These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Sylphy
TSOE Po1ice
TSOE Consortium
#141 - 2014-12-19 08:37:42 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Sylphy wrote:

Devaluing the PVE content isn't going to miraculously fix high-sec issues. You don't fix things by nerfbatting everything YOU personally disaagree with. That you personally THINK in your OWN opinion is breaking the economy.
If anything, it'll promote more PvP pirating activities and there'll be a point where it becomes degenerative and malnutricious to new and old players alike. (The hounds outnumber the foxes)

You want less AFK miners and bot-aspiring behaviour - make mining more interesting other than staring at your mining lasers cycle for hours and hours on end while your ore holds are getting full.

I'm totally against a mini-game that takes your mind off of your surroundings (like hacking mini-game which takes half of your screen away), what I'd like more is the rebalancing of asteroids in a way, that there would no longer be so many different types of rock but less, where the most common materials would be on the outside and more valuable ones on the inside. If you left your mining lasers alone, they would be mining the outer layer, which would require no guidance. Getting to the inner layer would require you to make corrections to the angle/penetration/whatever of your lasers to get that valuable hemorphite ore out of a rock.

Also, introduce collision damage. Battleship "bumping" a frigate should result in the frigate being crippled or destroyed. Make collisions with space rocks on an equal scale. You can shave off smaller rocks, bigger ones will cause dmg. With the introduction of manual control it would give a whole new level to being chased and taking them into an asteroid belt (Wing Commander I style) or staying in the middle of rocks to try and avoid falling prey to pirates.

Size should matter. A partisan with a slingshot should not be able to kill a tanker.

Ok, I am still not clear on what you think needs to be "rebalanced" in highsec. In fact most of your post is just arguing what you think shouldn't be changed. As to mining, I think everyone, including Sabriz (although perhaps you can ask him about this at his AMA on Teamspeak?), would love to have a revamp making mining more engaging as well more rewarding to those that engage in team play and risk taking.

Your last point though makes it clear you think bumping needs to be rebalanced. Your solution is unworkable though as gankers will just start "ganking" by ramming everything with massive ships, with no CONCORD response. And if you make collisions spawn CONCORD, not only will the Jita undock will be a continual field of wrecks, how will you decide who should be CONCORDed? If it is the big ship (or both ships), then gankers will just sacrifice small, worthless ships to get the loot from the CONCORDed big ship, or if it is the small ship, gankers will just ram frigates all day in an agility-fit Mach and let CONCORD blow them up for them.


You do know, that each CSM X candidates thread is for people to ask THEM questions and have the Candidate answer right?

I didn't in any way want his or her internet space lawyer to go answering questions. So either you're yourself a candidate for CSM X (which invalidates Sabriz's candidacy due to incompetency) or you've overstepped your boundaries. Please decide which and let us know.

The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#142 - 2014-12-19 09:24:03 UTC
I'm fine with other people answering questions directed at me. If I strongly disagree with them, or even if I agree but want to raise a particular nuance, I'll do so.

My opinions on what would be good for EVE are heavily influenced (but not determined) by James 315, Psychotic Monk and several other people. Others with the same influences will often (not always) have similar opinions to me.

This thread is a conversation as well as a Q&A.


Also Sylphy - not sure if you saw it, but I'm running a Q&A at 2300 EVE time Saturday of this week on the Minerbumping teamspeak. Hostile questions are welcome, and if you aren't willing to be recorded, you are more than welcome to ask them anonymously.

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

Twin Aphex
Aphex - Army of One
#143 - 2014-12-19 10:50:16 UTC
Hey Sabriz,

First I would like to wish you good luck with your candidancy, If I may ask you a serious question which if possible I would like to be considered in the "outside of game manner".

I consider the current content of CODE in high sec and the effect it is creating in particular the Anti Gank group to be some of the best player driven content I have ever experienced, whether this is intended or a side effect I am not sure. I only have one serious concern and would appreciate your view;

Due to the nature of the miner Gank it naturally targets young players trying to make the initial start up ISK which could then project them into more costly gameplay (PVP or PVE), are you not concerned that we as a community of eve players could lose newer guys due to this?

During that initial period of joining its hard to make reasonable ISK and as we all know survival is skill point dependant.

Out of game head please Smile

Black Pedro
Mine.
#144 - 2014-12-19 10:55:00 UTC
Sylphy wrote:

You do know, that each CSM X candidates thread is for people to ask THEM questions and have the Candidate answer right?

I didn't in any way want his or her internet space lawyer to go answering questions. So either you're yourself a candidate for CSM X (which invalidates Sabriz's candidacy due to incompetency) or you've overstepped your boundaries. Please decide which and let us know.

I apologize that I have upset you by pointing out the flaws in your proposed changes to game mechanics, but I have been very careful not to answer any questions directed at Sabriz. In fact, you haven't really asked any direct questions at all. I encourage you if you do have some questions for Sabriz you ask him directly in this thread or during his upcoming Teamspeak session.
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#145 - 2014-12-19 11:00:21 UTC
Twin Aphex wrote:
Hey Sabriz,

First I would like to wish you good luck with your candidancy, If I may ask you a serious question which if possible I would like to be considered in the "outside of game manner".

I consider the current content of CODE in high sec and the effect it is creating in particular the Anti Gank group to be some of the best player driven content I have ever experienced, whether this is intended or a side effect I am not sure. I only have one serious concern and would appreciate your view;

Due to the nature of the miner Gank it naturally targets young players trying to make the initial start up ISK which could then project them into more costly gameplay (PVP or PVE), are you not concerned that we as a community of eve players could lose newer guys due to this?

During that initial period of joining its hard to make reasonable ISK and as we all know survival is skill point dependant.

Out of game head please Smile




Genuinely very new players are insulated from this, as the most expensive dedicated mining ship available to the less than one week old character is the Venture. Whenever I've popped one of those and discovered the person is brand new (usually discovered after the fact), I usually advise them that they can replace their Venture by running a different training agent's missions. I advise other gankers to do the same - the loss still matters but isn't crippling.

Moderately new players (7-28 days) can fly a Retriever or Covetor if they desire, but generally in my experience they are more dilligent in it than most longer term players are, and thus more likely to escape a gank attempt. If they aren't - it's an easier loss to bear than a level 3 mission runner losing a battlecruiser to rats is.

Mackinaws, Hulks, Orcas and Skiffs cannot be flown by new players due to extensive skill prereqs.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#146 - 2014-12-19 11:24:27 UTC
admiral root wrote:
That you will lose your ship (it being a certainty doesn't stop it being a risk)
Sure it does, it makes it a cost, not a risk.

Black Pedro wrote:
By that definition there is zero risk in mining or missioning as every cost is known for mining (I think just T2 mining crystals) and every mission and the triggers are available on community website removing all surprises. Certainly you are not arguing that ganking is somehow less risky than mining or mission running?
The risks in missioning or mining are things such as the risk of getting blown up while attempting to accomplish said task. The same exists in ganking. The difference is that if you lose a non-blinged mission fit battleship, it might take 10-20 missions to recover that loss. With gankers, the cost is considerably lower and the rewards considerably higher, so if the gank fails, chances are the next one will recover that lost and still be highly profitable. In addition, it's incredibly easy to ruin a mission for someone. Jumping in and nuking the triggers for example will often overwhelm a player, stealing mission critical loot or ganking the player also disrupts this. With ganking it's not so simple. Pretty much the only effective way to disrupt a ganker is ECM, and even then you'd generally need to be on grid with the target beforehand, meaning the ganker can just pick a new target, and you'd need to blind luck your way to actually locking and landing an ECM hit on them. CODE members laugh at the "white knights" all the time at how futile it is to try to stop a gank.

So yes, ganking is considerably less risky than mining.

Black Pedro wrote:
But again you mis-perceive the role of the risk here. It is there to provide incentive for players to balance the yield/cargo of their ship with protection when fitting a ship. Ganking is not there necessarily as a mini-game in-and-of itself. Plenty of tools exist to make yourself 99.999% immune from gankers (certain ships, modules, behaviours) - they just all require a direct tradeoff against yield or some additional effort.
Except that also needs to be balanced against the cost of ganking the ship. AS it stands ganking is cheap and has no real consequence, as a ganker can simply use alts to do anything he can't do on the ganker, thus things like bounties, killrights and sec status are irrelevant. A ganker flying around in a cheap disposable ship with an empty pod is hardly going to care if people around him can kill him.

Black Pedro wrote:
Making freighters immune to scanning is a poor choice as it would diminish the purpose of ganking in the game - to provide risk to players overloading and overfitting their ships. If pirates could not look inside, they would have to just destroy ships blindly and there would be no incentive for the haulers to carry less as the risk of loss would be the same no matter what they carried.
That's not "the" purpose of ganking. That's your purpose. Ganking is simply there so people can blow people up if they like. Their motivations for doing so are not part of the design.

Black Pedro wrote:
If you want to inject uncertainty into ganking I would suggest looking at varying the predictable CONCORD mechanics or through new modules that can provide false information to gankers.
Agreed that concord mechanics been less predictable would be beneficial. I'd certainly consider looking into adding more consequences to ganking however. Sec status should make it more difficult to freely roam around highsec, and the ability to reverse your sec status should be considerably harder too. Personally I'd look at killsrights as well. Extending their duration and adding that they don't expire after one kill of any value, but instead expire once the amount of isk damage has been done equal the the amount they caused getting the killright, which would stop people being able to cheaply dump killrights with an alt.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#147 - 2014-12-19 12:49:00 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:

Black Pedro wrote:
Making freighters immune to scanning is a poor choice as it would diminish the purpose of ganking in the game - to provide risk to players overloading and overfitting their ships. If pirates could not look inside, they would have to just destroy ships blindly and there would be no incentive for the haulers to carry less as the risk of loss would be the same no matter what they carried.
That's not "the" purpose of ganking. That's your purpose. Ganking is simply there so people can blow people up if they like. Their motivations for doing so are not part of the design.

"Just because" isn't really a reason. CCP Falcon (and other developers for that matter) has made it quite clear that there is suppose to be risk in highsec:
CCP Falcon wrote:

Why should CCP provide protection for your haulage in high sec?

CONCORD offer a level of deterrent just the same as any law enforcement agency, but as with any police for they're reactive and punitive rather than proactive.

If you want your haulage to be safer, bring the guns. If you don't have any guns, sacrifice some of your profit margin and hire someone who has them to escort you.
and:
CCP Falcon wrote:

I say fair play to him if he cuts a profit from someone who's half-assed a ship fitting and AFK hauled across space with a sizeable chunk of ISK in their hold.


He is explicitly saying that that suicide ganking is in the game so you, the player, have to make some tradeoffs. You are responsible for not making yourself a target by overloading; you have to balance yield and tank; you have to remain at the keyboard; you have to bring escorts.

Suicide ganking is in the game to force these choices on players because presumably CCP thinks this makes the game more interesting, and that this is good for the game. If they did not think it good for the game, then some developer has been extremely negligent for not fixing the problem during the last 11 years.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#148 - 2014-12-19 18:06:05 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
He is explicitly saying that that suicide ganking is in the game so you, the player, have to make some tradeoffs. You are responsible for not making yourself a target by overloading; you have to balance yield and tank; you have to remain at the keyboard; you have to bring escorts.
No he's not. He's congratulating emergent gameplay and stating that CONCORD are a reactive not a preventative force. At no point have I seen CCP state that ganking is possible so a group of idiots can fly around making sure noone carries too much and trolling.

Black Pedro wrote:
Suicide ganking is in the game to force these choices on players because presumably CCP thinks this makes the game more interesting, and that this is good for the game. If they did not think it good for the game, then some developer has been extremely negligent for not fixing the problem during the last 11 years.
I didn't say it wasn't good for the game either. I simply said that what CODE say is the reason for ganking isn't the reason it's actually possible, that the balance between cost, risk and reward needs to be seriously looked at and that there's very little in the way of consequences for gankers, which is weird in a game where your actions supposedly have consequences.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Black Pedro
Mine.
#149 - 2014-12-19 20:08:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Black Pedro
Lucas Kell wrote:
No he's not. He's congratulating emergent gameplay and stating that CONCORD are a reactive not a preventative force. At no point have I seen CCP state that ganking is possible so a group of idiots can fly around making sure noone carries too much and trolling.

Well you're welcome to believe what you like but that is not what he is doing. He, that is CCP Falcon the lead community manager for Eve, is responding to the concerns of the community about sucide ganking by telling them that suicide ganking is an intended part of the game and they are responsible for their own security in highsec (including not carrying too much cargo - or "a sizable chunk of ISK" in his words). I don't know how much clearer he could be that suicide ganking is in the game design from the beginning and what the developers expect the players to do to deal with it.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2014-12-19 21:05:48 UTC
Re-post from page 5:

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?



Also, I heard you speaking about ensuring there is a significant amount of PVP and player ship destruction in areas with nontrivial resources. How do you feel about the idea of taking nontrivial resources out of upper-highsec and allowing suitable protections? It gives people a place to rest briefly, or new players more room to get used to the game.

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."

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#151 - 2014-12-20 07:55:14 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Re-post from page 5:

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?



Also, I heard you speaking about ensuring there is a significant amount of PVP and player ship destruction in areas with nontrivial resources. How do you feel about the idea of taking nontrivial resources out of upper-highsec and allowing suitable protections? It gives people a place to rest briefly, or new players more room to get used to the game.



Answering in reverse order.

I'm fine with rookie systems as an example of space with no nontrivial resources (except the ability to strip mine in them) and would have no issue with them being expanded to all deadend 1.0 systems. Rookie systems presently do provide an opportunity for someone to get back on their feet after a catastrophic loss and a place to learn the game interface, and those are valuable functions of them.


With respect to wardec fees, I do not see why larger defender entities should cost more to wardec and propose a shift to a fee that is based upon the size of the aggressor entity (and I proposed a formula - X^0.5 * 10m, where X is the size of the aggressor entity, capped at 2500. The present system encourages people to sign up dozens of trial accounts to pad out the numbers in their corporation, which isn't done much but could be a real nuisance if people start doing it.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#152 - 2014-12-20 11:48:37 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Well you're welcome to believe what you like but that is not what he is doing. He, that is CCP Falcon the lead community manager for Eve, is responding to the concerns of the community about sucide ganking by telling them that suicide ganking is an intended part of the game and they are responsible for their own security in highsec (including not carrying too much cargo - or "a sizable chunk of ISK" in his words). I don't know how much clearer he could be that suicide ganking is in the game design from the beginning and what the developers expect the players to do to deal with it.
I love how you keep linking to posts claiming he's saying thing while the post says something else. At no poitn has he stated that the mechanic was designed to restrict the amount of isk a player can load on a ship. All of it irrelevant either way be cause it doesn't change the fact that ganking is too easy, too low cost and without consequence.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#153 - 2014-12-20 14:36:53 UTC
First of all, big +1 from me just based on your initial few posts.

Secondly, what in your opinion is the largest issue facing the playerbase today, and how could it be addressed?

Thirdly, I have reported Lucas for his excessive off topic posting.

"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.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#154 - 2014-12-20 22:09:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
First of all, big +1 from me just based on your initial few posts.

Secondly, what in your opinion is the largest issue facing the playerbase today, and how could it be addressed?

Thirdly, I have reported Lucas for his excessive off topic posting.



Lucas is useful, he keeps bumping the thread so I'd rather he stays here.

There are three biggest issues I'd identify, two of which I have ideas of how to fix.

Firstly, stagnation in sovereign nullsec, which is being addressed fairly effectively right now.

Secondly, the non-interactive nature of mining.

Thirdly, the fact that the risk/reward balance of some highsec activities are so off balance that they are killing off other areas of space.

I'll cover solutions in more depth in my 'ask me anything' session in 45 minutes.

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

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#155 - 2014-12-21 20:28:42 UTC
Ask Me Anything happened, and is posted here https://soundcloud.com/sabriz-adoudel/qanda

It's not edited and I lack the capacity to edit it, so it is long.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#156 - 2014-12-22 11:06:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Audacity is your friend. Freeware audio editing and easy to use.

Perhaps if you do anything else like this however, whoever is recording it from TS should do a mic check on each person and adjust individual volumes to bring everyone to a similar level. The volume difference makes this pretty painful to listen to.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#157 - 2014-12-22 23:16:58 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Audacity is your friend. Freeware audio editing and easy to use.

Perhaps if you do anything else like this however, whoever is recording it from TS should do a mic check on each person and adjust individual volumes to bring everyone to a similar level. The volume difference makes this pretty painful to listen to.


Thanks for the constructive suggestions.

You'd think someone like me that used to work as a live gig sound technician would have a clue about that sort of thing, but I've been out of that line of work for some years now.

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#158 - 2014-12-22 23:31:20 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Audacity is your friend. Freeware audio editing and easy to use.

Perhaps if you do anything else like this however, whoever is recording it from TS should do a mic check on each person and adjust individual volumes to bring everyone to a similar level. The volume difference makes this pretty painful to listen to.
Thanks for the constructive suggestions.

You'd think someone like me that used to work as a live gig sound technician would have a clue about that sort of thing, but I've been out of that line of work for some years now.
:D

When I get a minute free I plan to listen to it and feed back on the content too.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Sasha Nyemtsov
Doomheim
#159 - 2014-12-23 07:11:54 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Audacity is your friend. Freeware audio editing and easy to use.

Perhaps if you do anything else like this however, whoever is recording it from TS should do a mic check on each person and adjust individual volumes to bring everyone to a similar level. The volume difference makes this pretty painful to listen to.


Thanks for the constructive suggestions.

You'd think someone like me that used to work as a live gig sound technician would have a clue about that sort of thing, but I've been out of that line of work for some years now.



Hi Sabriz,

'Audacity' does make audio editing very easy. I don't have any experience in sound technology but I'm able to do all the basic editing for the SoundCloud files in this little program. I got better at it as time went on, but I'm still learning.

It takes time though, and you have to be prepared to listen again and again - and critically - to your piece. I think you're just a rather busy pilot at the moment!

All the very best for your campaign and, more immediately, for the coming holiday!
Sabriz Adoudel
Move along there is nothing here
#160 - 2014-12-23 07:23:22 UTC
Sasha Nyemtsov wrote:


Hi Sabriz,

'Audacity' does make audio editing very easy. I don't have any experience in sound technology but I'm able to do all the basic editing for the SoundCloud files in this little program. I got better at it as time went on, but I'm still learning.

It takes time though, and you have to be prepared to listen again and again - and critically - to your piece. I think you're just a rather busy pilot at the moment!

All the very best for your campaign and, more immediately, for the coming holiday!



Yeah I'm ridiculously busy IRL, organising maintenance for a Boeing 737 repossessed from a now bankrupt airline.

I think I need to take the stress out on some freighters soon.

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