These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#261 - 2015-01-23 13:47:46 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Then they shouldn't be improved in that way. There are plenty of ways to improve this game's PvE without crippling player interaction.
Again, you seem to have no concept of a minor change. A change to improve PVE which is detrimental to interaction is not necessarily going to *cripple* player interaction. You have a very extreme view of changes against player interaction but not so the other way.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
You're trying to claim that the only way PvE can be improved is at my expense, and that just exposes it for what it really is.
No, I'm claiming that some ways will affect your gameplay. All changes will affect someone negatively, no matter what that change is. You have no problem with other people's gameplay getting affected by positive changes to yours, but when the shoe is on the other foot you scream blue murder.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
It's not about improving your gameplay, and it never was. It's about hurting mine. And that's why people like Sabriz need to be elected. Because CCP needs to hear my voice, and the voice of people who care about PvP and the sandbox all over EVE.
It's got absolutely nothing to do with hurting your gameplay. Everyone's opinions need to be listened to, not just your select group of players. Your happy to go on about how the carebears shouldn't have a say, yet you act the exact same way from the opposite side of the fence and your opinion is supposed t be listened to instead?

You are not better or more important than any other player, and other people's opinions are valid too. A CSM representative should represent the needs of the community as a whole, not just one subset of players. Sabriz complained that Tora's campaign is geared around benefiting himself and his friends, and that's exactly the same if Sabriz agrees to automatically reject any idea which decreases conflict without consideration. And lets face it, if a CSM member becomes known for rejecting ideas without consideration they are less likely to be the ones listened to when CCP makes a decision. Sabriz would serve his players better by taking on board the ideas put forward and giving solid reasons why they should not be implemented, rather than rejecting them out of hand, but then again players from your camp never have been very good at reasoning, just exploding into "ZOMG You want total safety! I'm paying it forward! Waah, waah why u nerf me ccp" every time a minor change is suggested.
Ranamar
Nobody in Local
Of Sound Mind
#262 - 2015-01-23 19:14:23 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:

My statement was incredibly simple: Any idea, regardless of whether it increase or decreased conflict should be looked at for it's own merits. Any CSM candidate who will automatically disregard ideas because they reduce conflict without giving them a second look is not a good candidate.


That's the whole point.

There is no merit to ideas that reduce player interaction. None. They should be dismissed out of hand.


You seem to have a very limited view of "player interaction". I would think that corporations not being as at risk from a newbie recruit might well increase player interaction by reducing the level of trust required for players to cooperate.
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#263 - 2015-01-23 23:19:17 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
but then again players from your camp never have been very good at reasoning, just exploding into "ZOMG You want total safety! I'm paying it forward! Waah, waah why u nerf me ccp" every time a minor change is suggested.


Deletion of an entire playstyle is not a minor change, so knock off the lies and obfuscation. If CCP proposed tomorrow that missions be deleted, I would be right up there with the mission runners demanding it be overturned. Because whether I like something or not (and I despise EVE's PvE "content" with all my heart), does not merit it's deletion.

Your side on the other hand is not capable of being impartial or fair. You just want PvP deleted as often and as thoroughly as possible.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#264 - 2015-01-24 00:41:31 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Tim Timpson wrote:
but then again players from your camp never have been very good at reasoning, just exploding into "ZOMG You want total safety! I'm paying it forward! Waah, waah why u nerf me ccp" every time a minor change is suggested.
Deletion of an entire playstyle is not a minor change, so knock off the lies and obfuscation. If CCP proposed tomorrow that missions be deleted, I would be right up there with the mission runners demanding it be overturned. Because whether I like something or not (and I despise EVE's PvE "content" with all my heart), does not merit it's deletion.

Your side on the other hand is not capable of being impartial or fair. You just want PvP deleted as often and as thoroughly as possible.
An once again, I'm not stating your playstyle should be deleted. Very few people are. Once again you'd rather argue against that strawman than the actual point, which is that stating that any change which reduces conflict should be rejected out of hand is far too simplistic a view for a CSM candidate to take. Yet again, you seem to read what's written, then automatically assume that between the lines it says "DELETE ENTIRE PLAYSTYLE" and you choose to argue about that. It's pointless even trying to have a rational discussion with someone like you as you have absolutely no intention of comprehending what is said. In your mind everyone's out to get you. I say "Ideas should be considered on their own merits" and somehow you read that as "PvP should be removed from the game". Time and again with you I've seen the same thing. Someone suggests a tiny change, you freak out like they've just asked CCP to remove guns. And yet you expect CCP to take your protests seriously?
Diemos Hiaraki
Septentrion
#265 - 2015-01-24 07:10:54 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I'm announcing my candidacy for CSM10, as one of the many people involved in bringing conflict, opportunity, destruction and excitement to high security space.


Just listened to your cap stable interview and I found it very thought provoking and interesting. That said I don't really agree on much you say - I want high sec abolished apart from a few nursery systems for new players and anything else is just a waste of dev time imo. High sec doesn't make sense (at least to most players I've talked to) yet most Eve players chose to live there even with the best and more rewarding content elsewhere. Why? The answer is quite simple isn't it? "You can't trust anyone in Eve, but you can trust NPC's to protect you in high sec," which for me is a rather terrible situation for Eve to be in.

I've just taken a year or so break from Eve, and I made a new character to see whether I wanted to come back or not, and managed to watch enough predatory high sec players doing their thing with my new character that I came to the following conclusion:

The longer that gankers/griefers operate with impunity and complete safety in high sec (buzzing around in their pods) the more CCP will be pushed to act by those on the receiving end of the gank.

I personally don't think buffing things for 'carebears' or continuing to allow the gankers to operate as they do now as good for the game in the long term. I know a lot of players who have gone full turtle after a high sec wardec (including myself) and I know lots of people who quit altogether, but I don't blame gankers of high sec wardeccers for Eve's problems, I blame high sec mechanics.

So, because I see high sec as the cancer slowly killing off Eve subscribers and I want the vast majority of high sec to be abolished I obviously won't be voting for you as your manifesto stands. However I would really appreciate it if you could answer a question - do you think that the likes of yourself, Marmite and CODE would adapt and find enjoyable content in Eve if high sec was downgraded to low or null sec? I know this may seem like a strange question, but I honestly think that high sec's days are numbered.

*this character is currently my main and in an NPC corp because I've not decided on the area he is going to operate in yet (and there will be a lot of lossmails on my way there I expect since I'm rusty.)
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#266 - 2015-01-24 13:06:25 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
An once again, I'm not stating your playstyle should be deleted. Very few people are.


Then you need to stop acting like people are upset about "a minor change". It's dismissive and dishonest.


Quote:
And yet you expect CCP to take your protests seriously?


I expect CCP to take my statements equally as seriously as those on the opposing side. The problem is that they're only listening to one side of the argument, and it damn sure isn't my side.

Which is precisely why people like Sabriz must be elected to the CSM.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#267 - 2015-01-24 17:02:20 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Then you need to stop acting like people are upset about "a minor change". It's dismissive and dishonest.
Except you are. At this point you are upset at the idea of giving ideas that reduce conflict a reasonable look before rejecting them, so you're in fact upset at non-existent changes. You repeatedly harp on about the removal of your playstyle to people who have not stated that's what they want. If you have a problem with other people's ideas, tell them, don't tell me when were talking about something different.

Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I expect CCP to take my statements equally as seriously as those on the opposing side. The problem is that they're only listening to one side of the argument, and it damn sure isn't my side.

Which is precisely why people like Sabriz must be elected to the CSM.
Even with Sabriz on your side, if you repeatedly screech about every single tiny change as if it's the end of the world, you won't be taken seriously, and if Sabriz repeatedly raises it, he also won't be taken seriously. As it is his entire campaign seems to be based around forcing other people to generate content for code regardless of their playstyle, so even if he gets in I doubt he'll be a major voice on the CSM.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#268 - 2015-01-24 22:43:20 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Then you need to stop acting like people are upset about "a minor change". It's dismissive and dishonest.
Except you are. At this point you are upset at the idea of giving ideas that reduce conflict a reasonable look before rejecting them, so you're in fact upset at non-existent changes. You repeatedly harp on about the removal of your playstyle to people who have not stated that's what they want. If you have a problem with other people's ideas, tell them, don't tell me when were talking about something different.

I think you are under a bit of a misapprehension about the reason for the change to intracorp aggression actually is. CCP has indicated that it is actually to increase interaction, and therefore conflict by getting more new players into highsec corporations where thy will compete with other corps for resources and market share, or directly using the wardec mechanics. CCP is not implementing this proposal to "reduce conflict".

The problem I have with the changes are two-fold. First, it is unlikely to work as new players that actually want to already have no problem finding a corp, so this will not influence the player's behaviour but it will protect and stabilize poor corps and down-right exploitive corps and allow them to abuse newbies. There is no guarantee that this change will get newbies into actually good corps that will increase their chances of staying in the game.

Second, in order to try to get highsec corps to accept more new players, CCP is essentially bribing them with a flag to turn of a major risk to the established players in the corp. This is actually a significant reduction in risk to these players and will reduce conflict in the sandbox. CCP is betting that the net increase in player retention/interaction with highsec corps will offset this loss in content. I think they are wrong.

So no, ideas that are designed to specifically reduce content should, and are usually are rejected out of hand by CCP. CSM members also should reject any change to the sandbox that the primary outcome will reduce interaction or content - that is self-evident. The problem arises when CCP (and the CSM) hopes that certain changes (like increasing the safety of highsec) will result in more player interaction or retention and when that doesn't materialize, such changes really just diminish conflict in the sandbox and the game is worse off than before.

We need insistent voices on the CSM to point out to CCP when they are in danger of doing this.

Tim Timpson wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
I expect CCP to take my statements equally as seriously as those on the opposing side. The problem is that they're only listening to one side of the argument, and it damn sure isn't my side.

Which is precisely why people like Sabriz must be elected to the CSM.
Even with Sabriz on your side, if you repeatedly screech about every single tiny change as if it's the end of the world, you won't be taken seriously, and if Sabriz repeatedly raises it, he also won't be taken seriously. As it is his entire campaign seems to be based around forcing other people to generate content for code regardless of their playstyle, so even if he gets in I doubt he'll be a major voice on the CSM.


First, being vocal about change that removes your previous playstyle (or perhaps more accurately in this case, strongly nerfs) should not be characterized as "screeching" - that is condescending to the concerns of a fellow player. These changes to intracorp aggression mechanics do exactly that to the niche group of players that participated in these corporate infiltration escapades. A fundamental part of their gameplay has/will be altered by these changes and they should be heard.

DJ FunkyBacon, a CSM member, made an impassioned plea for the value of intracorp aggression during the summer CSM meeting (starting on page 77). Of course I can't know for sure, but I give him and his defense of intracorp agression much credit for the toning down of the proposal from the complete removal of intracorp aggression, to the optional flag we have now. So, your hypothesis that CSM members that support a pro-conflict view of highsec will be ignored by CCP or the CSM seems rather weak.

In fact, CCP Seagull has made it clear that her vision of Eve is one where players are always in grand conflict with each other - everything will be destroyable she says. It was also made clear at last year's Fanfest that players in social groups stay with the game much longer. Therefore, development resources are not going to be spent on changes to the game that reduce conflict or interaction (or at least that will not be the intention). Unless there is a major change in direction, there will be no significant new PvE content - that ship has sailed. Further, the importance of highsec will be minimized when the new player built stargates come online as a necessity to justify the current direction she is taking the game.

Representatives that get that Eve is about conflict - candidates like Sabriz - are exactly what is needed on the CSM as we move forward into the new golden age of this game.
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#269 - 2015-01-25 00:19:18 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
think you are under a bit of a misapprehension about the reason for the change to intracorp aggression actually is. CCP has indicated that it is actually to increase interaction, and therefore conflict by getting more new players into highsec corporations where thy will compete with other corps for resources and market share, or directly using the wardec mechanics. CCP is not implementing this proposal to "reduce conflict".
Perhaps you've not been reading this thread since it's not discussing the awox changes. The point made was that Feyd wanted CSM members to state that they would automatically reject any change which reduced interaction, which I pointed out as an overly simplistic view to take. Kaarous then decided to once again turn it into a massive thread about him whining on about how people want to remove his playstyle.

Black Pedro wrote:
So no, ideas that are designed to specifically reduce content should, and are usually are rejected out of hand by CCP. CSM members also should reject any change to the sandbox that the primary outcome will reduce interaction or content - that is self-evident. The problem arises when CCP (and the CSM) hopes that certain changes (like increasing the safety of highsec) will result in more player interaction or retention and when that doesn't materialize, such changes really just diminish conflict in the sandbox and the game is worse off than before.
No, CCP take on board ideas and consider them for their merits. If an idea is good for the game but reduces conflict, that may be a cost they are willing to pay. CSM members should do the same. In essences, an idea isn't automatically bad because you wouldn't like it. A variety of people play this game and CCP knows and accepts this.

Black Pedro wrote:
First, being vocal about change that removes your previous playstyle (or perhaps more accurately in this case, strongly nerfs) should not be characterized as "screeching" - that is condescending to the concerns of a fellow player. These changes to intracorp aggression mechanics do exactly that to the niche group of players that participated in these corporate infiltration escapades. A fundamental part of their gameplay has/will be altered by these changes and they should be heard.
It wouldn't be, if that's what actually was happening. Realistically this discussion has nothing to do with awox changes, and even if it were it's at most a part of a gameplay style not an entire style in itself (much like how reprocessing was a part of and industry playstyle and that was nuked). The fact that Kaarous jumps in pretty much any times anyone mentions the word risk jumping up and down and going on about everything as if it's a suggestion to remove all risk, that is in fact screeching.

There's a fairly significant group of people who are unable to have a reasonable discussion around risk in EVE. As soon as someone suggest something that would reduce risk, this group throws up the usual strawman about how removing all risk is a terrible idea and they argue at that for eternity.

Black Pedro wrote:
DJ FunkyBacon, a CSM member, made an impassioned plea for the value of intracorp aggression during the summer CSM meeting (starting on page 77). Of course I can't know for sure, but I give him and his defense of intracorp agression much credit for the toning down of the proposal from the complete removal of intracorp aggression, to the optional flag we have now. So, your hypothesis that CSM members that support a pro-conflict view of highsec will be ignored by CCP or the CSM seems rather weak.
Actually, if you read what he's written in there he missed the point. As many people have on the forums he looked at it from the point of view of "protect the newbies from being shot" which is not the focus of the change. Sure, he's probably the reason it's a toggle, but that argument was because there are legitimate use cases for corp aggression, not because having a toggle is a lesser change.

Black Pedro wrote:
In fact, CCP Seagull has made it clear that her vision of Eve is one where players are always in grand conflict with each other - everything will be destroyable she says. It was also made clear at last year's Fanfest that players in social groups stay with the game much longer. Therefore, development resources are not going to be spent on changes to the game that reduce conflict or interaction (or at least that will not be the intention). Unless there is a major change in direction, there will be no significant new PvE content - that ship has sailed. Further, the importance of highsec will be minimized when the new player built stargates come online as a necessity to justify the current direction she is taking the game.

Representatives that get that Eve is about conflict - candidates like Sabriz - are exactly what is needed on the CSM as we move forward into the new golden age of this game.
Of course that's what Seagull has in mind for EVE, but that doesn't mean everything should be based around generating conflict on all levels, and is certainly based around the understanding that conflict is more than just shooting people. If the entire game was supposed to be people shooting each other, PVE would be removed and it would be converted into a space MOBA. It hasn't though because EVE is a sandbox where a variety of people play with different styles.

And I get that you want Sabriz, I strongly disagree that people like him are needed though. His campaing in very self-serving. Listen to his capstable interview, and you get the understanding that a lot of the changes being suggested are to force people to have to be content for CODE.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#270 - 2015-01-25 11:00:03 UTC
Time to catch up on replies. Starting with the most interesting one, IMHO, then the hostile ones.

Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I'm announcing my candidacy for CSM10, as one of the many people involved in bringing conflict, opportunity, destruction and excitement to high security space.


Just listened to your cap stable interview and I found it very thought provoking and interesting. That said I don't really agree on much you say - I want high sec abolished apart from a few nursery systems for new players and anything else is just a waste of dev time imo. High sec doesn't make sense (at least to most players I've talked to) yet most Eve players chose to live there even with the best and more rewarding content elsewhere. Why? The answer is quite simple isn't it? "You can't trust anyone in Eve, but you can trust NPC's to protect you in high sec," which for me is a rather terrible situation for Eve to be in.

I've just taken a year or so break from Eve, and I made a new character to see whether I wanted to come back or not, and managed to watch enough predatory high sec players doing their thing with my new character that I came to the following conclusion:

The longer that gankers/griefers operate with impunity and complete safety in high sec (buzzing around in their pods) the more CCP will be pushed to act by those on the receiving end of the gank.

I personally don't think buffing things for 'carebears' or continuing to allow the gankers to operate as they do now as good for the game in the long term. I know a lot of players who have gone full turtle after a high sec wardec (including myself) and I know lots of people who quit altogether, but I don't blame gankers of high sec wardeccers for Eve's problems, I blame high sec mechanics.

So, because I see high sec as the cancer slowly killing off Eve subscribers and I want the vast majority of high sec to be abolished I obviously won't be voting for you as your manifesto stands. However I would really appreciate it if you could answer a question - do you think that the likes of yourself, Marmite and CODE would adapt and find enjoyable content in Eve if high sec was downgraded to low or null sec? I know this may seem like a strange question, but I honestly think that high sec's days are numbered.

*this character is currently my main and in an NPC corp because I've not decided on the area he is going to operate in yet (and there will be a lot of lossmails on my way there I expect since I'm rusty.)



I want to address the 'highsec should be nothing more than a kiddie pool' argument.

Each category of space has game mechanics that define an identity for that space and in doing so promote a type of gameplay.

Lowsec, for instance, features game rules preventing bubbles and sharply hurting interceptor gatecamps. As a consequence, it's 'identity' is that it's the freefire space where escape is easiest, where supercapitals are at their most powerful*, and

Rookie systems have their identity set by the rules against non-consensual PVP and the total lack of attractive resources (level 4 mission agents, high end exploration sites, good asteroids, etc). This is what make them the 'kiddie pool'.

Highsec's identity is set by CONCORD. CONCORD create an environment where more 'neutral' players can coexist in a system than is possible in any other area of space. Outside high, it's not possible to have dozens of neutrals in a system except in unusual circumstances. This leads to an environment where a lot of people are willing to undock and act in a system at one time in a way that's just not going to happen outside of cynojammed systems deep in sovereign null.

It's also space that allows players to operate when they do not have the capacity to escalate fights. Outside highsec, the correct action to take when you spot an opposing force you cannot defeat is to go into lockdown. In highsec, you have the very real option of using the advantages CONCORD provide the defender in engagements to try to deter a superior force from attacking. This makes it conducive to solo play in a way that other areas of space are not.

Finally, you can't trust CONCORD with your safety, only with retribution. Retribution for illegal aggression is certain; your survival is up to your choices.

I do not feel that the removal of (non-rookie system) highsec will ever occur, nor would I advocate it. Much as non-sov null provides a competitive environment that is different to sovereign nullsec, highsec provides a competitive environment that is different to both.





* - Supercapitals are, of course, seldom worth fielding in lowsec because outside FW which isn't really all that conducive to capitals, lowsec offers nothing worth fighting for; that's another issue.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Black Pedro
Mine.
#271 - 2015-01-25 11:06:08 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
Perhaps you've not been reading this thread since it's not discussing the awox changes. The point made was that Feyd wanted CSM members to state that they would automatically reject any change which reduced interaction, which I pointed out as an overly simplistic view to take.

And I pointed out that is not. Increasing conflict and interaction is exactly what CCP and the CSM is trying to do with practically all changes. The intracorp agression changes is one example where reasonable people disagree on the outcome of the changes - CCP Fozzie and co. hope it will get more people into highsec corps to compete with or fight each other and have decided that that is worth the reduction in real, existing conflict by strongly nerfing a current mechanism used by corporate infiltrators to attack highsec corps. I think (and as with all of my posts in this thread I present my views, not Sabriz's) that CCP is wrong to chase the faint hope that increased highsec safety will increase retention rates or get players into "good" highsec corps where they are more likely to stay with the game. The net result of this change is just a clear reduction of conflict and thus content, and more CSM members than DJ FunkyBacon and Ali Aras should have taken a stand against it.

The rest of your post is getting so far off topic I am not comfortable discussing it in this thread which is suppose to be about Sabriz's CSM campaign and platform although I would be happy to discuss Feyd's views in a more appropriate forum.

Tim Timpson wrote:
And I get that you want Sabriz, I strongly disagree that people like him are needed though. His campaing in very self-serving. Listen to his capstable interview, and you get the understanding that a lot of the changes being suggested are to force people to have to be content for CODE.

You are welcome to strongly disagree with a CSM candiate and her views. That is the whole point of the voting of CSM members - so that there is a collection of members that covers the diverse player base. But it is ungentlemanly to belittle a fellow player for objecting to a particular change, especially one that directly and significantly impacts what they do in the game, or other players for supporting any particular CSM candidate. Just vote for who will represent you best.

CCP Seagull is taking the game towards one more full of conflict and interaction, not less. I think that Sabriz is uniquely qualified to provide feedback not only on the ins-and-outs of highsec conflict - wardecs, suicide ganking and the like - but he also has a complete knowledge of industry and corporation mechanics that will be invaluable for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the changes that are coming. You can disagree, or put your head in the sand and think that changes that "reduce interaction" are going to be implemented, but we are entering a time of reduced influence of the Empires and increased conflict (AKA hard core PvP action) in New Eden.
CCP Seagull wrote:

EVE Online is not just a game - it's one of the world's most ambitious living works of science fiction. The EVE universe is a canvas for some of the most hard core PvP action in the gaming world, player driven stories of epic dimensions that mirror humanity in both amazing and disturbing ways, and individual stories of exploring this world and achieving personal goals.

As we take the next steps on our journey with EVE Online, we will continue to create an amazing, demanding game experience that challenges intelligent people to master what the universe offers. But now we are also questioning old truths and the rules that govern the New Eden universe, and we are doing it in line with the vision we presented at Fanfest 2013 in Reykjavik. That vision is about giving players, in the form of their immortal capsuleer representations, more power over this universe than ever before. This journey starts with EVE Online: Rubicon, and will unfold over the next several expansions to EVE Online.


Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#272 - 2015-01-25 11:54:09 UTC
As for Tim's comments.

Firstly, the removal of AWOXing isn't something that can be compared to the reprocessing changes. I'm aware of people who used the old reprocessing system for two things:

1) exporting minerals from highsec to null via module compression (I did this, and own several blueprints that were acquired solely for this reason that are no longer being used) and
2) Reprocessing arbitrage - buying up meta items that have little/no merit as modules and melting them into minerals.

1) was replaced with ore compression. Different system, same overall result. A few losses were suffered as a result (including me getting stuck with a bunch of now worthless blueprints) but it's not a playstyle being removed.
2) remains viable; the prices of the modules where supply exceeds demand have just fallen to a new price point driven by the new reprocessing values.

So that playstyle remains viable, it's just a bit less profitable than previously. AWOXing is probably not viable at all, although I certainly have ideas to sow terror among corp recruiters. Unfortunately these are less viable for new players than the ten hour hero was.


Now to address the claims that new players will benefit from increased trust from recruiters.

Most 'career' AWOXers will likely change their playstyle to become corp thieves (which means that new players will be less trusted in corp applications than they are now. It was easy to defend yourself from an AWOXer - you only needed to carry ECM drones on non-combat ships in corporations with open recruiting. Corp thieves are more dangerous and much harder to defend against.

Other career AWOXers will engage in various methods to get blues shot in highsec (I've devised a few). These will catch a lot more newbies in the crossfire than AWOXing ever did. Expect a lot of newbies to lose ships as a result of the actions of disloyal corp members over the next few months than happens now.

The ability to be a disloyal corp member is a key drawcard of EVE. The Guiding Hand Social Club heist was the first time I heard of EVE. The recent 'All Reps On Cain' incident, Bad Bobby's fraud - events like those drive interest in the game. And as long as disloyal members of a corp can do damage, any sensible recruiter will take precautions to be as certain as possible that the 'new player' they recruit is not a veteran masquerading as a newbie, and they will take actions to mitigate the damage a disloyal member can do.




Finally, what's been ignored by CCP mostly is the far-reaching implications of increased safety for career highsec players, because the current CSM either don't understand the issues, or don't care about them. As AWOXing was pretty much the only viable way to kill a mission Marauder, it's a dramatic increase in safety for that type of player.

The CSM needs people that can pick apart proposed changes to see what the unintended consequences of them will be, not people that accept (or worse, push for) every change that claims to be intended to benefit new players but that actually is aimed at benefiting a specific subset of veterans.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Lord Mandelor
Oruze Cruise
White Stag Exit Bag
#273 - 2015-01-26 09:51:07 UTC
E N D O R S E D
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#274 - 2015-01-26 11:36:49 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
But it is ungentlemanly to belittle a fellow player for objecting to a particular change, especially one that directly and significantly impacts what they do in the game, or other players for supporting any particular CSM candidate.
I'm not. I'm not talking about a single change. The topic of discussion is not awoxing, no matter how many times you guys bring it up. What I'm saying is that a CSM who's approach to *all changes* is "reject automatically if they reduce conflict" is not a good approach to have.

Black Pedro wrote:
I think that Sabriz is uniquely qualified to provide feedback not only on the ins-and-outs of highsec conflict - wardecs, suicide ganking and the like - but he also has a complete knowledge of industry and corporation mechanics that will be invaluable for assessing the strengths and weaknesses of the changes that are coming.
And I think Sabriz is qualified only to serve his own interests. Clearly he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of other types of players as his campaign outline makes clear.

CCP Seagull wrote:
EVE Online is not just a game - it's one of the world's most ambitious living works of science fiction. The EVE universe is a canvas for some of the most hard core PvP action in the gaming world, player driven stories of epic dimensions that mirror humanity in both amazing and disturbing ways, and individual stories of exploring this world and achieving personal goals.
Marketing Propaganda. EVE is a game, a moderately alright game at most, and there's *nothing* about it that would make it hard core. It's insanely easy to recover from losses passively. So it allows scams and unwanted PvP, that's not what makes a game hard core. On top of all that, it's got a gradually disintegrating developer, and a shrinking community that's becoming more and more taken over by toxic hate-driven players by the day.

At the end of the day, EVE is field with all types of player. If you really think the game is going to shift towards favouring a single playstyle, you're kidding yourself, which is why there are many changes that have gone through and are on the way which have not involved increasing how much players shoot each other. As with most games, players like yourself claim you want conflict, but you only want conflict against players who don't want it, because they are easy prey. If the game shifts too much focus to shooting each other they lose the "prey" and then the aggressors get bored and quit. If CCP had no intention of supporting other playstyles, I'm sure they'd remove them.
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#275 - 2015-01-26 11:52:50 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Firstly, the removal of AWOXing isn't something that can be compared to the reprocessing changes. I'm aware of people who used the old reprocessing system for two things:

1) exporting minerals from highsec to null via module compression (I did this, and own several blueprints that were acquired solely for this reason that are no longer being used) and
2) Reprocessing arbitrage - buying up meta items that have little/no merit as modules and melting them into minerals.

1) was replaced with ore compression. Different system, same overall result. A few losses were suffered as a result (including me getting stuck with a bunch of now worthless blueprints) but it's not a playstyle being removed.
2) remains viable; the prices of the modules where supply exceeds demand have just fallen to a new price point driven by the new reprocessing values.

So that playstyle remains viable, it's just a bit less profitable than previously. AWOXing is probably not viable at all, although I certainly have ideas to sow terror among corp recruiters. Unfortunately these are less viable for new players than the ten hour hero was.
Awoxing also remains viable, which is the point. You can still join a corp and rob them, you can lure them into war targets, you can even lure them into lowsec/nullsec and shoot them yourself. The only thing you can't do is shoot them in highsec. Just like the reprocessing changes, it's only one part of the style that's going.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Most 'career' AWOXers will likely change their playstyle to become corp thieves (which means that new players will be less trusted in corp applications than they are now. It was easy to defend yourself from an AWOXer - you only needed to carry ECM drones on non-combat ships in corporations with open recruiting. Corp thieves are more dangerous and much harder to defend against.
Thieves can be guarded against with roles. And sure, there were ways to protect yourself if you assumed that people were going to be awoxers, but why would you set up a corp and have a whole list of things to do to avoid being awoxed when you could simply slap a minimum SP barrier on and get rid of the chance of recruiting a fresh awox alt?

I'm in full agreement that behavioral changes also make awoxing difficult but you can't patch behavior. People haven't been recruiting, they have been putting in minimum SP barriers. No amount of jumping up and down and telling them to recruit noobs will make them actually do it. So CCP is removing that risk so people can more freely recruit noobs.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Other career AWOXers will engage in various methods to get blues shot in highsec (I've devised a few). These will catch a lot more newbies in the crossfire than AWOXing ever did. Expect a lot of newbies to lose ships as a result of the actions of disloyal corp members over the next few months than happens now.
I'm sure some will at first, but now they'll have to go out of their way to do it and use much more complex techniques, so it will still be less of a risk to recruit noobs. Essentially your argument here is the terrorism argument: "if you make this change I'm going to blow up even more people than before!".

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Finally, what's been ignored by CCP mostly is the far-reaching implications of increased safety for career highsec players, because the current CSM either don't understand the issues, or don't care about them. As AWOXing was pretty much the only viable way to kill a mission Marauder, it's a dramatic increase in safety for that type of player.
Except "that player" already could have increased safety. Most are in their own alt corps. Go ahead, try to awox this character. If you get into the corp I'll even undock.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The CSM needs people that can pick apart proposed changes to see what the unintended consequences of them will be, not people that accept (or worse, push for) every change that claims to be intended to benefit new players but that actually is aimed at benefiting a specific subset of veterans.
You would only push for changes which benefited your playstyle though. Your interview on capstable makes that abundantly clear. You want to force more people into combat regardless of whether or not they enjoy that playstyle. You want to create a more target rich environment, which is great if you're the one shooting, but not so much if you are a target. The CSM needs people who will consider all players needs, not just what benefits themselves.
Black Pedro
Mine.
#276 - 2015-01-26 12:20:51 UTC
Tim Timpson wrote:
What I'm saying is that a CSM who's approach to *all changes* is "reject automatically if they reduce conflict" is not a good approach to have.


Even CSM member Steve "Fuzzysteve" Ronuken, industrialist extraordinaire, gets that every change to the game should be primarily considered as to whether it increases or reduces confilct. Of course, the reality of Eve is complex and people can disagree on the outcome of a proposed change as the intracorp aggression mechanics have shown, but it is completely reasonable, and good for the game, for CCP and the CSM to ask themselves if a proposed change is going to increase or decrease conflict overall in the game, and reject those that will reduce it straight out.

The CSM needs more members that understand Eve at its heart is about conflict like Sabriz and Steve do. What the CSM does not need are more wishy-washy CSM members who are willing to water down the unique aspects of the game to try to make Eve into something it is not for all-comers. I am all for changes that make the game better and more accessible to new and/or casual players, but not at the cost of reducing the conflict and competition that is at the very core of what makes this game such an engaging and unique experience.

Ok, I have had my say on this. If you want to discuss this further, let's make a thread in the CSM subforum and we can ask what the other CSM members think, or if you have an actual question for Sabriz, you can continue this discussion with him here.
Tim Timpson
Solitude Trading
#277 - 2015-01-26 13:21:46 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Even CSM member Steve "Fuzzysteve" Ronuken, industrialist extraordinaire, gets that every change to the game should be primarily considered as to whether it increases or reduces confilct. Of course, the reality of Eve is complex and people can disagree on the outcome of a proposed change as the intracorp aggression mechanics have shown, but it is completely reasonable, and good for the game, for CCP and the CSM to ask themselves if a proposed change is going to increase or decrease conflict overall in the game, and reject those that will reduce it straight out.
Regardless of who's agreed to it in principle, it's a dumb idea. What your saying is that regardless of what benefits and idea may have or what other ideas it's consideration may lead to, that an idea put forward which reduces conflict should simply be dismissed. It's far too simple a view to take, and if CCP ever take that view it will be an incredibly sad day for EVE.

Black Pedro wrote:
The CSM needs more members that understand Eve at its heart is about conflict like Sabriz and Steve do. What the CSM does not need are more wishy-washy CSM members who are willing to water down the unique aspects of the game to try to make Eve into something it is not for all-comers.
So he doesn;t agree with Feyd, therefore he's a "wishy-washy" CSM? Stop being ridiculous. The way you play is not the *only* way the game should be played, and all players should be represented. You want only your position to be represented so that you benefit, regardless of what that means for other players.

Black Pedro wrote:
I am all for changes that make the game better and more accessible to new and/or casual players, but not at the cost of reducing the conflict and competition that is at the very core of what makes this game such an engaging and unique experience.
Conflict isn't at the core of an engaging experience. It's at the core of your experience. Plenty of other types of players exist in EVE
Bethan Le Troix
Krusual Investigation Agency
#278 - 2015-01-26 15:34:20 UTC
Hello Sabriz. Smile I have only listened to a small part of one of your soundcloud pieces on wardecs but I like the idea of adjusting the payment so that smaller attackers pay less and corps with many members or corps pay much more to start a wardec. I would probably go with higher figures than you mentioned for really large corps and alliances to launch wardecs. 140 million is still coins on the ground for larger entities.

I know of miners who would really like to gain a small percentage of extra yield in return for staying in one player run corp. Two or three percent doesn't sound much to some people but it would indeed be attractive to most miners. Personally I would say no one would be allowed to stay in an NPC corp after they have been 'alive' for two months and people found recycling to continue to do so would be perma-banned. Do you have an opinion on that idea.

I don't think the 'new player experience' ie the tutorial is fit for purpose either. Do you have any thoughts on that one ?

Do you have an opinion on the Skiff mining vessel in relation to the other mining vessels available in regards to the Skiff not having any negatives but seemingly all positive values ? I ran a discussion on the forum on this issue initially coming from a standpoint that the Skiff was too hard to remove from asteroid belts. This morphed into a view that the yield on the Skiff should be reduced by a percentage determined by CCP to rebalance it compared to the other mining vessels.
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#279 - 2015-01-26 19:07:43 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

Corp thieves are more dangerous and much harder to defend against.


I want to highlight that being a corp thief does not show up on your API or your killboard. Oh sure you might see that they withdrew X isk from the corp wallet, but what does that mean? Nothing. It could mean a hundred different things. Corp on Corp aggression awoxing is very easy to spot on killboards if you just look for it. Catching awoxers is about to get a LOT harder.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#280 - 2015-01-26 22:44:18 UTC
Bethan Le Troix wrote:
Hello Sabriz. Smile I have only listened to a small part of one of your soundcloud pieces on wardecs but I like the idea of adjusting the payment so that smaller attackers pay less and corps with many members or corps pay much more to start a wardec. I would probably go with higher figures than you mentioned for really large corps and alliances to launch wardecs. 140 million is still coins on the ground for larger entities.

I know of miners who would really like to gain a small percentage of extra yield in return for staying in one player run corp. Two or three percent doesn't sound much to some people but it would indeed be attractive to most miners. Personally I would say no one would be allowed to stay in an NPC corp after they have been 'alive' for two months and people found recycling to continue to do so would be perma-banned. Do you have an opinion on that idea.

I don't think the 'new player experience' ie the tutorial is fit for purpose either. Do you have any thoughts on that one ?

Do you have an opinion on the Skiff mining vessel in relation to the other mining vessels available in regards to the Skiff not having any negatives but seemingly all positive values ? I ran a discussion on the forum on this issue initially coming from a standpoint that the Skiff was too hard to remove from asteroid belts. This morphed into a view that the yield on the Skiff should be reduced by a percentage determined by CCP to rebalance it compared to the other mining vessels.



New player experience does indeed need work. Some detailed fitting tutorials (like 'here's a fit for PVE, and why it works. Here's a fit for PVP, and why it works. Here's the price you pay for trying to mix the two, whether you do it or not is up to you').

I think NPC corps serve an important role as a fallback place for someone that suffers a catastrophic defeat. I'm more for adjusting taxation so that NPC corps are clearly the wrong choice for career highsec ISK grinders, rather than forcing someone that loses everything into an NPC corp immediately.

With respect to the Skiff. I think it serves its purpose well as the 'tanky mining ship that can fight back'. What it does too well is the actual mining. Its yield is close enough to that of the Mack and Hulk that taking the risk of fielding a non-Skiff exhumer is not rewarded.

Not sure on the exact numbers, but I would support a change that went along the lines of -10% Skiff yield, +5% Mack yield, +8% Hulk yield. I feel that using non-mining scouts and a Hulk fleet should be viable, whereas at present it's (usually) more sensible to have your whole fleet in Skiffs with one Orca.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com