These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#81 - 2014-12-04 20:49:05 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
I mean, think about it: wouldn't it be the most obvious thing to be able to easily communicate with other ships on grid? And we can, clumsily, with technology that dates back to the 1970s. Doesn't that seem odd? (He says, in a CSM candidacy thread Blink).


Yeah I agree with everything you've said here. Unfortunately I'm not sure how you could make freight hauling more interesting without inadvertently giving freighters a massive unfair buff.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Justin Zaine
#82 - 2014-12-04 20:56:33 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
I mean, think about it: wouldn't it be the most obvious thing to be able to easily communicate with other ships on grid? And we can, clumsily, with technology that dates back to the 1970s. Doesn't that seem odd? (He says, in a CSM candidacy thread Blink).


Yeah I agree with everything you've said here. Unfortunately I'm not sure how you could make freight hauling more interesting without inadvertently giving freighters a massive unfair buff.


I just spoke with Tora regarding this pressing issue, he should be along any minute now to explain how a random popup every 30-60 seconds will both keep people's attention at the keyboard while also increasing the fun factor, lest the autopiloting ships engines shut off should you fail to press the button before the timer expires...

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.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#83 - 2014-12-04 21:55:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Tengu Grib wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
I mean, think about it: wouldn't it be the most obvious thing to be able to easily communicate with other ships on grid? And we can, clumsily, with technology that dates back to the 1970s. Doesn't that seem odd? (He says, in a CSM candidacy thread Blink).


Yeah I agree with everything you've said here. Unfortunately I'm not sure how you could make freight hauling more interesting without inadvertently giving freighters a massive unfair buff.


Really?

Just to pick one tiny little incremental example: CCP could do to freighters exactly what they just did to sov structures: less raw HP, more resists, except that the "resists" would come in the optional form of enough CPU to fit a Basic Damage Control and some kind of hull tank or resist plating.

Just like that, AFK freighter piloting becomes more perilous, and active freighter piloting--albeit, for a de minimus and inadequate definition of "active"--is rewarded, but the EHP of a max tanked freighter hasn't changed substantially.

Now, I'm not saying that that in itself is a good change. "You get to activate a module every few minutes to avoid painting a huge target on your back!" is not compelling gameplay in and of itself. It's just an off-the-cuff example of the sort of change you could make without turning freighters into indestructible fortresses. A package of similarly balanced changes could redefine the class.

With that said, if the poster back a few pages is right and the ceiling above which a freighter gank is profitable has dropped to only 500M ISK, maybe a slight buff is appropriate. You should, at the very least, be able to fill a freighter with common high sec ore without drawing too much attention to yourself. Otherwise, what are they for?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#84 - 2014-12-04 22:35:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Capt Starfox
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Capt Starfox wrote:

1. Check route (F10 is great at this and so is Dotlan).
2. Don't carry over 500m/isk worth of space stuff; 1b/isk tops.
3. Fit tank, I hear Reinforced Bulkheads work wonders.
4. Use a web; despite what you say about the dueling issue... You only need to duel request once if you do it right.

As an active Bumping Mach pilot there are 2 ways to make me avoid you and both of those are listed above. Stop being lazy.


Stop being lazy and picking assumptions out of thin air just because they favor your argument.

I know all of this (oh, and I don't even fly freighters myself; I just know people who do). But all you've done here is dodge the question. First of all, there are no guarantees, even if you do everything right. Second, you ignored where I said that alts are a plague. Any solution that relies on alts is lazy. Third, what the hell use is a freighter that can't carry more than 500m ISK? and it doesn't matter anyway, because empty freighters get blown up.

If you're ~not supposed~ to even fill them with ore, they've become useless, and they should be removed from the game.

The risk/reward is still off--despite your confident assertions, AFK freightering is still worth considering, which if you're a CSM candidate looking to reduce AFK gameplay is not a good thing; and the gameplay when things go wrong is still terrible.


Assumptions out of thin air? These carebear tested, ganker approved tactics that work; coming from an active ganker, sir. Just because your commenting on something you obviously know nothing about doesn't mean you're right; it actually makes you look a bit silly. If you, or any other player wants to ignore these helpful tactics, that significantly increases your risk of losing that shiny Freighter you seem to love oh so much and then it's your fault for losing the Freighter to begin with.

The generally rule is don't carry anything worth more than your hull. This more of pertains to Freighters, or ships that are terrible with alignment and can't covops. If you want to carry 2b/isk over what your Freighter costs, great; you'll be a target. If you want to be smart about it and not carry cargo worth more than your hull, then obviously your chance of becoming a gank target decreases. I shouldn't have to spell this out for you... I don't know what game you've been playing the past year, but it wasn't Eve Online.

OMG AN EMPTY FRIEGHTER DIED THAT MEANS ALL EMPTY FREIGHTERS DIE! That's some nice logic you have there too bad it's wrong. An empty Freighter only becomes a target if and when there are no other targets. They are never primary.

You had a question? Seemed like a statement to me. I'll go ahead and answer your "questions" for you now.

1. No guarantees? Welcome to Eve.

2. Who said anything about alts? Oh, you did. I don't know why you're hellbent on some alts, they come in handy. If someone doesn't have an alt, then ask a friend/corpmate.

3. See above.

Anything else?

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2014-12-04 22:39:58 UTC
Gevlon Goblin wrote:
While its clear that only CODE members oppose Tora, let me explain why the eject from station feature would be great, despite being rationally useless (empty pod, no clone costs).

Most ganks are done for tears. If everyone would just shrug and replace the losses, CODE would be disbanded in a week. But we know that EVE is full of people who cry a river for losing a $0.5 retriever. They do so in impotency: they don't know anything of PvP and have no idea how could they defend themselves. All they experience that some "veteran" just came out of the blue and destroyed something that was theirs and they have no clue how did it happen. This is why I linked a why was I ganked guide to every target I ganked and Surprise! I barely got tears, despite I popped 124+140B of miners in two months before I got bored.

The eject feature would give them the chance to "fight back". They could fly to the station and shoot the big bad ganker. Sure, it would make no sense. But hey, ganking a Venture makes no sense and CODE had a competition for it. The guy would get "revenge", the thrill of winning in PvP. He might even try again, against a ship and before he'd notice, he'd be flying in lowsec looking for fights.

The point isn't to remove ganking. It's to remove the "I can't do anything against these gankers" feeling from the carebears, give them a symbolic chance to hit back.

EDIT: there is a way to improve it. Instead of making the GCC longer, keep it just 15 mins, but reset it to 15 mins whenever the ganker is podded. So anti-gankers could stop a ganker by repeatedly podding him. So they could fight back meaningfully and force the "bad criminal" to run and hide.

As so often, you are wrong. I do not gank for 'tears', I gank simply for the kill. It's the hunt that motivates me. Can I be stealthy enough to scan him, get a warp in on him and land on top of him before he suspects any trouble? In general, tears bore me, as most of the time they are just 'waaaah waaah, Y U KEEL MI?!?! GO SUUK DIK!".

As for your "improvement", the work around I would use for that: train up more alts. Mostly trading/industrial alts that aren't doing anything outside of stations anyway atm. Log out your first ganker, have it auto-eject till hell freezes over, log back into another alt, gank on that, rinse repeat.

Other work arounds: set you medical clone to a low sec station, no bear will dare venture there, have a jump clone in hi sec. I'd most likely be combining the two. End result: no gameplay added for gankers, no gameplay added for anti-gankers. The fact that you think repeatedly shooting auto-ejecting pods is 'gameplay' kinda surpises me tbh. It sounds like a chore more than it sounds like gameplay. I'm sure that anyone who has been doing it for more than 20 minutes will agree. You'll get chats like this:"Hey guys, I won't be going on mining ops/missioning/roaming/incursions/whatever cuz I got 'ganker podding'-duty today, have fun without me while I am out here making sure that just 1 ganker gets locked down while he is logging in on one of his 10 other gank chars and continues to gank.". Sounds really appealing to all parties involved yeah....

You wrote your guide on anti-ganking, which is pretty decent (I still link it to ppl sometimes if they really seem to have no clue) so you KNOW how easy it is to avoid ganks yet here you are advocating "One More Nerf". I am disappoint Gobbles, I am disappoint...
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#86 - 2014-12-04 22:58:06 UTC
Toriessian wrote:
Tora what is your opinion on the different proposals that have been floated over time that have suggested incentives for the defender in war decs to mount an actual defense? It seems a common complaint is that defenders in war decs don't have any reason to really defend leading to a decrease in overall PVP. What would be your take on an incentive if in favor?
I am against it, as a small corp or alliance would never ever be able to defend against a large null-sec alliance any more. And if you do it, then you need to do it in low and null too, where you also have NPC stations.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Saeger1737
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#87 - 2014-12-04 23:16:47 UTC
Still no, we need a content creator, not a merc blue donut maker.
We need someone has PvP experience, not t3 blob gang with neutral logi alts.
We don't need a mermaid/coward for csm.

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

Abla Tive
#88 - 2014-12-05 01:58:55 UTC
Tora:

Despite all the smoke and heat being generated over gankers and war-decs, there is much more going on in hi-sec.

CCP has revealed that there are many EVE players (such as myself) who have no interest in tears (either given or received).
These players are a non-trivial part of the player base.

What are the best ideas you have heard about improving their gaming experience?
Valkin Mordirc
#89 - 2014-12-05 03:41:12 UTC
Quote:
War decs
The war dec system needs to change. To many new corps in high-sec are destroyed by war decs, which is bad for keeping people motivated to stay in high-sec or even in Eve itself. Once they are a bit bigger (50+), they at least have a chance fighting. High-sec isn’t for pussies, so let’s not do more then really needed or we will nerf the game to death. I would suggest, double the war dec costs for the first group (up to 50 players). and let the rest as it is. Making the costs go from 50M to 100M might not seem much, but I can tell you from experience it’s a lot when you have so many wars running as we have or when you are a small briefer corp.



I can agree about the fact small corps are destroyed by a bigger fish, it's happened to me, and I've done to other corps. But this shouldn't be a reason to help the defending corp. Defending corps are broken because the people inside the corp are not willing to help each other.

I've run with small gang wardecing corps my entire time in EVE (no more than 20 people) Asides from one small time, when Deadly Fingertips became rather large and join IKR for a brief moment. I would like to say I know a fair bit on Wardecs, and how they function from at least a meta standpoint.


The reason most corps loose to a Aggressing corp. Is because for the most part, a Wardeccing corp has more teamwork, shares a common goal, and in general has a better atmosphere than a 20 to 5 "We do everything" Corp.

The "We do Everything" Corp basically means, from what I've seen, Here go mine, mission or whatever, here are some people to talk to while you do it. We don't have a goal in mind and so whatever. There is no comradery, no strive for a goal. No Team just I.

That is why most corps in High-sec break, because when push comes to shove. No one in this "We do Everything" Corp is willing to stick up for each other and fight together. That is why a Merc corp, or Wardecing corp does by far better than they do. Because a Wardeccing corp has set themselves to have a goal, to work together and everyone in the Merc corp is ready for it.

Basically what I'm saying is, a "Social" Corp will always no matter how much the isk paid, no matter how many people are in it. Will break to a Focused corp with a goal and interest in mind. So you can raise the wardec cost. Raise to the moon all you want it won't make Highsec any better, it'll probably make even more stagnant. Because the one drive force in EVE is emotion, Greed, angry whatever. If you get mad, you get focused. And then the magic happens.


Also I currently run a solo wardeccing corp. Why should I be singled out? I'm but a single pilot verse many.

Currently I'm dec with corp that is around 50 members. There is no amount of SP that will save me from 20 or so Moa's blasting my Proteus to oblivion. A solo wardeccer is by far the most balanced part in the Wardeccing mechanics. Because he is very vulnerable.

Were as a Alliance like FA, can easily counter and defend attacks on them. So why should I not be allowed to take that risk and work alone and have a challenge and know that I don't have (No offence to FA) 5 DPS Proteus with Rook ECM on standby when I camp a gate?


Thats the best way I can word this so hope you understand.
#DeleteTheWeak
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#90 - 2014-12-05 08:45:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Abla Tive wrote:
Tora:

Despite all the smoke and heat being generated over gankers and war-decs, there is much more going on in hi-sec.

CCP has revealed that there are many EVE players (such as myself) who have no interest in tears (either given or received).
These players are a non-trivial part of the player base.

What are the best ideas you have heard about improving their gaming experience?
The best idea I have is to start talking to people who feel this way. Why would I make up solutions, if I haven't even talked to the players who see it as a problem. This answer you will get from me for a lot of issues in Eve. A CSM should talk to people, listen to them, get things back to basics, see how the rest of Eve things about it and if not, why not, communicate this with the players who see curtain things as an issue and then find common grounds we can all agree upon.

TLDR : A good CSM talks to people.

@Valkin Mordirc : You dont have to create a social club, just because of the numbers in corp. Its a choice you make. Just as you can make a choice now to be in an NPC corp. And I think they wont break down, because they will have no wars, just as the current NPC players. So there is almost no difference between them. Biggest plus here is, you can start forming a corp, get used to corp mechanisms, etc, without worrying about war decs. These will probably be the same players who are in a NPC corp now.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#91 - 2014-12-05 09:23:31 UTC
Saeger1737 wrote:
Still no, we need a content creator, not a merc blue donut maker. We need someone has PvP experience, not t3 blob gang with neutral logi alts. We don't need a mermaid/coward for csm.
Stay on topic. If it's attention you seek, let me know and I will send you a postcard.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#92 - 2014-12-05 09:54:30 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Saeger1737 wrote:
Still no, we need a content creator, not a merc blue donut maker. We need someone has PvP experience, not t3 blob gang with neutral logi alts. We don't need a mermaid/coward for csm.
Stay on topic. If it's attention you seek, let me know and I will send you a postcard.
It would seem that in your campaign thread, someone explaining why in their opinion your aren't a good candidate for the CSM would seem to be remarkably on topic.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Beatrix Dacella
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2014-12-05 10:02:47 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
The best idea I have is to start talking to people who feel this way. Why would I make up solutions, if I haven't even talked to the players who see it as a problem.


I think Abla is looking to judge your feelings on the subject, rather than asking what your specific solutions are at this moment in time. It is important that a CSM rep at least has an understanding of the matters that they are going to represent, if not all the answers.

So to put Abla's question a different way: What are top 3 most important issues you personally see regarding PVE/Incursions/Missioning in hi-sec that you feel should be tackled? Any rough idea or direction you would take to make these aspects of the game better are a bonus.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#94 - 2014-12-05 10:46:59 UTC
Beatrix Dacella wrote:
So to put Abla's question a different way: What are top 3 most important issues you personally see regarding PVE/Incursions/Missioning in hi-sec that you feel should be tackled? Any rough idea or direction you would take to make these aspects of the game better are a bonus.
I am not a PvE player, so I cant answer that question. What do you think are the top 3 issues ?

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Black Pedro
Mine.
#95 - 2014-12-05 10:52:50 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
The problem with this line of logic is that it doesn't apply consistently enough to matter. Remember that guy who'd been ganked running a purple-fit Raven Navy Issue in a SoE system, and he was so furious because he'd been doing it without issue for five years?

I agree that this is an issue. Ganking has been "balanced" over the years to the point it is uncommon (at least nowhere near a daily or weekly occurrence) for any player, even those in higher risk professions, to ever see one. That means the estimation of risk by a player, especially a new one, might be inaccurate, and a player can over time risk more and more thinking it is safe before a ganker/pirate catches up with them and relieves them of their assets in a catastrophic fashion.

The obvious solution is to buff ganking to make it more common, something that players have to deal with more frequently, but I won't suggest that as first, I don't want to be accused of lobbying for game changes for self-interest (as I have been known to gank on occasion), and second, judging from the comments of the CSM and even the current developers at CCP, the prevailing winds seem to still be blowing in the direction of making highsec safer for various reasons. Therefore I will make an alternative proposal to slightly increase the level of risk in the game, and am curious what your thoughts are on it Tora.

Players AFK because there is very little risk. Since also players seem to really not like losing their stuff to another player, I suggest a new rare NPC-based mechanism for risk be added to the game. These will be new sleeper NPCs that appear very infrequently across known space, spawning on gates, stations and belts/anomalies at a frequency that is low enough that players will run into them only rarely (1/100 hours in space?) but not never. The first spawn will just be a frigate that double webs the nearest ship and begins to apply a very small amount of damage. A few minutes later (time can be tuned as desired), it will call in a sleeper cruiser, and a few minutes after that a battleship that will be able to apply enough damage to destroy any ship within minutes.

The main effect of this will be deter prolonged AFK behaviour in space. Any player that is at the keyboard during a spawn, or returning to the keyboard after hearing the alarms can just warp away. Any player that is really AFK will lose their ship. You can also make them drop cool stuff if players choose to engage them as they will be too rare and random to farm efficiently.

This rare encounter will train players that space is dangerous (as it was designed to be) and that unattended/autopiloting ships can really be destroyed (by NPCs or other players), and this will deter them from routine/extended use of autopiloting/AFK (and come to think of it, make bot programers life a little more difficult). If you want to be clever, you could even make it so these sleepers can spawn anywhere in space where a player is and decloak them as a game mechanism to counter AFK cloaking. I am not sure that is a good idea (although I really have no opinion), but I think it would be a good counter to make New Eden more like CCP Falcon's vision of a dangerous place, rather than the safe space conducive to AFK hauling (at least in highsec) that it currently is.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#96 - 2014-12-05 11:07:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Tora Bushido
Black Pedro wrote:
Players AFK because there is very little risk. Since also players seem to really not like losing their stuff to another player, I suggest a new rare NPC-based mechanism for risk be added to the game. These will be new sleeper NPCs that appear very infrequently across known space, spawning on gates, stations and belts/anomalies at a frequency that is low enough that players will run into them only rarely (1/100 hours in space?) but not never. The first spawn will just be a frigate that double webs the nearest ship and begins to apply a very small amount of damage. A few minutes later (time can be tuned as desired), it will call in a sleeper cruiser, and a few minutes after that a battleship that will be able to apply enough damage to destroy any ship within minutes.
I really like this idea. It makes the belts more active, it prevents afk mining, it gives gankers in belts an extra challenge and then there is no need for afk buttons to click. It could also make belts more fun for non miners too. Big smile

Brain fart : Now if we do this on active gates too, it prevents (ganker / merc / etc) camps staying at one gate/system to long.... Roll

---
New surprising content is what makes Eve great, so just smashalot. Blink

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Jayne Fillon
#97 - 2014-12-05 13:33:34 UTC
Considering the recent direction and developments by CCP, I find your platform mostly frivolous if not meaningless and misguided. Unfortunately I'm going to have to side with CODE on this one (shudder) and say that I won't be supporting you in this election.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Meilandra Vanderganken
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2014-12-05 13:34:03 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:


Brain fart : Now if we do this on active gates too, it prevents (ganker / merc / etc) camps staying at one gate/system to long.... Roll

Mercs/gankers/etc won't even HAVE to hunt anyomore, haulers and war targets will just be killed by NPC's now! Let the game play for you instead of having to play yourself! Roll

Such gameplay, much wow!
Black Pedro
Mine.
#99 - 2014-12-05 13:38:48 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:

Brain fart : Now if we do this on active gates too, it prevents (ganker / merc / etc) camps staying at one gate/system to long.... Roll

I doubt it. These NPC aren't suppose to be unkillable so I imagine an organized gate camp will have no problem dispatching the webbing frigate. You would still need players to break an organized gate camp.

Plus remember these are suppose to be rare - just a small theoretical risk to make people a little more careful and used to the idea they can lose their stuff if they are AFK. They shouldn't impact normal daily game play much at all.
Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
BLACKFLAG.
#100 - 2014-12-05 13:49:27 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
I doubt it. These NPC aren't suppose to be unkillable so I imagine an organized gate camp will have no problem dispatching the webbing frigate. You would still need players to break an organized gate camp.

Plus remember these are suppose to be rare - just a small theoretical risk to make people a little more careful and used to the idea they can lose their stuff if they are AFK. They shouldn't impact normal daily game play much at all.
But then they have aggression timers and cant jump. And why make them rare. I rather see them join the fun more often. Twisted

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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