These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Tora Bushido for CSM X - A New High-Sec (No Nerfed Disneyland)

First post First post
Author
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
The Ferrymen of Hades
#221 - 2015-01-08 18:32:33 UTC
1. HIdeout idea seems nifty. Something along the lines of the mobile siphon unit which adds more dynamics to the game.

2a. Your AFK while in space is unfortunately terrible. As a cov ops pilot I'm often stuck in space not only for hours, but days and weeks at a time. I don't have the luxury of docking up because my station is many jumps away, especially now that I'm hitting more wormholes than before. I need to be able to go "afk while in space" because the alternative is turning the game off for me. You don't want me to do that now do you?

2b. Your ore idea hits along a similar idea I had but I don't think randomization is the best thing to do. Perhaps I just never had an interest in gambling but I think a mini game for "maximum efficiency mining" is much better. Say every 10 minutes you play the mini game and based on how well you do your mining efficiency can go up or down. An active miner will be able to mine and profit way more than a passive miner. But passive mining shouldn't be completely stopped either. Let's face it, plenty of people have kids, work, obligations but still want to play the game even if at a limited level. If the choice is between having an afk miner that has to take care of the baby vs no player at all, what would you choose?

3. NO way on the wardecs. People can just make single person corps and hide in them forever.

4. Agreed on people not being able to stay in an NPC corp forever.

5. Not sure how I feel about dreads. I'm worried this would allow a big 0.0 bloc to have more influence in Highsec. Right now Marauders sort of act like "the dreads of HS" and I think it's an interesting niche to be developed upon rather than strangled in its sleep by putting dreads in HS.

6. As far as faction police goes...that should be a joinable faction like FW where you can police HS of criminals for LP. Throw the NPC faction police out...replace with actual players.

7. Keeping pirates out of HS stations may conflict with idea 6 but it's a possibility.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#222 - 2015-01-09 00:18:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
2a. I do expect you to log off or accept pressing a button every x minutes (20-30 or so), if you stay on the same grid.

2b. That would work too. I just want less afk mining. You can do this by punishment or rewarding players. Let's try rewarding for a change.

3. They can already be in NPC corps and hide for ever. There is no difference. Might want those NPC corps to still pay tax ?

5. True, that is a risk.

6. Sounds fun too. There are many ways to get to the same destination.

7. I don't want them out of HS stations.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
The Ferrymen of Hades
#223 - 2015-01-09 00:29:41 UTC
Then people in station/pos should get ejected out into space if they don't push a button every 20-30 min as well no?
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#224 - 2015-01-09 08:14:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Then people in station/pos should get ejected out into space if they don't push a button every 20-30 min as well no?
No. If you're docked you don't gain anything. Afk mining, afk cloaked in enemy system, etc you do have an advantage, so you have to work for it. And like I said before, even if you just move once every 20-30 minutes, you will not see anything popup, as you re active.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#225 - 2015-01-09 08:43:59 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Then people in station/pos should get ejected out into space if they don't push a button every 20-30 min as well no?
No. If you're docked you do not gain anything. Afk mining, afk cloaked in enemy system, etc you do have an advantage, so you have to work for it. And like I said before, even if you just move once every 20-30 minutes, you will not see anything popup, as you re active.
You realise that an AFK miner is just AFK after 20-30 minutes, right? Being AFK doesn't mystically cause your ore hold to empty itself in a station.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#226 - 2015-01-09 08:46:08 UTC
Its not perfect and needs work, but I am looking for something to minimize afk cloaking and mining. Any ideas are welcome.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Dave Viker
Do you even Exist.
#227 - 2015-01-09 08:47:31 UTC
Great that you pointed that out, Lucas.

But still - Tora's idea about making mining more "active" is good.
You could even let those miners have their own choice - if they want to AFK mine, they'll not make as much profit as someone who plays the "Minigame".

Indie GameDev & Audiophile

Checkout my Soundcloud page.

Hitech Trance, Chillout, Acoustic Stuff.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#228 - 2015-01-09 09:01:53 UTC
Dave Viker wrote:
Great that you pointed that out, Lucas.

But still - Tora's idea about making mining more "active" is good.
You could even let those miners have their own choice - if they want to AFK mine, they'll not make as much profit as someone who plays the "Minigame".
Oh don't get me wrong, mining should be more active, but AFK timer are completely irrelevant (since if you are actually mining, you're not AFK) and minigames are generlally a bad idea (they tend to put people off). The mechanics themselves need to be more active, not just "here, play are arbitrary minigame to complete your unrelated task because we can't be bothered to improve your gameplay".

All in all though, Tora's campaign reads like: "make it painful and annoying to play most of the game, except wardecs which should be easier".

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#229 - 2015-01-09 09:06:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Lucas Kell wrote:
All in all though, Tora's campaign reads like: "make it painful and annoying to play most of the game, except wardecs which should be easier".
Care to explain how increased dec fees and social corps make war decs easier ? What would you do to improve it ?

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#230 - 2015-01-09 10:10:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Tora Bushido wrote:
Care to explain how increased dec fees and social corps make war decs easier ? What would you do to improve it ?
Wardec fees are a token change. The problem with wardecs is the mechanics are meaningless, it's just a way to turn off concord. Making it more expensive just for the lowest group doesn't fix the mechanics, and to groups like yours would make very little difference. all that does is mean that a small group wardeccing another small group (the times when the wardec mechanics are arguably working best, because they are actually fighting for a reason rather than killboard padding) has to pay twice as much.

I'd personally go the other way. I'd keep it cheap to wardec the first few groups, then it would exponentially grow, so once you read 15 or so wardecs, it becomes ridiculously expensive, and 20 or so would be financially unachievable. Wardecs should happen in far fewer numbers for real reasons, not just so you can switch off concord for the maximum number of targets. You should need to have to make a choice, "do I wardec these guys, or these guys", not "I'll just wardec everyone". Wardecs need to be given more reason. They should be more than just a concord off switch, they should promote interaction between groups who have a reason to fight each other that isn't just the killboard, like fighting with a competitor for example.

Effectively what you're doing is saying "I'll sacrifice this *really tiny change* and you sacrifice this *massive change*" and acting like it's a fair tradeoff.

As for social corps, they are just a way to make up for the real change, which is shutting NPC corps to older players. Let's look past the fact that to force someone out of an NPC corp, what really would have to happen is they get dumped in a 1 man corp, and look at the lack of benefit. If a social corp is just effectively an NPC corp, why move them out of an NPC corp at all? NPC corps already have a much more interesting corp chat than most other corps, and keep everyone on the same level. All a social corp would do is force you into the same situation, but with the added restrictions of having to be either alone, a leader of a corp, or overseen by someone else. Not to mention that you suggest they would be restricted to 10 players, so you'd only be able to be social with a very small group of people, and growing bigger would mean turning on wardecs, something NPC players have no interest in doing.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#231 - 2015-01-09 10:43:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Lucas Kell wrote:
Wardec fees are a token change. The problem with wardecs is the mechanics are meaningless, it's just a way to turn off concord. Making it more expensive just for the lowest group doesn't fix the mechanics, and to groups like yours would make very little difference. all that does is mean that a small group wardeccing another small group (the times when the wardec mechanics are arguably working best, because they are actually fighting for a reason rather than killboard padding) has to pay twice as much.
So you're saying my suggestions make it harder, not easier ? Marmite has 100+ wars per week. Let's assume they are all small corps. That would mean I pay 100 x 50M = 5B isks per week more. Would that make me war dec less corps. I would think so.

Lucas Kell wrote:
I'd personally go the other way. I'd keep it cheap to wardec the first few groups, then it would exponentially grow, so once you read 15 or so wardecs, it becomes ridiculously expensive, and 20 or so would be financially unachievable. Wardecs should happen in far fewer numbers for real reasons, not just so you can switch off concord for the maximum number of targets. You should need to have to make a choice, "do I wardec these guys, or these guys", not "I'll just wardec everyone". Wardecs need to be given more reason. They should be more than just a concord off switch, they should promote interaction between groups who have a reason to fight each other that isn't just the killboard, like fighting with a competitor for example.

Effectively what you're doing is saying "I'll sacrifice this *really tiny change* and you sacrifice this *massive change*" and acting like it's a fair tradeoff.
So you're saying it should be almost impossible for any large mercenary alliance to have more then 20 contracts ? And fun wars should all be removed ? If people are willing to pay for something, why wouldn't you allow it ? If a large null-sec alliance is wiling to pay for SRP, you're saying they can't because it costs to much ? Isn't that their choice ? Did the fact you are at war with us for over a year now, influence your opinion on this matter ? Mercenary alliances go to war for profit, just as null-sec alliances take sov for profit. Are you saying profit is bad and null-sec alliances shouldn't have more then 20 systems or it will get extreemly expensive to hold them ?

Lucas Kell wrote:
As for social corps, they are just a way to make up for the real change, which is shutting NPC corps to older players. Let's look past the fact that to force someone out of an NPC corp, what really would have to happen is they get dumped in a 1 man corp, and look at the lack of benefit. If a social corp is just effectively an NPC corp, why move them out of an NPC corp at all? NPC corps already have a much more interesting corp chat than most other corps, and keep everyone on the same level. All a social corp would do is force you into the same situation, but with the added restrictions of having to be either alone, a leader of a corp, or overseen by someone else. Not to mention that you suggest they would be restricted to 10 players, so you'd only be able to be social with a very small group of people, and growing bigger would mean turning on wardecs, something NPC players have no interest in doing.
I agree NPC corp chats are good for new players, because it's a great place to find out how things in Eve work. But the next step up to a corp is to big in my opinion, as in most cases they do not get the time to settle down. A social corp could be that in between phase.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#232 - 2015-01-09 11:13:31 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
So you're saying my suggestions make it harder, not easier ? Marmite has 100+ wars per week. Let's assume they are all small corps. That would mean I pay 100 x 50M = 5B isks per week more. Would that make me war dec less corps. I would think so.
But in comparison to what you earn and how much you already pay, it would be a drop in the ocean, especially since mercenary corps tend to have many fees paid for by the client. For a small corp deccing another small corp, it would be prohibitive.

Tora Bushido wrote:
So you're saying it should be almost impossible for any large mercenary alliance to have more then 20 contracts ? And fun wars should all be removed ? If people are willing to pay for something, why wouldn't you allow it ? If a large null-sec alliance is wiling to pay for SRP, you're saying they can't because it costs to much ? Isn't that their choice ? Did the fact you are at war with us for over a year now, influence your opinion on this matter ? Mercenary alliances go to war for profit, just as null-sec alliances take sov for profit. Are you saying profit is bad and null-sec alliances shouldn't have more then 20 systems or it will get extreemly expensive to hold them ?
Yes, large mercenary corps should need to make a choice between the contracts they take, or split themselves down to cover more contracts if thats what they wish to do. The current system of "I'm going to wardec everyone because I can" is not a good design. You can simply add wardecs for smaller groups until the end of time, knowing that they stand no chance of retaliating. I'd rather you had to make a choice. Do I take this contract, or that contract? Can I split down into smaller entities to cover both? Would splitting down put too much strain on our members covering the existing contracts?

And no, the fact that you are at war with my alliance (If you still are, I don't actually check) is irrelevant. Even if they did change the wardecs the way I suggest, I'd still expect to be one of the wardecs you choose to go through with, as we provide plenty of easy targets.

Yes, sov should be restricted, which is why you'll find most null players in support of occupancy based sov. If you can't use it, you'll lose it.

Tora Bushido wrote:
I agree NPC corp chats are good for new players, because it's a great place to find out how things in Eve work. But the next step up to a corp is to big in my opinion, as in most cases they do not get the time to settle down. A social corp could be that in between phase.
Except it would just be a boring NPC corp. The jump to a player corp would be just as big. You're still saying "stay safe in this corp or open yourself up to wardecs on that one". If they existed, I guaranteed that the vast majority of long term NPC players would just be them and their alts in thousands of "social" corps, arguably making the game less social.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#233 - 2015-01-09 11:32:09 UTC
We pay around 10-12B in war dec fees a week. 5B would be about 40% more cost. I would say that's a lot for an alliance who doesn’t have the luxury of moon goo, afk ratting, etc. Do you think its ok if we would increase your trading taxes with 40% ? Probably not. But still I want this change for war decs, even if it will be hard on my own alliance. So would that make me bad in your opinion or an Eve hero ?

Is it bad design if any big null-sec alliance would send in huge fleets to high-sec to come after us ? Is that fair to an alliance as Marmites which is only 170 member ? Are you saying null-sec alliance should have a max number of players to keep things fair ? Or do we just accept that the game you willingly started playing isn’t always fair and could be evil ? Keep Eve fun and don't nerf it to death.

Can you show me your source of “Yes, sov should be restricted, which is why you'll find most null players in support of occupancy based sov. If you can't use it, you'll lose it.” ? I see you often talk for large groups in Eve, but I keep missing your sources that they really agree with you.

Social corps shouldn’t be boring, as you can grow your corp to about 10 players. I can have a lot of fun with 10 players in Eve. Your view on Eve players being less social in small corps worries me.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#234 - 2015-01-09 12:18:31 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
We pay around 10-12B in war dec fees a week. 5B would be about 40% more cost. I would say that's a lot for an alliance who doesn’t have the luxury of moon goo, afk ratting, etc. Do you think its ok if we would increase your trading taxes with 40% ? Probably not. But still I want this change for war decs, even if it will be hard on my own alliance. So would that make me bad in your opinion or an Eve hero ?
It's still a nothing change. 40% on my taxes would still be nothing, I'd happily accept double that. In comparison to how much I make, taxes are tiny, they are 0.75% of a sale (with brokers fees being a further 0.4% or so), so even doubling both would only be 2.3% tax, which would simply get passed on to the buyer. The same way that much your additional fees would simply get passed on to the customer.

Tora Bushido wrote:
Is it bad design if any big null-sec alliance would send in huge fleets to high-sec to come after us ? Is that fair to an alliance as Marmites which is only 170 member ? Are you saying null-sec alliance should have a max number of players to keep things fair ? Or do we just accept that the game you willingly started playing isn’t always fair and could be evil ? Keep Eve fun and don't nerf it to death.
That could happen under any system, if a larger group chooses to fight back, that's what can happen. You're going off on a tangent here. The thing is, you find it fun, because you're the large group bullying the little groups with your superior power. I don't think that making you have to choose between who you attack rather than just attacking everyone is a bad thing. You should have to make choices.

Tora Bushido wrote:
Can you show me your source of “Yes, sov should be restricted, which is why you'll find most null players in support of occupancy based sov. If you can't use it, you'll lose it.” ? I see you often talk for large groups in Eve, but I keep missing your sources that they really agree with you.
The null sec statement on occupancy based sov is on such source. It's really not hard to find people on board with the idea of shrinking down null groups areas of control.

Tora Bushido wrote:
Social corps shouldn’t be boring, as you can grow your corp to about 10 players. I can have a lot of fun with 10 players in Eve. Your view on Eve players being less social in small corps worries me.
I'm sure yo udo have fun with 10 players, but that's 10 players out of a larger group. Someone in an NPC corp finding a group of 10 people he enjoys playing with and who are all online together is highly unlikely to happen. Beyond it being difficult to find those people, most wouldn't even try, since there's still no benefit to being in a corp with other players. Effectively the same change could be made by simply removing NPC corp chat, since that's pretty much what a social corp would be, an NPC corp without thousands of other players.

And of course they would be less social. Why would someone who is currently in an NPC corp choose to put themselves in a group with other players when they gain no benefit from doing so? People won't just flock to join other social corps simply because they are available, that's why it's not a very well thought out idea.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#235 - 2015-01-09 12:49:51 UTC
Then let me rephrase that. Would you think its acceptable to have a 40% less profit ? Of course you wouldn’t. And are you saying it’s ok for our clients to pay for these losses ? If so, never start a business. I personally don’t think its acceptable.

Isn’t that exactly what large null-sec alliances do to smaller alliance when they take over their sov ? You still haven’t answered the question, what the difference is between us and corps we war dec and big null-sec alliances who go after smaller alliance. I see no difference here. It’s all part of the food chain.

Exactly the reason I think social corps can be useful. Start a small social corp and continue to grow it to a basic corp or even bigger.

Lucas Kell wrote:
And of course they would be less social. Why would someone who is currently in an NPC corp choose to put themselves in a group with other players when they gain no benefit from doing so?
I really hope you are trolling me here. Ugh

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#236 - 2015-01-09 13:41:55 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Then let me rephrase that. Would you think its acceptable to have a 40% less profit ? Of course you wouldn’t. And are you saying it’s ok for our clients to pay for these losses ? If so, never start a business. I personally don’t think its acceptable.
If I had 40% less profit, yes I'd pass at least the majority of that to the customer, and yes, that's fine, that's how business work in the real world. At the end of the day you do things for the profit you feel is acceptable. If costs go up, often so does the price, this is why crude oil prices affect the prices of petrol. Are you saying that someone that pays you 100m for a 50m wardec now would not pay any extra if the wardec cost 100m?

Tora Bushido wrote:
Isn’t that exactly what large null-sec alliances do to smaller alliance when they take over their sov ? You still haven’t answered the question, what the difference is between us and corps we war dec and big null-sec alliances who go after smaller alliance. I see no difference here. It’s all part of the food chain.
Except you're buying out concord for hundreds of corps for very little isk. I get that you think it's fine to do that, but surely you can appreciate how your targets find that to be considerably less than fine. Being a CSM member isn't about just pushing what benefits YOU.

Tora Bushido wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
And of course they would be less social. Why would someone who is currently in an NPC corp choose to put themselves in a group with other players when they gain no benefit from doing so?
I really hope you are trolling me here. Ugh
No, there is no reason for someone in an NPC corp to put themselves under someone else's leadership when all they want to do is mine, mission and be left alone. You seem to think that if they made "social corps" and kicked people into them, that they would suddenly want to be more social even though there's no benefit to doing so. That's just not how it works. You not understanding that is yet another reason why you'd be an awful CSM member.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#237 - 2015-01-09 13:53:15 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Being a CSM member isn't about just pushing what benefits YOU.
This is probably the 100th time you keep accusing me I benefit from these changes. And we keep seeing facts its actually the opposite. I am going to end this now and tell myself we just have different views on facts and being social. Blink

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#238 - 2015-01-09 14:02:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Tora Bushido wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
Being a CSM member isn't about just pushing what benefits YOU.
This is probably the 100th time you keep accusing me I benefit from these changes. And we keep seeing facts its actually the opposite. I am going to end this now and tell myself we just have different views on facts and being social. Blink
I'm sure it is, and for the 100th time people can clearly see that yout chances are token changes to make it appear like you are losing out along with everyone else. The realism is that you want massive changes to nerf other people's playstyles and small insignificant changes to your own (in in some ways direct benefits, like the ability to run dreadnaughts in highsec to make it easier for you to POS bash small industry corps). I'm certainly not the only one who has noticed this.

Your inability to understand this and even to understand the basic reasons why people play in ways different to your own is at the core of why you are a terrible CSM candidate.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#239 - 2015-01-09 21:28:53 UTC
I think the only terrible approach displayed here by Tora was trying to intelligently have any kind of discourse with Lucas Kell in the first place.

Like Anslo, Veers Belvar and other forum trolls, the only response should be...

Shut up Lucas.

F
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#240 - 2015-01-09 21:34:47 UTC
My focus will still be on high-sec, but why not talk about low-sec Pirate

http://justforcrits.com/csmx-tora-bushido/

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

Meta Gaming Level VII, Psycho Warfare Level X, Smack Talk Level VII.