These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Justin Zaine
#41 - 2014-12-04 07:02:01 UTC
Hey man,

You've got my vote, my Incursus and my Ishkur.
It's good to see someone fighting to keep the content alive.

See you in Corp o7

He will win who knows when to fight and when not to fight.

He will win who, prepared himself, waits to take the enemy unprepared.

Saeger1737
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#42 - 2014-12-04 07:07:41 UTC
Walls of text that I didn't bother to read, for this I will not endorse you

MERC WITH A MOUTH, Send me DPS and my fleet will double it back! Special offer!

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#43 - 2014-12-04 11:02:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
EVE is unique in gaming as it is a game where every interaction between players is competitive. This is the game's sole appeal. Players don't play the game for the thrill of scanning and running a solo Serpentis 8/10 site solo or with their static group for the fifteenth time – if that experience was what players sought, they'd load up the test server and get their fix there. Instead they play on a server where their actions matter, and so do those of their rivals.
Starting off a CSM campaign with a philosophy that is fundamentally wrong and undermines the fact that a variety of people play for a variety of reasons is not really a good start. While you refuse to accept them as players, there are many players who do simply play without engaging others, who are quite happy scanning down and running sites with no interaction with other players. While I'm a strong believer in player interaction being a core focus of EVE, I'd not consider players who do not enjoy that part of the game to be irrelevant in any way. If someone wants to log on and run missions all day long not talking to or interacting with any other players, they are welcome to do so.

And I'd generally avoid voting for a member of a group which either by design or through ineptitude supports botters. The CSM infected by new order ideals is certainly not the future vision of EVE.

I'd question what changes it is you'd actually strive for in ganking and wardecs, since it's implied that you'd be looking to make both easier, which is pretty much the opposite of being newbie friendly. It's also interesting how you refer to the "carebears", while you are part of a group which engages in low cost, minimal risk "PvP" (and no, the fact that you lose a cheap ships is not a risk, it's a cost) against targets which you pick specifically for their lack of ability to retaliate. It's even going to become even lower risk, with clone upgrade costs not being required you'll now be able to use higher SP characters without needing to warp them out and not even worry about paying to upgrade the clone.

Personally, I don't trust you to put the needs of the playerbase before your own personal agenda.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#44 - 2014-12-04 11:10:13 UTC
Saeger1737 wrote:
Walls of text that I didn't bother to read, for this I will not endorse you


~Words~ are scary things. Thanks for bumping the thread, though.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Abla Tive
#45 - 2014-12-04 15:18:20 UTC
You claim that EvE is all about conflict but selflessly give your time and knowledge to new players.

Please explain this obvious incoherency.


Do you agree that high-sec ganking is an almost risk-free activity? (given that being Concorded is simply a game mechanic, it is about as risky as clicking 'trash it' on a menu choice). If not, please describe the risks faced by a ganker.

You state that reward should be aligned to risk. Do you feel that the rewards of ganking are at an appropriate level given the risks that you discussed above?
Cara Forelli
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#46 - 2014-12-04 15:58:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Cara Forelli
To expand on my previous post

As a fellow regular in the NCQA subforum, I can attest that Sabriz is a very smart individual with a grasp on the game that extends far beyond CODE. She's very honest about her playstyle and always gives out good advice to new players on how to avoid becoming prey to gankers. I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole in-game, but I'm convinced she's actually interested its well-being. CODE is just one of the many facets to Sabriz.

I have no special love for CODE, but I will be voting for Sabriz as an individual who appreciates the freedom of expression we have in New Eden, and who I believe will protect that essential element of gameplay.

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#47 - 2014-12-04 17:13:17 UTC
Cara Forelli wrote:
As a fellow regular in the NCQA subforum, I can attest that Sabriz is a very smart individual with a grasp on the game that extends far beyond CODE. She's very honest about her playstyle and always gives out good advice to new players on how to avoid becoming prey to gankers. I wouldn't touch her with a ten foot pole in-game, but I'm convinced she's actually interested its well-being. CODE is just one of the many facets to Sabriz.
Great, a player who knows EVE and helps newbies. That alone does not make a good candidate for the CSM. A CSM member you have to trust to put the needs to the overall playerbase before their own agenda. I don't trust Sabriz to do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Cara Forelli
Caldari Colonial Defense Ministry
Templis CALSF
#48 - 2014-12-04 17:32:41 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Great, a player who knows EVE and helps newbies. That alone does not make a good candidate for the CSM. A CSM member you have to trust to put the needs to the overall playerbase before their own agenda. I don't trust Sabriz to do that.

I won't muck up her thread with an argument, but I would encourage you to read through her posting history - particularly in NCQA and Market Discussions - before you write her off as a simple ganker. I feel her expertise in market economics and deep understanding of ship stat balancing are great traits for a CSM candidate. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#49 - 2014-12-04 18:02:35 UTC
Cara Forelli wrote:
I would encourage you to read through her posting history - particularly in NCQA and Market Discussions - before you write her off as a simple ganker. I feel her expertise in market economics and deep understanding of ship stat balancing are great traits for a CSM candidate. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.
I'm not writing her off as a simple ganker. I'm writing her off as someone with knowledge of the game, who is willing to help out new players, but who I wouldn't trust with the responsibility of taking the needs of other player groups seriously. Already in her campaign outline she's decided that nobody plays without expressly wanting conflict, which is obviously false and puts across the impression that players who seek to play without conflict are irrelevant. From what I've read in the past, I'd be very surprised if any players who did not confirm to her ideas of how to play would be considered relevant. A CSM members has a duty to put that aside. While they should have their own thoughts and opinions derived from their own experiences, we should be able to trust them to look beyond that and consider the whole playerbase.

I wouldn't trust her to do that. Is her membership of CODE part of that? Sure, it takes a certain type of person to support CODE, a type of person who I wouldn't trust to make selfless decisions or consider other people feelings, but that's not the only, or even the majority factor. I'm not a newbie here and I've seen enough Sabriz posts to have a fairly idea of her thoughts on the direction of EVE.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Alan Mathison
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
#50 - 2014-12-04 18:05:37 UTC
Sabriz:

I'll start this off on the wrong foot, but please read it through. :)

I hate CODE. I think they're extortionist griefers and it is only because EVE is the sandbox that it is that I don't think they should be banned entirely. They say they produce content, and in fairness they certainly do, but it is not the kind of content that I care to participate in.

Having said that, despite much of my heart railing against this, your thread here has shown you to be a thoughtful person, I think, with some very intriguing ideas, complex and nuanced enough so that my heart's argument of, "She's just a CODE griefer! Ignore her!" just isn't fair and won't wash.. So, despite your background, I find myself following you and seriously considering you.

How's that for a ringing endorsement? :)

As such, I'd like to post to you some questions I'm asking the candidates that I'm seriously considering.

Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.

EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it?

It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority?

EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do?

Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-)

Thanks so much!

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

Josef Djugashvilis
#51 - 2014-12-04 19:37:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
Lucas Kell wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
EVE is unique in gaming as it is a game where every interaction between players is competitive. This is the game's sole appeal. Players don't play the game for the thrill of scanning and running a solo Serpentis 8/10 site solo or with their static group for the fifteenth time – if that experience was what players sought, they'd load up the test server and get their fix there. Instead they play on a server where their actions matter, and so do those of their rivals.
Starting off a CSM campaign with a philosophy that is fundamentally wrong and undermines the fact that a variety of people play for a variety of reasons is not really a good start. While you refuse to accept them as players, there are many players who do simply play without engaging others, who are quite happy scanning down and running sites with no interaction with other players. While I'm a strong believer in player interaction being a core focus of EVE, I'd not consider players who do not enjoy that part of the game to be irrelevant in any way. If someone wants to log on and run missions all day long not talking to or interacting with any other players, they are welcome to do so.

And I'd generally avoid voting for a member of a group which either by design or through ineptitude supports botters. The CSM infected by new order ideals is certainly not the future vision of EVE.

I'd question what changes it is you'd actually strive for in ganking and wardecs, since it's implied that you'd be looking to make both easier, which is pretty much the opposite of being newbie friendly. It's also interesting how you refer to the "carebears", while you are part of a group which engages in low cost, minimal risk "PvP" (and no, the fact that you lose a cheap ships is not a risk, it's a cost) against targets which you pick specifically for their lack of ability to retaliate. It's even going to become even lower risk, with clone upgrade costs not being required you'll now be able to use higher SP characters without needing to warp them out and not even worry about paying to upgrade the clone.

Personally, I don't trust you to put the needs of the playerbase before your own personal agenda.


Golly gosh Mr Lucas Krell, an excellent post.

I am one of those who believes that as long as players do not break the rules laid down by CCP, any playstyle solo, in groups of whatever size, for whatever purpose is as valid as any other playstyle.

You pays your money, you makes your choice.

This is not a signature.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#52 - 2014-12-04 20:24:04 UTC
Alan Mathison wrote:
Sabriz:

I'll start this off on the wrong foot, but please read it through. :)

I hate CODE. I think they're extortionist griefers and it is only because EVE is the sandbox that it is that I don't think they should be banned entirely. They say they produce content, and in fairness they certainly do, but it is not the kind of content that I care to participate in.

Having said that, despite much of my heart railing against this, your thread here has shown you to be a thoughtful person, I think, with some very intriguing ideas, complex and nuanced enough so that my heart's argument of, "She's just a CODE griefer! Ignore her!" just isn't fair and won't wash.. So, despite your background, I find myself following you and seriously considering you.

How's that for a ringing endorsement? :)


Personally that says a lot about both Sabriz and yourself. About Sabriz it correctly identifies that Sabriz is intelligent and thoughful, and genuinely wants to see Eve succeed even more than it already has and be a continuing success in the future. About you, it identifies you as an open minded and intelligent individual who is willing to put your personal dislike for Sabriz' play style aside and recognize that it's important to have representation from all sides of a debate. *tips hat*

Alan Mathison wrote:
Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.


Personally I'd love to see them either become effectively suspect, or be hackable, maybe not right away (forgot to fuel your tower last night before bed? Too bad gone now) but after some amout of inactive time (even on the order of months would be fine with me). Either way I think clearing them should be a task left for playersand not be some passive event.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#53 - 2014-12-04 22:37:26 UTC
Post #1 of 2 responding to this (quote limit...)


Alan Mathison wrote:
Sabriz:

I'll start this off on the wrong foot, but please read it through. :)

I hate CODE. I think they're extortionist griefers and it is only because EVE is the sandbox that it is that I don't think they should be banned entirely. They say they produce content, and in fairness they certainly do, but it is not the kind of content that I care to participate in.

Having said that, despite much of my heart railing against this, your thread here has shown you to be a thoughtful person, I think, with some very intriguing ideas, complex and nuanced enough so that my heart's argument of, "She's just a CODE griefer! Ignore her!" just isn't fair and won't wash.. So, despite your background, I find myself following you and seriously considering you.

How's that for a ringing endorsement? :)

As such, I'd like to post to you some questions I'm asking the candidates that I'm seriously considering.


Thank you for seeing past your dislike of my ingame actions to engage seriously.

Basically every EVE character (pretty much) is a horrible person. Even mission runners, who spend their days massacring Serpentis conscripts for crimes that, IRL, would generally only result in a couple of years imprisonment even for active participants.

Gankers (and predatory wardeccers like me) are just more honest about it.

Quote:

Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible.


First, I'm assuming you are referring to highsec and C1 to C4 wormholes, as the existence of Dreadnoughts somewhat solves this issue in other categories of space.

I'm generally of the opinion that a player's bigger marks on the sandbox (like a POS) should remain unless another player exercises effort in erasing it.

I do, however, endorse changes that make it take less time and less resources to destroy long-inactive POS structures, and also changes that provide more options for POS bashing in highsec and C1 to C4 wormholes. A large POS with no defenses requires about 800 battleship minutes to destroy, which is simply too long (although it's under 100 dreadnought minutes).

I haven't thought extensively about this, but my initial thoughts are that after 3 months of inactivity, the structure would no longer be protected by CONCORD and this would be made apparent by a suspect flag. I would also support the introduction of a tech 2 battleship that is capable of entering something akin to siege mode, in which it is a glass cannon.



Quote:
EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it?


The term 'casual player' is used to mean a lot of different things. If you mean 'Should EVE change to appeal to players that want short term entertainment, not a hobby?' I answer no. CCP should not sabotage EVE's appeal with present customers in order to chase a currently oversaturated market.

CCP can market other products to that demographic, like Valkyrie or (if it ever becomes worth marketing) Dust/Project Legion.



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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#54 - 2014-12-04 22:39:03 UTC
2 of 2

Quote:
It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority?


Big question. Here's a few things that are *very big* things first.

1) Look at aspects of the game that are presently widely botted - mining, anomoly ratting, agent missions - and try to make these more interactive and entertaining. I have no tolerance for cheating, but I think you can learn a lot from what activities cheaters automate and why they do it.

2) Redesign the new player experience to get people interacting with other players early on. I'd definitely want to add a mission in the training systems where you had to retrieve an item from a rat's wreck but that had only minor consequences for failure, and then later I'd add an optional mission to probe down someone doing that mission and cause them to fail it. Similarly, a 'courier this package through lowsec' mission which does not hurt to fail, and later a 'steal the parcel' mission.


Smaller things:

1) Introduce more warnings to newer players of some of the player-created dangers they face in New Eden

2) Provide new players with evidence of how effective they can be in numbers, if they pick fights carefully and are led. (We do this in the New Order a lot; but it applies outside gank situations too).


Quote:
EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do?


I'd be a bit more concerned if more people cared who a game company used to consult with that who runs their country. Priorities. RL is more important than a game, even an obsessive hobby like EVE.

Most people don't vote because they don't think the CSM is important enough to invest the time needed to make a thought out decision on who to support. Outside of big controversies this will continue.



Quote:
Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-)


I *loathe* the creatures with a passion that borders on inarticulate rage.

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#55 - 2014-12-04 22:58:59 UTC
Abla Tive wrote:
You claim that EvE is all about conflict but selflessly give your time and knowledge to new players.

Please explain this obvious incoherency.


Do you agree that high-sec ganking is an almost risk-free activity? (given that being Concorded is simply a game mechanic, it is about as risky as clicking 'trash it' on a menu choice). If not, please describe the risks faced by a ganker.

You state that reward should be aligned to risk. Do you feel that the rewards of ganking are at an appropriate level given the risks that you discussed above?


The first question is an excellent one.

I'm not hypercompetitive in the way that some people are. This is the reason that I don't have a trillion ISK in the bank yet. Every interaction in EVE is competitive, but sometimes I will make a 'suboptimal' choice for outside-of-EVE reasons.



Re the second question.
If you look at my killboard and go back a while (to when I was ganking more often), you'll see I have a significant number of failed gank attempts. In addition there's all the failed attempts that don't leave a killboard mark, because I aborted before initiating combat.

Some of these failed attempts were caused by the target's pre-gank dilligence. Others were caused by third party interference. Some were the result of my failed attempt to judge the damage needed to pop someone. And finally some were caused by the target actively defending themself.

I also at one point lost an Ishtar and a Hyperion (and several chepaer ships) to killright activations.

The costs of ganking are widely underestimated too. A standard CODE. catalyst is about 7.3 million ISK right now. Assuming you are running a 20 pilot freighter gank fleet that kills one freighter every 21 minutes (which is our best FC at his most efficient and doesn't allow for failed ganks), it may seem we are only expending 146m ISK per freighter. This is an underestimate.

There's an investment of 7 hours of player time per freighter gank. For medium SP players, that's an opportunity cost of 420 million ISK (spread over the fleet). For high SP players, it's closer to 700m ISK. (Those are figures for what you'd make doing low risk, highly efficient PVE content in highsec).

Finally there's a few market related risks gankers face - I was holding a lot of Light Neutron Blaster IIs when Crius hit and crashed their prices. I personally lost nearly a billion ISK on the 3000 I had and a further quarter billion on magstabs, and I expect the alliance was holding more than I was. Then there's hauling risk - several of us have Orca or freighter alts that are blue to CODE. but certainly are not blue to any other highsec predators.


Re ganking risk vs reward.

The only reason ganking is presently profitable is the total and utter lack of concern most freighter pilots in highsec have for their own safety. If freighter pilots become more dilligent we simply will not be able to kill them profitably.

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#56 - 2014-12-04 23:16:07 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Cara Forelli wrote:
I would encourage you to read through her posting history - particularly in NCQA and Market Discussions - before you write her off as a simple ganker. I feel her expertise in market economics and deep understanding of ship stat balancing are great traits for a CSM candidate. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion.
I'm not writing her off as a simple ganker. I'm writing her off as someone with knowledge of the game, who is willing to help out new players, but who I wouldn't trust with the responsibility of taking the needs of other player groups seriously. Already in her campaign outline she's decided that nobody plays without expressly wanting conflict, which is obviously false and puts across the impression that players who seek to play without conflict are irrelevant. From what I've read in the past, I'd be very surprised if any players who did not confirm to her ideas of how to play would be considered relevant. A CSM members has a duty to put that aside. While they should have their own thoughts and opinions derived from their own experiences, we should be able to trust them to look beyond that and consider the whole playerbase.

I wouldn't trust her to do that. Is her membership of CODE part of that? Sure, it takes a certain type of person to support CODE, a type of person who I wouldn't trust to make selfless decisions or consider other people feelings, but that's not the only, or even the majority factor. I'm not a newbie here and I've seen enough Sabriz posts to have a fairly idea of her thoughts on the direction of EVE.



I don't claim there aren't people who play without wanting conflict.

The thing is, those people *do* get involved in conflict without realising it.


Let's go back to the period of the Goonswarm v TEST war for an example. Consider a level 4 mission runner running missions in Dodixie against Serpentis rats, looting every wreck and deliberately not engaging with the occasional ninja that enters their mission.
Whether they intend to or not, that player is objectively helping the Goonswarm side of the war, by increasing supply of Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I on the market, which was one of their alliance's main supply bottlenecks in the war. Here a 'highsec carebear' is helping the Goons win fleet fights in nullsec.


Or consider an incursion fleet commander that operates purely in highsec. By the simple act of deciding to change from a Nightmare fleet doctrine to a Paladin fleet doctrine, they reduce the value of nullsec rental systems that have Sansha anomolies or that produce deadspace shield modules.

This might be a more damaging to an alliance that controls that space than losing an entire 250 person Ishtar fleet to bombers - all caused by someone who wanted to avoid conflict.


Anyone who interacts with EVE's market in any way, shape of form is involved in real loss PVP.

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

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#57 - 2014-12-04 23:28:29 UTC
Hi Sabriz,

How high of a priority do place a reworking of the currently badly outdated corporation mechanics and interface?

In follow up questions:

1) Do you feel that an improved mechanic and interface could be used to create incentive for players to join a player corporation thereby increasing player interaction?

3) Do you feel that an improvement to corp mechanics could be an incentive for people to remain in their corporation in the face of a war dec rather than simply dissolving their corp?

4) Do you feel that such a rework would do anything either way for new player retention or veteran retention?

There is no question 2.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#58 - 2014-12-04 23:40:17 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The only reason ganking is presently profitable is the total and utter lack of concern most freighter pilots in highsec have for their own safety. If freighter pilots become more dilligent we simply will not be able to kill them profitably.


I would like to add to that that over filled freighters are the only targets that can be chosen for any reliable ganking profits. While mission boats full of purples certainly exist, they are far too rare and difficult to track down to qualify as a source of income. Incursion boats are likewise difficult to gank due to having logi and friends nearby nearly always, unless they make really poor decisions or really bad mistakes.

Those last two conditions are still true for freighters, but people making those poor decisions and mistakes happens frequently enough that they can be killed for profit by highly organized and well supplied individuals.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#59 - 2014-12-05 03:40:08 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
The only reason ganking is presently profitable is the total and utter lack of concern most freighter pilots in highsec have for their own safety. If freighter pilots become more dilligent we simply will not be able to kill them profitably.


I would like to add to that that over filled freighters are the only targets that can be chosen for any reliable ganking profits. While mission boats full of purples certainly exist, they are far too rare and difficult to track down to qualify as a source of income. Incursion boats are likewise difficult to gank due to having logi and friends nearby nearly always, unless they make really poor decisions or really bad mistakes.

Those last two conditions are still true for freighters, but people making those poor decisions and mistakes happens frequently enough that they can be killed for profit by highly organized and well supplied individuals.



I'll return to your questions later, but with respect to gank targets.

Tech 1 industrials are also a profitable choice, especially if pre-scanned for expensive cargo, and they can comfortably be killed and looted with two accounts.

Mission runner ganking was profitable if done exactly right prior to the recent exploration changes. You used to be able to sell A-type and X-type modules in a mission hub, watchlist anyone that purchased them, run locators on them and pop them with an alpha fleet to confiscate your sold modules back.

However, recent changes to exploration and expeditions have increased supply of those modules to the point that the numbers no longer really work out. Here's an interesting point of how everything in EVE is interconnected: increased module drop rewards for lowsec and nullsec exploration and anomolies have resulted in reduced profitability of highsec ganking.

Incursion ships are indeed tough nuts to crack. I have done extensive theorycrafting on this matter and offered significant prizes as incentives to others to shoot them without much success. The main disincentive to ganking incursion runners is that scooping loot drops post-gank is extremely hard, making for-profit ganks difficult. Part of this is due to the incursion runners' active defense of each other (a trait I respect and one that should contribute to their safety); but another major factor is rat AI. Incursion rats strongly prioritize shooting anyone that uses a warp scrambler or EWAR, which means that the rats actually provide assistance to incursion runners if you try to attack them when they are weakest.

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#60 - 2014-12-05 04:18:03 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Hi Sabriz,

How high of a priority do place a reworking of the currently badly outdated corporation mechanics and interface?

In follow up questions:

1) Do you feel that an improved mechanic and interface could be used to create incentive for players to join a player corporation thereby increasing player interaction?

3) Do you feel that an improvement to corp mechanics could be an incentive for people to remain in their corporation in the face of a war dec rather than simply dissolving their corp?

4) Do you feel that such a rework would do anything either way for new player retention or veteran retention?

There is no question 2.



These are basically all one question, so I'll combine the answer.

Firstly, there's people that want a 'corporation lite' that is just a chat channel. I think this functionality is better served by actual chat channels. There is a community around the minerbumping channel which includes people who are in CODE., people who support CODE., people who don't support our in game actions but find us hilarious, and spies. This community was my home, not the various corporations I've been in, since I discovered it.

It's currently extremely hard to find a corporation that seems like it might be a good fit for your playstyle within the game client. This isn't an EVE exclusive phenomenon - it's the case in every online game I've played. In my experience from other games, voice chat is what coheres communities, and helps you quickly ascertain 'nope, these people aren't for me' or 'yep, I'll get on well with this group'.

Corporation public chat rooms with voice chat would go a long way to improving players finding corps, I believe. If I could make one change to the 'corp interface' it would be encouraging the use of corp public voice chat (through EVE Voice). Corporations could then carry out whatever recruitment security screening they felt was appropriate and recruit interested people that pass their #opsec.

I'd also add the ability for corporations to bring non-members into their corp chat channel.

I want to see players incentivised to hold on to a corporation and defend it when attacked, through some mixture of carrots and sticks that makes holding on usually the highest EV play (from a game theoretical point of view). Currently the in-game benefits to being in a 1 person corp that was established yesterday are the same as, or slightly higher than, the benefits of being in a six month old 30 person corp.

I would like to see some setup where the more ore your corp has mined over its history, the more mining related boosts your corp's medium to long term members receive. The more rats your corp has killed, the more bonuses to missioning and/or incursion running and/or anomoly ratting you receive, and so on. I don't have all of the answers here.



For retention: Getting newbies interacting with other players is needed, otherwise they mostly follow the 'level up your Dominix then quit' path. For retaining established players, it's their social ties within game that are key. Witness the CFC titan pilot that was recently accused of being a spy and expelled with extreme prejudice - the Titan loss wasn't what made him uninstall EVE, it was the severing of social ties. (From what I've heard he's back playing now and his alliance reinstated him in good standing, replaced his Titan and consider him loyal, not a spy).

Making the 'game theoretical correct play' be to stay invested in your corp will help with keeping those social ties.

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