedicate allot of their lives to a computer game. They are willing to wait around a long time for those epic battles. The epic battles are indeed epic and when they happen its extremely high stakes for a computer game. That part is great and works out well for people like yourself who are retired or perhaps people in college who haven’t yet fully experienced the real life grind. I’m not putting this part of the game down at all. If I had allot of extra time I would probably do that myself. But the reality is I don’t have that sort of time. And I am allot more typical – at least when it comes to adults who might play eve - than people like yourself who are retired and have lots of free time for computer games.




You said it yourself that one of the goals in sov warfare is to make it so the other side doesn’t want to sign on anymore. Well the problem is the things you have to do to in order to make the other side not want to sign in are extremely boring to allot of people. POS bashing Camping stations and gates never really getting anything but ganks and no really good fights for hours on end. This isn’t stuff allot of players find entertaining.



However, sov null sec has to be that way because the stakes are higher. The timers should be slow giving each side time to get their large fleets together. CCP can’t make it so that if you sign off for a few hours you find that when you log back on you lost your system and all your crap there. With the high stakes comes allot of boring downtime that is all there is to it.



Balancing or giving more isk for doing sov null sec stuff is just rolling that turd in glitter. I can only use isk in game and if the game play primarily consists of sitting around waiting for something to happen then it’s worthless. I couldn’t care less about it.




Faction war and low sec is for people who want to be entertained without committing their lives to a computer game. Think “better than tv.” I come home from work put the kids to bed and I have a an hour or two before bed. I can watch tv with my wife or I can go shoot some people in the face.




Like hans says the mechanics need to be set up to bring about frequent fun small scale fights. The faction war plexing mechanics seem to have been geared to do that but they have sat broken for years. These plex mechanics need to be fine tuned and balanced more often than anything else in eve.


If a group at ccp took it upon themselves to say it is their goal to tweak and balance the plex mechanics to make sure that there is always lots of small scale pvp happening in these plexes (and low sec general) the eve subscriber base would explode.



It’s not going to be something where they just make one change and it works. It will need allot of fine tuning to get it going right. Lots of iterating. But it will be worth it to a much larger potential playerbase than sov null sec could ever hope to capture.



But instead it sits neglected. So what happens? I and many in low sec will often sign on and spend a few hours roaming around with no action at all. Sorry that’s not even better than tv. String several nights like that together where I go to sleep thinking I should have watched a show instead of signing on and ccp loses subscribers.



Moreover, the fights should have *some* significance. I mean right now the low sec fights are just barely a step up from sisi. The stakes shouldn’t be so high that it turns into sov null sec but there should be some overarching goals that somewhat accurately measure who is doing well at the parts of the game people value.(i.e., who is doing well at small gang pvp) This is important so it’s not just a constant meaningless thunderdome.


I would also bet that many people who have the time to play the null sec sov stuff would like to head over to faction war and low sec if ccp actually developed it. Just for a change of pace.


TLDR:


Eve can work for people who have allot of time to play the game and for people who don't. But the same mechanics aren't always going to work for both sets of people.





Do you know how much scrolling I had to do just from clicking the quote button
Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#631 - 2012-02-10 09:44:49 UTC
The Mittani wrote:

I'm pretty sure it came from CCP first, but I certainly agree with it. I'd rather new capture mechanics be tested on FW before being inflicted on nullsec.



I rather prefer CCP tests 0.0 stuff in 0.0 and not use another game feature as a testbed for your own gameplay. Since faction warfare in low sec has its own different rules (bombs, bubbles, crime, etc) and completely different makeup (empire influence, role-playing, smaller gang fights, plexes, loyalty points) and goals (not really empire building but more empire extending and faster combat) "testing" any mechanic for 0.0 will be therefore be flawed.

Not to mention the totally different desires of pirates and gankers and other professions of the 8% of people in eve who enjoy low sec. My question for you is (although it is more of a request): please don't test how you park your new car in another's man garage.

oh and PS: its not all about hate, to quote one of the best movies of all time "All that hate's gonne burn you up son"

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Gallinarr
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#632 - 2012-02-10 09:48:12 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Or George Lucas.

does ccp phantom know you use him as a sig Lol
Jafit
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#633 - 2012-02-10 11:12:11 UTC
Osabojo wrote:
But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting?


Mindlessly repetitive PvE gameplay and tasks which automaton excel at because they require no thought or creativity.

Eve is a terrible game.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#634 - 2012-02-10 11:16:54 UTC
Gallinarr wrote:
rodyas wrote:
Or George Lucas.

does ccp phantom know you use him as a sig Lol


He gave me this sig, and thus holds to power to treat my sig as a play thing and give me any sig he deems worthy of me having.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#635 - 2012-02-10 11:19:33 UTC
Vordak Kallager wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
yeah that's why nullsec voters came out in droves to vote in representatives
because they're really happy with the current sov war mechanics as is
so happy that clearly they want to make lowsec a copy of the current model


I don't think you understand what my point is, but thanks for the sarcasm anyway.


I will give it a crack finding out what ya mean.

Yeah I know what ya mean, actually alot of null sec people dont even like the Sov warfare and such. Lots of players hate the strucure bash and want that to be made easier or changed. Like destroyable stations and such. I actually forgot about their complaints about null. But remembering them and low sec people thinking those will be given to them, yeah I see now. Makes since people would be angry with null coming to low, since the problems come with it.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Imryn Xaran
Coherent Light Enterprises
#636 - 2012-02-10 11:29:45 UTC

The Mittani wrote:
my furnace blew when it got down to 14 last night, got it up and running again and i'm going to chill out and play some tribes tonight; will hit up the new questions from actual humans later

i see that the roleplaying publord has been frantically trying to imitate a demagogue while i've been away and posting up a storm

heh


Sorry to hear about your domestic disaster and glad to see you are back. Now about my question…

The Mittani wrote:
incidentally the publord's question was answered in the previous 30 pages, but he's too cool for school to actually read the thread rather than smearing poop on the walls and howling for validation from me


I have read it all (have you?) and no it hasn’t been answered. Various people have posted on the subject, mainly just confirming that I have got your alliance policy on this correct. You have not said one word on the subject, apart from throwing insults around. You are the guy who wants to be voted in, not these other random stooges so how about you answer the question?

Jinli mei wrote:
Think about this in the way that republican candidates care about strong democratic and liberal values when they have office (hint: they don't). He got chairman because 0.0 players had enough votes for him to cater to their needs (although, in reality, he caters to the needs of the game and making it not poop)


Of course politicians make promises and say things when campaigning that they don’t really believe or intend to do – there’s even a phrase just for it. But politicians also get called on the crap they say, and get asked hard questions in the press and in debate. It’s all part of the process. When I first asked my question I expected a paragraph or two in response and that would have been the end of it.

Jinli mei wrote:
Because that's screwing over your friends and you deserved to get the boot for it. Or because it's not an alliances job to police what its member base does. Or because CCP doesn't (as of writing) care enough to deal with bots. Or because ratting is so unrealistically boring that it's easy to sympathize with people who bot. Pick an answer that makes you mad the most so you can mash words about it while I go back to ignoring these terrible forums.


I could pick an answer, but nobody cares what I think on the subject. I would like to know, (and I think a few others would too), what the Mittani thinks on the subject. I simply asked him to clarify his position on the issue in light of the apparently contradictory positions he has taken.

Jinli mei wrote:
You won't hear it from him because you want to hear it from him. I hope this is obvious to you, but it probably isn't so here are the words.

I don't think he stated he was going to answer all questions. And you can jerk and preach this point as much as you want but it won't really have any value because nobody cares.


He didn’t say he would answer all questions, that’s true, but he did say “I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever” I think botting and RMT are important issues and so do many other people.

So, Mittani, can you please clarify your position on supporting CCP’s anti-bot initiatives given that you seem to be encouraging the general EVE playerbase to report people they suspect of botting, whilst at the same time telling your alliance that they will be kicked for reporting a fellow alliance member for botting.
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#637 - 2012-02-10 11:32:51 UTC
Its because the goons put their bots through a rigurous training program to create an elite botting force, that should not be so easy to ban or one to quick to ban them.

Other bots found in the game are enferior bots that are lazy and never had a hard days work before. You should immediatly report those bots or shoot them on site. They lower the high quality EVE has.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

JamesCLK
#638 - 2012-02-10 11:56:18 UTC  |  Edited by: JamesCLK
Vordak Kallager wrote:

If you test 0.0 mechanics on FW and Lowsec, you are going to get very different results and feedback than if you test them on the player base they are designed for.

FW/Lowsec inhabitants and 0.0 inhabitants differ greatly in their expectations of the game and why they play the game. Something that might work in 0.0 might not work in FW and vice versa. Therefore, it is a waste of time to try to use one player base as a "test-bed" for the other.

To use an extremely straightforward analogy that you might be able to more clearly understand:

CCP gives their Dog a bath. The Dog loves it. Dogs and Cats are both animals. Therefore, CCP is going to give it's Cat that same bath. You can guess how that will turn out.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that using FW as a testbed is a good idea; there just seems to be a lot of rambling over validity of opinion around the subject; the CSM minutes are, for all intents and purposes, high level discussions*. Lots of things are brought to the table as suggestions and ideas - that doesn't make them good, but they certainly are cheap.

I know that faction warfare pilots fly for the blood and carnage of lowsec, not the hate and resentment of 0.0; all I was argueing is that Mittens has a valid opinion on the matter - and that he, as far as I know, hasn't pushed for it as a feature yet; only discussed it as a possibility.

It is understandable that many don't even want it to be a possibility though.



*High level discussions in design mean superficial discussions with a very broad scope and deal with things like playstyles, as opposed to low level discussions that deal with individual mechanics and tweaks; things like "what is wrong with lowsec?" are high level questions; things like "should we decrease the GCC timer to 5 minutes?" are low level questions.

-- -.-- / -.-. .-.. --- -. . / .. ... / - --- --- / . -..- .--. . -. ... .. ...- . / - --- / ..- -. -.. --- -.-. -.- / ... - --- .--. / .--. .-.. . .- ... . / ... . -. -.. / .... . .-.. .--. / ... - --- .--.

Osabojo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#639 - 2012-02-10 12:17:27 UTC
Jafit wrote:
Osabojo wrote:
But hey, since botting seems to be the topic of the day, let's ask The Mittani about botting. The Mittani, what would you say is the root cause of botting?


Mindlessly repetitive PvE gameplay and tasks which automaton excel at because they require no thought or creativity.

Eve is a terrible game.


Exactly. And these are also very profitable activities. So we can either expect players, especially alliance leaders, to express some kind of moral outrage about botting and go on crusades against it, and criticize them if they seem inconsistent with that, or we can expect CCP to make botting more difficult and (more importantly) less desirable.

Making isk should be fun. This is a game. When tedium is profitable, it invites botting, and that's CCP's problem to solve.

I have to wonder if there's some kind of twisted work ethic at play here, that says you should have to suffer through tedious labor to enjoy the game that you've paid for.
Osabojo
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#640 - 2012-02-10 12:24:28 UTC
It's not unusual for gaming organizations to have policies against their members reporting each other for suspected rules violations instead of going through the organization's leadership. Recently I read the 30plus.org charter (I'm old, lol) and it specifically states members must not make public accusations of cheating.

I guess someone could take that as support of cheating, but most people would probably see that as a rule against stupid drama. Of course, if you thrive on stupid drama then you'll probably find such a rule infuriating and launch into some kind of tirade about it on an internet forum.