These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Assembly Hall

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Any CSM member against the proposed mining boost changes?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#21 - 2016-09-10 02:53:53 UTC
I think it would be reasonable to bring back mining signatures with these changes.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Zappity
New Eden Tank Testing Services
#22 - 2016-09-10 03:21:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Zappity
Resa Moon wrote:
under the proposal there is no way to adequately manage the risk of fielding a Rorqual.

Standing fleet to respond to your PANICked calls, even if they are ratting? Watching local? Intel systems?

The ~4.5 hour payback on the Rorqual investment isn't that long and should be part of your calculations. Anyway, I seem to recall pressing the ‘Siege’ button on my Moros yesterday. I got really good value in the form of a ten-fold increase in DPS and paid for it with being stuck in place for a few minutes.

Having said that, I don't really understand why BOOSTING is the effect of the Rorqual's siege cycle. Why not give the ship immense mining yield for the duration of the cycle? No other boosting ship suffers the penalty of immobility. A direct mining yield would 'feel' much better for the user.

Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec and nullsec.
Resa Moon
New Eden Miners Association
Interplay
#23 - 2016-09-10 06:17:50 UTC
The Judge wrote:
I'm more than happy to play Devils advocate, and I can agree not all parts of the change are perfect in my view (and hopefully we can hammer those out), but I can't in good conscience say I will "oppose" the changes. If your goal here is to have CCP scrap the changes, that won't happen. If your goal is to have your voice and opinion expressed at the summit then you are in luck... send me a well worded in game mail and we can go from there.


Will do.

Thanks.

New Eden Mining Blog
The Judge
State War Academy
Caldari State
#24 - 2016-09-10 07:05:18 UTC
SynthesisX wrote:
The Judge wrote:
I'm more than happy to play Devils advocate, and I can agree not all parts of the change are perfect in my view (and hopefully we can hammer those out), but I can't in good conscience say I will "oppose" the changes. If your goal here is to have CCP scrap the changes, that won't happen. If your goal is to have your voice and opinion expressed at the summit then you are in luck... send me a well worded in game mail and we can go from there.
It is a sad commentary on the role of the CSM and the way players vote when a large block of players can at best hope for someone on the CSM to play "Devil's Advocate" on their behalf.

Although I sincerely thank you for being willing to represent players who would otherwise have no voice on the CSM, I think the fact that the CSM has no permanent voice of industrialists onboard is structurally a weakness.

Perhaps you might suggest to CCP that players should have category choices to vote for CSM members, High Sec, PVE, PVP, Low Sec, Null Sec, RP, Industrialist, Anoikis, FW, and so on. Getting an actual cross section of what players do in EVE would/could serve the players, the CSM, and CCP much better.

Judge, your opinion is valued since you are the only member of the CSM to respond to this request for representation in this thread.


I honestly think that industrialists do have a voice on this CSM, be it members like myself who are yes, in a large nullsec alliance, but also help manage massive industrial production and mining, or members like Steve in high sec or Sullen who put together the Industrial Capital Round Table (aimed at talking about the changes to mining boosts mainly).

I wouldn't be too hard on the other CSM's for not replying because in all honesty they probably haven't seen the thread. I arrived in Iceland on Thursday (4 days before the summit starts) while most of the other CSM members are either traveling as I type or getting ready to leave their homelands to come to this volcanic rock in the middle of the ocean.

Everyone deserves a voice. We all play EVE. People shouldn't get too tied down to "where" the person is from but rather how well they can listen and communicate so as to represent you, as a player and customer, properly.

CSM XII Member and CSM XI Permanent Attendee

Diplomat for Circle-Of-Two

@_TheJudge on Twitter

thejudge@csm.eve.com
SynthesisX
#25 - 2016-09-10 19:01:47 UTC
Tappits wrote:
SynthesisX wrote:
[Does the concept of stakeholder groups having seats at the CSM table scare you that much?

Exactly what are you afraid of?

Is it the concept of people being represented by people who share their interests?

Somehow I suspect there might be some difference in point of view from a full time industrial player and a PVP Null Sec Alliance FC that perhaps, possibly does some mining from time to time.

Perish forbid the thought that an industrialist might actually add something to the mix of fresh ideas, right?


edited for brevity

some might say that the people that only do industry and have no real contact with PVP alliances are at the disadvantage in being able to balance things not the other way round
Some might say the exact opposite is what we have now and it does not work very well for industrialists. So we can choose between your hypothetical and the in game current reality, easy choice for me, but i respect your right to search for explanations that will reinforce your conclusions.
SynthesisX
#26 - 2016-09-10 19:10:50 UTC
The Judge wrote:
SynthesisX wrote:
The Judge wrote:
I'm more than happy to play Devils advocate, and I can agree not all parts of the change are perfect in my view (and hopefully we can hammer those out), but I can't in good conscience say I will "oppose" the changes. If your goal here is to have CCP scrap the changes, that won't happen. If your goal is to have your voice and opinion expressed at the summit then you are in luck... send me a well worded in game mail and we can go from there.
It is a sad commentary on the role of the CSM and the way players vote when a large block of players can at best hope for someone on the CSM to play "Devil's Advocate" on their behalf.

Although I sincerely thank you for being willing to represent players who would otherwise have no voice on the CSM, I think the fact that the CSM has no permanent voice of industrialists onboard is structurally a weakness.

Perhaps you might suggest to CCP that players should have category choices to vote for CSM members, High Sec, PVE, PVP, Low Sec, Null Sec, RP, Industrialist, Anoikis, FW, and so on. Getting an actual cross section of what players do in EVE would/could serve the players, the CSM, and CCP much better.

Judge, your opinion is valued since you are the only member of the CSM to respond to this request for representation in this thread.


I honestly think that industrialists do have a voice on this CSM, be it members like myself who are yes, in a large nullsec alliance, but also help manage massive industrial production and mining, or members like Steve in high sec or Sullen who put together the Industrial Capital Round Table (aimed at talking about the changes to mining boosts mainly).

I wouldn't be too hard on the other CSM's for not replying because in all honesty they probably haven't seen the thread. I arrived in Iceland on Thursday (4 days before the summit starts) while most of the other CSM members are either traveling as I type or getting ready to leave their homelands to come to this volcanic rock in the middle of the ocean.

Everyone deserves a voice. We all play EVE. People shouldn't get too tied down to "where" the person is from but rather how well they can listen and communicate so as to represent you, as a player and customer, properly.
I appreciate your response. I do not hold it against the other CSM members, I simply am glad you were tuned in.

You speak of the massive industrial needs of the big alliances which all industrialists who play the game know has to exist. The culture in game acts as if industrial production is not an integral part of the game design. Perhaps if some on the CSM spoke out against this false premise and articulated that industrialists play an important role beyond beind easy targets industrialists would feel represented.

Since that is not yet the majority stated position of the current CSM I think a system that would insure that players who primarily focus on industrial game play could have a designated position on the CSM would serve the game and all it's players better.
SynthesisX
#27 - 2016-09-10 19:27:11 UTC  |  Edited by: SynthesisX
The Judge wrote:
SynthesisX wrote:
The Judge wrote:
I'm more than happy to play Devils advocate, and I can agree not all parts of the change are perfect in my view (and hopefully we can hammer those out), but I can't in good conscience say I will "oppose" the changes. If your goal here is to have CCP scrap the changes, that won't happen. If your goal is to have your voice and opinion expressed at the summit then you are in luck... send me a well worded in game mail and we can go from there.
It is a sad commentary on the role of the CSM and the way players vote when a large block of players can at best hope for someone on the CSM to play "Devil's Advocate" on their behalf.

Although I sincerely thank you for being willing to represent players who would otherwise have no voice on the CSM, I think the fact that the CSM has no permanent voice of industrialists onboard is structurally a weakness.

Perhaps you might suggest to CCP that players should have category choices to vote for CSM members, High Sec, PVE, PVP, Low Sec, Null Sec, RP, Industrialist, Anoikis, FW, and so on. Getting an actual cross section of what players do in EVE would/could serve the players, the CSM, and CCP much better.

Judge, your opinion is valued since you are the only member of the CSM to respond to this request for representation in this thread.


I honestly think that industrialists do have a voice on this CSM, be it members like myself who are yes, in a large nullsec alliance, but also help manage massive industrial production and mining, or members like Steve in high sec or Sullen who put together the Industrial Capital Round Table (aimed at talking about the changes to mining boosts mainly).

I wouldn't be too hard on the other CSM's for not replying because in all honesty they probably haven't seen the thread. I arrived in Iceland on Thursday (4 days before the summit starts) while most of the other CSM members are either traveling as I type or getting ready to leave their homelands to come to this volcanic rock in the middle of the ocean.

Everyone deserves a voice. We all play EVE. People shouldn't get too tied down to "where" the person is from but rather how well they can listen and communicate so as to represent you, as a player and customer, properly.
I hope the CSM has a very productive summit. It is an exciting time to be involved in this game, changes are coming fast, and some are making things better.

I have confidence that overall the CSM shares my desire to make the game better where ever they can and I support their efforts to balance all the multiple communities of interest that compose the EVE player universe. I am optimistic that a better system of representation will one day be implemented and be more reflective of the diverse community of players and play styles.
Previous page12