These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Black Pedro
Mine.
#101 - 2014-12-05 14:14:48 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
But then they have aggression timers and cant jump. And why make them rare. I rather see them join the fun more often. Twisted

You can propose any idea you want. Big smile You can also have them use scrams, or if you want real chaos, pod players.

I imagine though you will get some flak for proposing the addition of a bunch of bloodthristy NPC's cutting a swath through highsec's carebear population on a regular basis. I honestly prefer player-driven solutions, but NPCs in highsec are currently inconsequential - I am not sure if they were always weak or have been just been left behind by the years of buffing of player ships. Having the odd powerful one pop up from time-to-time and actually force a player to flee or fight might be a good idea.
Felicity Love
Doomheim
#102 - 2014-12-05 14:28:38 UTC
Hell, I'll vote for you... if for the sake of game changes are always needed for a game to evolve and keep the fun factor high.

I don't necessarily agree with some of your ideas, but there are always unexpected and unforeseen outcomes which I always find entertaining.

+1

"EVE is dying." -- The Four Forum Trolls of the Apocalypse.   ( Pick four, any four. They all smell.  )

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#103 - 2014-12-05 16:40:44 UTC
Capt Starfox wrote:
Assumptions out of thin air?


Yes. Specifically, for example:

Capt Starfox wrote:
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.


As I said immediately after that: I don't ignore tactics, I don't use autopilot, and I don't fly freighters.

Cheers for not listening again, though. Bang your tinny little drum all day.

On topic, I eagerly await Tora's reaction to Mangala's proposals for alternative social structures within EVE.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#104 - 2014-12-05 16:47:49 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Lots of valid words.

So should ganking become even more common then?


I think interactions between players in EVE (not just in high sec) should become deeper, more complex and more interesting. That certainly doesn't (and can't, reasonably) exclude ganking, but it's not limited to ganking either.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#105 - 2014-12-05 17:18:34 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
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?

Ah yes if you are looking at another complete re-rebalance of freighter slot allocation and HP distribution, then significantly more options open up. While agree that the ones you presented do not provide exciting gameplay for anyone, they at least make being at your keyboard significantly advantageous.
To make up for that perhaps some form of active module that reduces align time? Not only are you now tougher while at the keyboard but your travel times will be significantly reduced. Just a random off the top of my head idea.

If the value that can be "safely" carried in a freighter is in fact as low as 500M, then I would agree that's too low. I was under the impression it was closer to 2B which I feel is a fair number. Now of course the numbers will be dependent of the freighter fit, for an anti-tanked freighter 500M might be fine whereas a fully tanked freighter should be higher.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-12-05 17:19:37 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Lots of valid words.

So should ganking become even more common then?


I think interactions between players in EVE (not just in high sec) should become deeper, more complex and more interesting. That certainly doesn't (and can't, reasonably) exclude ganking, but it's not limited to ganking either.


Then I believe you and I are at least conceptually in agreement, perhaps with differences in ideas and priorities of implementation.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#107 - 2014-12-05 17:26:53 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
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.


Sorry, I think missed the question. The recommendations regarding incentives for defenders typical involved HS space. It's pretty widely assumed that a small to medium corp in null that's not in an alliance is going to have a bad time. LS life will be hard but manageable, and in WH space you just might be ok, but you'll have to fight hard.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#108 - 2014-12-05 17:29:36 UTC  |  Edited by: BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Tengu Grib wrote:
Ah yes if you are looking at another complete re-rebalance of freighter slot allocation and HP distribution, then significantly more options open up. While agree that the ones you presented do not provide exciting gameplay for anyone, they at least make being at your keyboard significantly advantageous.
To make up for that perhaps some form of active module that reduces align time? Not only are you now tougher while at the keyboard but your travel times will be significantly reduced. Just a random off the top of my head idea.

If the value that can be "safely" carried in a freighter is in fact as low as 500M, then I would agree that's too low. I was under the impression it was closer to 2B which I feel is a fair number. Now of course the numbers will be dependent of the freighter fit, for an anti-tanked freighter 500M might be fine whereas a fully tanked freighter should be higher.

That module already exists. Its called a microwarpdrive. 10 second align times on freighters would make them absurdly safe.

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

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#109 - 2014-12-05 17:36:36 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
@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.


I don't think you caught what he was getting at.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#110 - 2014-12-05 17:37:51 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
That module already exists. Its called a microwarpdrive. 10 second align times on freighters would make them absurdly safe.

Hmm, allowing freighters to have microwarps... interesting idea. That could certainly work, and the mass bloom would help them resist bumping.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#111 - 2014-12-05 17:39:26 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
That module already exists. Its called a microwarpdrive. 10 second align times on freighters would make them absurdly safe.

Hmm, allowing freighters to have microwarps... interesting idea. That could certainly work, and the mass bloom would help them resist bumping.

The bowhead will be a good test case for this. It is shaping up to be the safest large industrial in high sec.

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

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#112 - 2014-12-05 17:39:28 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
That module already exists. Its called a microwarpdrive. 10 second align times on freighters would make them absurdly safe.

Hmm, allowing freighters to have microwarps... interesting idea. That could certainly work, and the mass bloom would help them resist bumping.
1000MN MW ? Twisted

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Anslo
Scope Works
#113 - 2014-12-05 17:40:33 UTC
Well this is new. I'll be watching...

[center]-_For the Proveldtariat_/-[/center]

Tora Bushido
The Marmite Mercenaries
P I R A T
#114 - 2014-12-05 17:48:38 UTC
A New High-Sec will be created soon my friends.

DELETE THE WEAK, ADAPT OR DIE !

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

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#115 - 2014-12-05 17:56:07 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
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


Not at all, the frigate would be easily killed and if it is, the rest do not spawn. In his recommendation the frigate is essentially just a warning, if you deal with it there's no problem and no escalation.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#116 - 2014-12-05 18:01:54 UTC
Tora Bushido wrote:
Tengu Grib wrote:
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
That module already exists. Its called a microwarpdrive. 10 second align times on freighters would make them absurdly safe.

Hmm, allowing freighters to have microwarps... interesting idea. That could certainly work, and the mass bloom would help them resist bumping.
1000MN MW ? Twisted

LOL that'd be both funny and kinda cool. What would be the effect of fitting one of these on a bumping machariel? lol

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Tengu Grib
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#117 - 2014-12-05 18:02:42 UTC

Thumbs up for awesome propaghanda.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#118 - 2014-12-05 18:20:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
I'm still interested in the idea of eliminating AFK play--which I can't say that I totally agree with. Since using freighters as an example ended up starting another subject, I'll use a personal example:

When we were still in w-space, we happened upon a couple of RR dominixes ratting in a C5. We caught one; the other got away. Now, an Ishtar and a Vexor vs. a Dominix is not a slam-dunk fight, so initially we were scrambling to get an advantage. And then we realized that he wasn't going to fight back. He was just going to wait for us to blow up his ship and get his pod away. So what started as a thrilling showdown became sitting there, watching our auto-orbiting, auto-firing drone boats gnawing on a battleship tank while we spammed D-scan. Nobody else was around, except for the other Dominix safe in its tower. I understand and respect that some people get a thrill from gaining an advantage on another player, but I don't. I would rather lose an interesting fight than win a one-sided rout. Hell, I'd rather lose a one-sided rout; at least I can learn something from watching the other guys' tactics. So the whole thing was pretty dull.

It's not literally AFK play, but it's about as close as you can get in w-space without being a complete idiot. Does this count? Or are you more worried about literally AFK, as in not near the machine, or with full attention in another window? Because the problem there is that it's extremely hard to tell *why* someone is not inputting into the client. You only know that they are. So it becomes a question of finding out what gameplay rewards that kind of behavior and then changing it--if they want it changed.

I spent a lot of time as a newbie jetcan mining in my cargo-expanded Navitas. It was a way to make a little ISK and chat with people while devouring the EVE University wiki. Sure, my attention was on the wiki, but at least I was learning the game.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Capt Starfox
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#119 - 2014-12-05 21:08:57 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Capt Starfox wrote:
Assumptions out of thin air?


Yes. Specifically, for example:

Capt Starfox wrote:
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.


As I said immediately after that: I don't ignore tactics, I don't use autopilot, and I don't fly freighters.

Cheers for not listening again, though. Bang your tinny little drum all day.

On topic, I eagerly await Tora's reaction to Mangala's proposals for alternative social structures within EVE.


Out of respect to Tora's CSM campaign, although I wish his platform was different, but still, I'm not going to continue this here. If you would like to discuss it more this thread is a good place to go.

However, before I go think about this: You admit to not using Freighters and you also don't need to be aware of Freighters alignment times, fittings, EHP, strategy, etc. because you don't gank/bump them, yet here you are arguing points about Freighters; that you admittedly don't use. Idea

Abandon all hope ye who x up in fleet

Don Purple
Snuggle Society
#120 - 2014-12-06 12:36:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Don Purple
Dear Tora,

I have to say I agree with and like a lot of things here. I believe your ideas on ganking are somewhat scewed. Simply increasing punishment on the ganker does not help the person who just lost possibly everything to their name. I understand being able to gank is better than nothing but how about changes to help the newbro. Essentially increasing the time between ganks doesnt help the dead. Killing an empty pod a station spit out wouldnt remove the taste of loss from my mouth.


Increasing war dec prices may lower the ammount of wars but this may also hurt that highsec group wanting to fight their rivals or fresh merc groups and so on.


You have been my alliance leader a few times now and a reliable friend, you are a smart man. I agree with your goals but addressing them in a balanced way is the hard part.

If anything I wrote is outdated I apologise. I went over your campaign a few days ago.

I am just here to snuggle and do spy stuff.