These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mike Azariah ---> CSMX

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2015-01-20 00:48:31 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
But why are we comparing apples and oranges? Each type of gameplay is an option to choose with pluses and minuses. Some choose the PvP route and complain that everyone makes more isk than them. Other choose the Trade which, if done properly, has little risk and HUGE returns. But you and I don't choose to do either of them, not because they are wrong or bad, they just are not for us. IF incursions are the be all and end all why is everyone not doing them?

I'll tell you why I don't run incursions. Sure, they give me more than ten times the income of any other activity I can find to do in EVE (and that is absolutely NOT an exaggeration), but they also remind me too much of games like WoW. Whether you live or die is a careful balance of applied resistance, DPS, and reps. It looks difficult until you do it, then once you know you can and you know how, it's just too easy. It's not fun. In fact it's so un-fun that I'm about as likely to run incursions as I am to mine. Mining may pay a lot less, but it's a lot less taxing, too. Incursion running is like mining 23.5 hours per hour, and pays about the same, too.

Does it have risk? No. Do I need a risk metric to calculate that? No. Its risk level wouldn't register a peep on any metric I can think of. Even the increased risk of being ganked because your ship has expensive mods on it is still mitigated by how fast you earn back the value of the ship. (Was 3 hours for my Navy Mega running vanguards, about 5 hours for the Nightmare with a lower rate of activity running assaults.)

I have to agree with Two Step here, in that highsec incursions pay WAY too much. I think the best solution would be to dramatically reduce the income from those sites (in highsec) and then also significantly reduce the difficulty while also adding a lot more randomness. It doesn't make any sense to me that you should need something over the 500 million ISK mark to compete in highsec. Low and nullsec incursions might as well have the same base difficulty as highsec because they have so many other dangers to consider--but adding randomness will only hit highsec incursions hard. Lowsec and nullsec incursions might actually benefit from it, provided the logi margins were a bit larger to compensate.


I have to offer a disclaimer in that I have not tried running faction warfare sites in lowsec. People say they make more than incursion runners doing that, and they do it in warp-stabbed frigates. If that's true, then that's completely absurd income. WAY too high. You might be able to make that kind of ISK in nullsec or wormhole space with the help of a well-organized conglomerate of people who have to work to guard sovereignty for your access to such things, but you're not going to do it with a ragtag band of ten, and you're certainly not going to do it alone.

I'll end this tirade with the accusation that the reason nobody can sort out the risk*work/reward ratio of highsec incursions or faction warfare sites is that one is so small next to the other as to be invisible.

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."
Red Teufel
Calamitous-Intent
#102 - 2015-01-20 16:24:53 UTC
What is your position on the Jump Fatigue Mechanic? Do you think they need to be changed?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2015-01-20 16:58:10 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:
What is your position on the Jump Fatigue Mechanic? Do you think they need to be changed?


If by changed you mean removed and put back the way it was? No

If you are asking if I think that any arbitrarily selected number or system can stand examination for iteration? Yes and probably should be checked for usage and effects.

I was, and still am, in favour of the changes to power projection (teleportation) but am willing to discusss the nbuances and levels within that framework.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2015-01-20 18:25:35 UTC
I always felt that one of the major problems with the old jump mechanics was that alliances would set up specific jump points and have them carefully planned out at maximum jump distances, which forced players to learn Jump Drive Calibration 5 merely to even be allowed into capital fleets. That skill is useless in combat but can save a fleet perhaps one jump to get to the combat. With the force projection nerfs, I don't think this issue is any different. As I understand it, it is still important for ships to have the maximum jump range in order to get as much distance per jump as possible, because of the way fatigue multiplies with each jump. A larger number of smaller jumps takes longer to reach the same distance.

I've always felt that the jump mechanics should be built in such a way as to allow pilots with lower levels of jump drive calibration (or none at all) to be viable in capital fleets, and removing the skill or changing its bonus to something other than jump range is not a way I would go about making the change. I had the idea that perhaps if it were balanced such that the only disadvantage to a lower JDC level is a bit more logistics effort, with no time, fuel or fatigue penalties for making more jumps across the same distance, then we would see a greater prevalence of capital fleets accepting lower-skilled pilots--perhaps even advocating training into capital gunnery/drones/RR skills first, and eating the organizational aspect in order to wind up with a more potent fleet. Especially large capital fleets could fly 2-3 capital segments at different intervals to provide incentive for eventually training JDC, and to ease the organizational stress a bit. Small capital fleets could select intervals based on the lowest JDC skill in the group.

Any thoughts on the issue I mentioned or my solution/do you think it would work as intended? Do you feel this is even a problem? Do you have any alternate solutions?

I realize I might be barking up the wrong tree here. If you feel you aren't ready to tackle the question, please point me to a nullsec candidate who might have experience better suited to it. I don't know the current nullsec candidates very well. (I'm not even sure who they are except for Xander Phoena I think.)

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."
XeX Znndstrup
#105 - 2015-01-20 18:40:30 UTC
Dear Mike,

If you are a casual gamer living in high sec, with a solo player style and dealing with a wife to be able to play, i am sure you can represent a lot of us.

It's campaign, so some questions to have an opinion, please.

1- What about shares market and opening it so that it can work like a real stock exchange ?
2- What about extending anti piracy means even in the core game ?
3- What about Walking in Station extension lobbying ?
4- What about Project Legion lobbying ?
5- What about Eve Valkyrie linked with Eve Online lobbying ?

When you will have time, i would be happy to read your answers.

Best regards.

Judge of The Law Organization and President of Stellar Order.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light". John Milton, Lost Paradise.

@ /// f
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#106 - 2015-01-20 19:42:24 UTC
XeX Znndstrup wrote:
Dear Mike,

If you are a casual gamer living in high sec, with a solo player style and dealing with a wife to be able to play, i am sure you can represent a lot of us.

It's campaign, so some questions to have an opinion, please.

1- What about shares market and opening it so that it can work like a real stock exchange ?


This is essentially impossible to directly enforce via game mechanics with EVE structured as it is. You would first need to remove alts, or at least have some game mechanic that enforced accountability across alt accounts. Without that, any debt/assurance transaction that is not based on personal trust is laughable.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#107 - 2015-01-21 01:51:58 UTC
XeX Znndstrup wrote:
Dear Mike,

If you are a casual gamer living in high sec, with a solo player style and dealing with a wife to be able to play, i am sure you can represent a lot of us.

It's campaign, so some questions to have an opinion, please.

1- What about shares market and opening it so that it can work like a real stock exchange ?
2- What about extending anti piracy means even in the core game ?
3- What about Walking in Station extension lobbying ?
4- What about Project Legion lobbying ?
5- What about Eve Valkyrie linked with Eve Online lobbying ?

When you will have time, i would be happy to read your answers.

Best regards.


I would love to see (1) but as Malc says, there would have to be an entire structure of an enforcement arm (Financial Concord) or there would be no accountability. Without accountability a stock market is waaaaay too hazardous for all but the most wildcat investors.

As for antipiracy are you talking about taking/making concord contracts? Maybe a mission hub that notices the bad standing folks in the region and offers you a chance to hunt and shoot first without Concord slapping your hand or even higher level ones that send you into low to hunt them down on their own turf? And what do you mean, core game?

Comics have a phrase. 'too soon' I am not sure if we have crossed that line with Incarna, yet. I would settle for a licencing of Unreal Engine if Carbon makes Graphics cards cry and die. Would I like to see stations a living environment? Yes. Am I going to promise it? No. Does CCP have other things on its plate right now?? Yup

As for 4 and 5. Lordy I am looking forward to those games but they are games not under the purview of the CSM. We are the council for the space side (Eve) and not an overwatch of all of CCP's licences. If the games have a direct linkage then it will come into our wheelhouse but as of now there is nothing TO lobby about. Dust will become Legion and I assume that it will continue with the CPM. I have not heard anybody mention a council in connection with Valkyrie although they have let the council try it in the years gone by.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Tyrant Scorn
#108 - 2015-01-21 03:32:03 UTC
Mike has my vote and probably the number 1 spot.

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch
XeX Znndstrup
#109 - 2015-01-21 12:26:45 UTC
Mike,

Thanks for these answers.

For point 4 and 5, they have an important impact on Eve Online regarding new coming games like SC.
For this reason, to protect from members escape, i think even CSM members should speak about this impact on our game.

CCP makes a good job.
But sometimes, i am not so sure that market decisions are the best.
Dust or World of Darkness could be some relevant examples.
It's probably exciting to play with Oculus. But for a space shooter, we don't really wait for Eve Valkyrie. There are a lot of other games for this.
Linking Eve Valkyrie to Eve is a strategic decision against SC and much more for Eve Online.

As CSM member, try to do your best to show it up to CCP.
It could also be a good future program for a candidate.

Best regards.

Judge of The Law Organization and President of Stellar Order.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light". John Milton, Lost Paradise.

@ /// f
Speedkermit Damo
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#110 - 2015-01-21 16:51:25 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
XeX Znndstrup wrote:
Dear Mike,

If you are a casual gamer living in high sec, with a solo player style and dealing with a wife to be able to play, i am sure you can represent a lot of us.

It's campaign, so some questions to have an opinion, please.

1- What about shares market and opening it so that it can work like a real stock exchange ?
2- What about extending anti piracy means even in the core game ?
3- What about Walking in Station extension lobbying ?
4- What about Project Legion lobbying ?
5- What about Eve Valkyrie linked with Eve Online lobbying ?

When you will have time, i would be happy to read your answers.

Best regards.


I would love to see (1) but as Malc says, there would have to be an entire structure of an enforcement arm (Financial Concord) or there would be no accountability. Without accountability a stock market is waaaaay too hazardous for all but the most wildcat investors.

As for antipiracy are you talking about taking/making concord contracts? Maybe a mission hub that notices the bad standing folks in the region and offers you a chance to hunt and shoot first without Concord slapping your hand or even higher level ones that send you into low to hunt them down on their own turf? And what do you mean, core game?

Comics have a phrase. 'too soon' I am not sure if we have crossed that line with Incarna, yet. I would settle for a licencing of Unreal Engine if Carbon makes Graphics cards cry and die. Would I like to see stations a living environment? Yes. Am I going to promise it? No. Does CCP have other things on its plate right now?? Yup

As for 4 and 5. Lordy I am looking forward to those games but they are games not under the purview of the CSM. We are the council for the space side (Eve) and not an overwatch of all of CCP's licences. If the games have a direct linkage then it will come into our wheelhouse but as of now there is nothing TO lobby about. Dust will become Legion and I assume that it will continue with the CPM. I have not heard anybody mention a council in connection with Valkyrie although they have let the council try it in the years gone by.

m



I listened to your interview today on Cap Stable. You came across very well. You have my vote sir.

Protect me from knowing what I don't need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don't know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#111 - 2015-01-21 18:32:06 UTC
Speedkermit Damo wrote:


I listened to your interview today on Cap Stable. You came across very well. You have my vote sir.


For those of you wishing to listen the interview is here

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#112 - 2015-01-21 18:58:43 UTC

I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Mike?

F

Would you like to know more?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#113 - 2015-01-21 19:00:59 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Mike?

F


No. Based on the one work I emphasized above

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#114 - 2015-01-21 19:03:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
some comments for you and whether you would support something like this.

1) the new player experience needs to be tweaked, and it can be by just doing a few things. Could you bring up to CCP to map wasd to directional as default for every new eve installation. It's silly to make people map out those keys just to figure out movement (it's being hidden from them requiring them to hit escape and map).

2) The default ccp overview is crap. While we can now transfer overviews, the default needs a total remake. Basically have ccp come out with a viable default for every new game installation. Pick the best, and that becomes the new default for players, until they make their own. There's no need to handcuff a new player and to tell them, get a ui from someone else who you can't trust.

3) a test should be run regarding voting for csm, so can an incentive be given to the player to get them to vote. Something like (you vote and receive 5 geico's, or a gnosis, or a free ingame frigate skin, exclusive to that vote year. It would kick the whole "it's worthless to vote for csm" if the players receive something to vote. I wouldn't do skill points, but something like a ship or a skin or some geico's might work. It should be tried this year, and if it doesn't work, no need to do it, if it does though..

Just some thoughts.

Yaay!!!!
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#115 - 2015-01-23 15:06:25 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
some comments for you and whether you would support something like this.

1) the new player experience needs to be tweaked, and it can be by just doing a few things. Could you bring up to CCP to map wasd to directional as default for every new eve installation. It's silly to make people map out those keys just to figure out movement (it's being hidden from them requiring them to hit escape and map).

2) The default ccp overview is crap. While we can now transfer overviews, the default needs a total remake. Basically have ccp come out with a viable default for every new game installation. Pick the best, and that becomes the new default for players, until they make their own. There's no need to handcuff a new player and to tell them, get a ui from someone else who you can't trust.

3) a test should be run regarding voting for csm, so can an incentive be given to the player to get them to vote. Something like (you vote and receive 5 geico's, or a gnosis, or a free ingame frigate skin, exclusive to that vote year. It would kick the whole "it's worthless to vote for csm" if the players receive something to vote. I wouldn't do skill points, but something like a ship or a skin or some geico's might work. It should be tried this year, and if it doesn't work, no need to do it, if it does though..

Just some thoughts.


1) I agree with prelocking the wasd.

2) I am trying to see who to talk to about making a semi official library of overviews (with commentary) Funny thing, MOST players protect their overviews like it was the recipe for coke (cola) I personally use a modified SaraShawa.

3) this I cannot comment upon (which should tell you something)

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2015-01-24 07:43:00 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
Calls for nerfing highsec income are usually based on the idea that 'they are playing it wrong so we need to FORCE them to play our way.' I disagree with that style of thinking.

Switch a few words, and oh the irony here.....
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#117 - 2015-01-24 08:14:21 UTC
My habit of not reading who made the post made the last comment a bit of a puzzle. I agree that it does have the seeds of irony. But I have supported a few changes that abdicated gameply. Yes, if you asked me I would even make an argument against fleet warp. So I did support the move against multicasting for the same reason. Players are what makes this game great. Not subbed accounts, players.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#118 - 2015-01-24 08:17:19 UTC
Nah, I was just remembering a conversation you had with a group of friends and I regarding censorship and nerfs based sole-ly on the idea that "wah they're doing something differently". At the time, you were 100% in favor of restricting gameplay and player choices because someone min/maxed harder than someone else.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2015-01-24 11:06:04 UTC
Tyrant Scorn wrote:
Mike has my vote and probably the number 1 spot.

Mike isn't in my #2 spot, he's actually in my #1 spot. Sabriz is in my #0 spot for being stunningly excellent.

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."
Tyrant Scorn
#120 - 2015-01-28 07:25:12 UTC
Recorded a show together with Mike Azariah, I am editing it now so expect another great interview with Mike, regarding his CSM campaign and some other random Eve stuff.

I'll post it when it's downloadable.

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch