These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#81 - 2014-12-08 19:38:22 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Ok, sure, but if you frame it that way then any attempts to add mechanics that promote more interaction or competition between players is "an attempt to gradually move PVE into PVP". Even Mike Azariah agrees that CCP should be spending development time on increasing the mechanisms facilitating group and player interaction.
Sure, adding more social tools (and if you noticed he mentioned pure PVE activities for that too) is generally a good idea. I strongly believe that people would work together on PVE if everything wasn't stacked against doing so. Many games give bonuses to working in groups, EVE simply splits the rewards, so there's really no benefit in working together. More tools for collaboration all round is a good idea. The real difference is though that Mike accepts there are players who like to play solo, and that it's OK to do so.

Black Pedro wrote:
Perhaps you are right, and more people would stay if the PvE would massively revamped. However, Eve is not a single-player PvE game: it is a sandbox where social interactions, both competitive and cooperative are paramount. CCP seems to have recognized that and everything CCP Seagull has said points to development being focused on a more player-controlled, player-driven Eve universe in the future, so I doubt you are going to see any significant solo PvE content ever again. Even if a complete revamp was done (which for mining might happen eventually), it will be to make it more group orientated and competitive, not make it more solo-friendly and isolationist.
EVE is a game for all types. And to be honest, whatever Seagull says, the game needs players to accomplish anything. Some players like to play without combat. If they are going to simply write those people off, then it really doesn't matter who's CSM.

Black Pedro wrote:
I am not saying you are wrong in your views - you like what you like - but you appear to be fighting an uphill battle against the direction Eve is moving. You've made it clear that Sabriz isn't your candidate, but I am not sure you are going to find many other CSM candidates that share your view that Eve development resources should be spent on expanding Eve solo content over group content, nor even if you did would the developers listen to that CSM member.
I'm not saying that solo content necessarily needs to be a focus, but it certainly needs to be accepted as part of the game, and non-combat content will always be required and certainly needs love. Sabriz's ideas amount to "add more places to gank people who don't want to be attacked" seem to be pretty selfish in design. Like I said before, a CSM candidate needs to be trusted to look out for the needs of the community, not just their own.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#82 - 2014-12-08 20:48:08 UTC
There is definitively no such thing as people that play without impacting the rest of the game.

There are definitely people that *think* they don't affect anyone else. The ore they produce, the meta and faction modules they add to the economy - these people turn the tide of wars. Would Goonswarm have defeated TEST if 'Phased Muon Sensor Disruptor I' cost ten million ISK, not 2.5 million? It would cost ten million or more without career highsec mission grinders.

If people want to experience PVE content completely sheltered from other players' actions - they already can do so on the test server, where surprise PVP is completely banned. However these players do not want to do so, because when they do so they also lose their ability to impose their actions upon other players through the market.


I started as a 'carebear' player, levelling up my Dominix. Had I not been shaken out of that, I would have definitely left EVE. The server structure enforces a 1 second 'tick' needed to support fleet fights which, when combined with inertia mechanics, removes any prospect for a 'fast action' feel in combat in the game. For those reasons EVE's PVE will always be slower paced and can never manage to be as engaging as the PVE found in games like Path of Exile that are *designed* for PVE first and foremost.

Finally EVE is not a game for all types. It never has been. So many of its fundamental design decisions - real loss PVP, extremely high productive capacity to fuel all of that destruction, making sure that 'low level' ships remain useful to experienced players and more - all of these are designed to push EVE down a very different path to other games. There have been many PVE-oriented games with better PVE than EVE that have gone broke.

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#83 - 2014-12-09 01:01:00 UTC
I've just posted a Soundcloud recording of a very informal discussion about wardec mechanics I did with BeBopARhubarbPie and a couple of other people.

It's available here: https://soundcloud.com/sabriz-adoudel/wardecs

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

Sibyyl
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#84 - 2014-12-09 02:27:39 UTC

Wonderful accent on you and an interesting topic. I'm glad you are not shying away from these vectors in the game that seem to have garnered such distaste recently (at least from what I see looking around).

I would like to add that these darker elements of EVE are interesting to me as well.

Joffy Aulx-Gao for CSM. Fix links and OGB. Ban stabs from plexes. Fulfill karmic justice.

Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2014-12-09 06:41:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Tisiphone Dira
It was you and bebop who kept me in the game sabriz. Met you in the mining chat, bebop in e-uni chat.

Without you two I'd not have joined the New Order. I was on the verge of quitting this game, whilst on the path to leveling up to a dominix.

You have my vote.

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#86 - 2014-12-09 08:51:07 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
There is definitively no such thing as people that play without impacting the rest of the game.
WEll for starters, that's nto what you said. This is:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
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.
Which is wrong. Some people *do* play just to play the PVE content. Did you even listen to fanfest? It's not about whether or not they think they affect other things, its about how they want to play. And you won't accept there are other people who play in a different way to you, and who can and should be able to continue doing so, because it's a sandbox, not an "everybody plays my way".

And sure, EVE is about impacting each other. What it's not about is adding more game mechanics so you and your mates have more cannon fodder in the form of players who don't want to fight. Adding better paying missions which require people to fly into "gank zones" isn't about adding unique ways for players to interact, it's about adding a place you can gank ships that would normally be ungankable with very little at risk.

At the end of the day, you're a scammer, a ganker, and you seem to have very little interest in even acknowledging other players playstyles let alone supporting them, so you'd really not be doing the game a favour if you secured a position in the CSM.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#87 - 2014-12-09 09:10:07 UTC
And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#88 - 2014-12-09 09:18:51 UTC
admiral root wrote:
And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell.



I actually want Lucas and others like him that reject large swathes of my platform but are capable of remaining civil to bring some hard questions to my 'Ask Me Anything' interview (details to be confirmed but probably December 20, 2330 EVE time on the Minerbumping teamspeak). He'll be welcome in person if he wishes and is OK with being recorded, or he can submit questions in absentia.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#89 - 2014-12-09 10:02:31 UTC
admiral root wrote:
And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell.
Who are you again? Oh, nobody. Shush then kiddo. Grown ups are talking.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
I actually want Lucas and others like him that reject large swathes of my platform but are capable of remaining civil to bring some hard questions to my 'Ask Me Anything' interview (details to be confirmed but probably December 20, 2330 EVE time on the Minerbumping teamspeak). He'll be welcome in person if he wishes and is OK with being recorded, or he can submit questions in absentia.
There would be no point. So you can hop on your teamspeak server and record yourself saying whatever you can to get votes. The only thing that matters is looking at your past and seeing what is is you are and are not in favour of. Whether or not your can bs your way through an interview now is irrelevant. I'm not against scamming and ganking, or generating more opportunities for PvP, but they certainly shouldn't take priority over historically bad mechanics long overdue for a revamp, and players who don't scam, gank and PvP shouldn't be treated as if they do not exist.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#90 - 2014-12-09 20:59:51 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

- There should be more incentives for corporations that don't see themselves as PVP corps to actively defend against a predatory wardec.
- The price to initiate a wardec should scale with the size of the aggressor entity, not the size of the defender entity.
- Defender entities should receive incentives for inflicting damage upon their aggressors, similar to bounties.
- Defender entities need more resources on what wardecs mean, including advice on how to resist them. They have the option of laying low, moving their operations or fighting back, and those options should be explained better to them.
- We get off topic and start talking about gate and station guns, NPSI roams with newbies, newbie income streams, the cost of getting your feet wet into PVP as a newbie

You have my interest.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

I also realised that I wasn't recording when talking about unilateral surrender conditions, which I support existing in some form.

You just lost me.

One question. What is your position on the current exploit that allows a defender to completely duck a war, by leaving or disbanding corp, and immediately creating a new one (or fleeing to NPC corp for a week)?

Would you champion the closing of said exploit?

F
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#91 - 2014-12-09 21:13:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Responding, and adding more to the response I made this morning.


Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

- There should be more incentives for corporations that don't see themselves as PVP corps to actively defend against a predatory wardec.
- The price to initiate a wardec should scale with the size of the aggressor entity, not the size of the defender entity.
- Defender entities should receive incentives for inflicting damage upon their aggressors, similar to bounties.
- Defender entities need more resources on what wardecs mean, including advice on how to resist them. They have the option of laying low, moving their operations or fighting back, and those options should be explained better to them.
- We get off topic and start talking about gate and station guns, NPSI roams with newbies, newbie income streams, the cost of getting your feet wet into PVP as a newbie

You have my interest.

Sabriz Adoudel wrote:

I also realised that I wasn't recording when talking about unilateral surrender conditions, which I support existing in some form.

You just lost me.

One question. What is your position on the current exploit that allows a defender to completely duck a war, by leaving or disbanding corp, and immediately creating a new one (or fleeing to NPC corp for a week)?

Would you champion the closing of said exploit?

F



I'm for a meaningful unilateral surrender that means serious concessions, not some 'oh here's a refund of your dec fee, now go away'. I would not support unilateral surrender options that don't feel like a defeat to the defender and a victory to the aggressor. The goal here is that a corporation would be incentivised to defend itself unless overwhelmingly outmatched, but that they have a surrender option if they would otherwise simply not undock for a week.

I would not endorse such a surrender being available in the first 48 hours of a war going live, nor for entities with anchored structures.

I'm for closing that exploit, yes. I would push for CCP to return to considering disbanding and reforming corp an exploit again. Likewise various other permutations like having six corps, five with just a CEO and the 'main corp', where everyone drops from the main corp into one of the alt corps. As for people dropping corp to hide in an NPC corp for a week - anything that bans doing that will have other consequences that are serious, such as two permanent wardecs preventing anyone leaving a corporation.

But I also want to provide incentives to stick to your corp. One rough idea is a mechanic where if your corporation has earned five million LP from missions over its existence, the corporation gets a bonus of 0.5% or 1% to LP gain from missions, that only applies to members that have been in the corp 14 days or longer. A second tier of this bonus might exist at 25 million LP. These provide an incentive to stay loyal over time. I'd add the same for mining, but as I have less experience with mining I'm not sure what appropriate numbers would be (perhaps a first tier of -0.5% cycle time for mining lasers at 50 million cubic metres of ore/ice mined, and a second tier at 250 million).

If you drop to an NPC corp, you therefore don't just miss out on a few percent of mission completion rewards and bounties, you lose out on possible bonuses to mining yield and mission LP rewards, and you don't get them back just for setting up your own new solo corp, or even immediately upon joining an established corp.

Importantly, however, the thresholds at which any of these bonuses kick in should not be set so high that they set a major barrier to creating a new corporation.

Finally, on NPC corps and long term players. I think dropping to an NPC corp should be a viable option for someone that derps badly and loses everything, and it should be a viable place to rebuild until you both own and can afford to lose a HAC, T1 battleship, or a similar level of ship. But they should offer nothing to players with those ships.

My concrete suggestion is to change the tax system to apply only to bounty ticks and agent mission rewards exceeding 500k ISK (presently the threshold is 100k) but for the tax to be much, much higher, and to apply to incursion payouts, mission LP rewards, and (if a mechanism can be found to do this) to mining and potentially market interactions. For a rookie in their failfit level 3 mission battlecruiser they will seldom notice taxes, but for someone blitzing L4s, being in a player corporation would be strongly incentivised.

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

Benthos Thellere
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#92 - 2014-12-10 20:41:40 UTC
Lots of bad stuff will come of this. That's why you'll get my vote. And my sig line, at least for while Big smile

Cheers!

Benthos Thellere.

Can't stop the Signal.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#93 - 2014-12-12 23:16:46 UTC
Sabriz, what experiences do you have with sov null? Do you have any opinions on the state of the game there?

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#94 - 2014-12-13 15:30:31 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
admiral root wrote:
And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell.
Who are you again? Oh, nobody. Shush then kiddo. Grown ups are talking.


I spent the best part of a year in your alliance as a CEO and an alliance diplo, yet have no idea who you are. Two can play at that game. Big smile Thank-you again for your continued free bumps in support of the Sabriz for CSM campaign.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#95 - 2014-12-13 18:30:41 UTC
How do you feel about making a wardec's cost based on the number of people in both corporations? I.e. the more people involved, the more expensive it is in total, but the less expensive it is per person?

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#96 - 2014-12-14 00:54:30 UTC
admiral root wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
admiral root wrote:
And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell.
Who are you again? Oh, nobody. Shush then kiddo. Grown ups are talking.
I spent the best part of a year in your alliance as a CEO and an alliance diplo, yet have no idea who you are. Two can play at that game. Big smile Thank-you again for your continued free bumps in support of the Sabriz for CSM campaign.
You seem to know who I am enough to have followed my posting history well enough to know where I was posting last year. As for yourself, clearly you made no lasting impression. That's even more embarrassing. The fact that you're floating around this thread patting Sabriz on the back and shiptoasting at critics like some kind of lackey really shows how far you've fallen.

And sure, I don't mind bumping the thread of anyone running. At the end of the day, I actually believe that people will make the right decisions when posting their votes. If they really want to vote for someone intent pushing for self serving changes, who refuses to even acknowledge a huge portion of the playerbase as existing, purely because their post happened to appear recently posted in more often, then they can. I think most people will read the campaign outline and consider the author, then realise it would be pretty dumb to vote for Sabriz.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#97 - 2014-12-14 01:53:02 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
You seem to know who I am enough to have followed my posting history well enough to know where I was posting last year.


Persistant shiptoasters tend to stand out.

Quote:
The fact that you're floating around this thread patting Sabriz on the back and shiptoasting at critics like some kind of lackey really shows how far you've fallen.


In breaking news, supporters of a CSM candidate were spotted posting supportive things in their candidate thread today.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Tisiphone Dira
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2014-12-14 14:43:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Tisiphone Dira
Greetings Sabriz

My issue is this: EvE is an MMORPG, a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. Yes, so many lost souls in this game neglecting the 'MM' and 'G' aspects of EVE are both huge problems, problems we have both dedicated ourselves to fixing. But what of the RP part of it? All too often role play is neglected and even maligned. My thorough investigation into the CSMX campaign (an advanced search of these forums for 'role play') yielded no valid results, there is nobody else willing to represent or help the role-players, you are our only hope. Will you take a brave stand in favour of role play?

-Tisiphone Dira, Knight of the New Order and Right Hand of James 315.

There once was a ganker named tisi

A stunningly beautiful missy

To gank a gross miner

There is nothing finer, cept when they get all pissy

Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#99 - 2014-12-14 15:06:41 UTC
Tisiphone Dira wrote:
Greetings Sabriz

My issue is this: EvE is an MMORPG,

It's a sandbox, and roleplayers are welcome, but it's not a roleplaying game in any way.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#100 - 2014-12-14 15:17:55 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
it's not a roleplaying game in any way.


Which part of MMORPG made you think that? Big smile

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff