These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page123
 

Jonn Duune for CSM XII - J-space representative

First post
Author
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#41 - 2017-03-01 14:16:32 UTC
Timm3h wrote:
I've had a few questions rolling around in my head for quite a while. With C4 site payouts failing to match the isk/hr of C3 sites, as well as access to k-space being limited by statics, what is your proposition for bringing C4 sites in line with the difficulty of their PvE content?

I know that the obvious answer is to grab a C4 with a 3 or a 5 as a static (maybe even both! got one of these a few days ago), and just run sites in there for smoother isk/hr, but this leaves a large portion of C4 space with very poor options for making isk. Long, uncomfortable chains are inevitable in wormholes, but are especially prevalent in C4 highways where the only residents are Russians doing PI. Lifting the amount of available isk in C4's will go a long way towards encouraging residency in the "deeper" wormholes without kspace statics.


I think the overall isk payout isn't too bad for c4 sites personally, my biggest suggestion would be to reduce the spawn ranges of the waves in order to make the site more compact, this allows for less transit time, and can reduce the amount of time running sites by a reasonable amount. I do know people who claim to be able to farm c4s to make isk at nearly or equivalent to running c5 sites, though personally i'm not aware of this, because most of my farming (if i can be bothered to do it these days) was done running c5 sites. I would think maximum isk/hr would be done with 2 rattlesnakes with micro jonn drives in order to be able to position correctly for each spawn (though, depending on times to kill waves, potentially marauders could handle this better, with the reduction on cooldown timers that they receive for MJDs.

I also don't really see C4s as being at a disadvantage too much, simply because with static 4s, there's access to a lot of lower class PVP with small wormhole groups, something that c5 space is lacking, historically speaking.

Timm3h wrote:
For now, C2 wormholes remain the most desired for their access to k and jspace, the kind of flexibility that only this class of wormhole offers. I think this is creating a poor environment for wspace, leaning towards an increase in evictions as opposed to residents. Nothing wrong with evictions, but when one of the perceived issues in wspace is a lack of content and population, it wouldn't hurt to begin slowly increasing the incentives for C4 residents. Denizens of middle-class wormholes live in a frustrating environment, but I think the answer is to give them a bit more reward rather than alter the dynamic of C4 with the pair of jspace statics. Your corp info states that you also reside in a C4, which gives me hope that these will be the kinds of issues you will spend time on.


C2 wormholes really function as a gateway into the rest of wormhole space to be honest, they provide easy access to kspace, while providing the ability to dive deep. As they are they're honestly mostly fine in my opinion. The isk per hour may be a little bit low compared to higher class wormholes definitely, but it's also then an incentive to move up. The only real thing i would suggest doing is a combination of 2 things:
1) Give all sites (active or not) a 14 day timer, and when that time limit is reached, they despawn, and come back somewhere else, this will help prevent clumping in WHs, and distribute isk a little bit easier.
2) I would up the amount (as in ACTUAL number, not isk value) of c2 sites, in order to make sure there's a good amount to be run relatively easily, while this won't fix the isk/hr, it'll give more pve content that will help players out.

The way wormholes stand at this point, c1 and c3 class are definitely oriented towards industrial corps, c2s act as training wheels to handle higher class wormholes, c4s tend to be where small to mid-gang pvp groups or larger low-end PVE groups tend to gravitate (there are exceptions, depending on statics/effects of course). C5s are where the big groups reside, and c6s are for farming space.

Personally, I feel like we need to change that up a bit, i see c1-c3 space being pretty reasonable as is, where as c4 needs some care and consideration for isk making, and c5 space is fine, but c6 space needs a lot of work.


Timm3h wrote:
Other C4 corps have stated this as one of the most serious issues for middle-class, but nobody has really come forward to offer a solution. Uniformity in wormhole classes isn't exciting, but neither is imbalance in isk availability per unit time.

Looking forward to your response, as well as your USTZ AMA.


I appreciate you bringing forward these concerns and if you have more questions about it, i'd love to answer them more in depth during my USTZ AMA (which i'm planning for this weekend, depending on real life scheduling conflicts)

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#42 - 2017-03-01 14:27:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonn Duune
With any luck, this weekend I'll do a US/early AUtz AMA as well.

For those who don't fit well into those timezones, I do apologize, but I would be more than happy to field your questions either through in game mail, or perhaps a discord chat/text.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#43 - 2017-03-02 10:05:33 UTC
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#44 - 2017-03-02 12:39:30 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


Can you clarify what you mean about by faction standings? Like overall security status, standings towards empires? corporations? I'm curious to see what issues you see with this in particular.

As my personal standpoint goes, in 99.5% of all cases I couldn't care less about faction standings (as i'm primarily a wormhole pilot), so I myself don't really interact enough with them to have a strong opinion towards changing them.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2017-03-02 12:49:23 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Jonn Duune wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


Can you clarify what you mean about by faction standings? Like overall security status, standings towards empires? corporations? I'm curious to see what issues you see with this in particular.

As my personal standpoint goes, in 99.5% of all cases I couldn't care less about faction standings (as i'm primarily a wormhole pilot), so I myself don't really interact enough with them to have a strong opinion towards changing them.

Thanks for the reply.

My question pertains to a character's Faction standing towards Empire Factions, not their personal Security status.

As a w-space pilot, having negative Faction standings with an Empire Faction could cause problems for transporting goods to Market, especially if your hole opened up in an unfriendly Faction system.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.


DMC
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#46 - 2017-03-03 05:17:19 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Jonn Duune wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


Can you clarify what you mean about by faction standings? Like overall security status, standings towards empires? corporations? I'm curious to see what issues you see with this in particular.

As my personal standpoint goes, in 99.5% of all cases I couldn't care less about faction standings (as i'm primarily a wormhole pilot), so I myself don't really interact enough with them to have a strong opinion towards changing them.

Thanks for the reply.

My question pertains to a character's Faction standing towards Empire Factions, not their personal Security status.

As a w-space pilot, having negative Faction standings with an Empire Faction could cause problems for transporting goods to Market, especially if your hole opened up in an unfriendly Faction system.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.


DMC


Eve is very much a reactive game, if you do something wrong, the game will punish you for it, i think personally this is a very reasonable, there are ways of repairing sec static.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#47 - 2017-03-03 10:05:28 UTC
Thank you for the reply,

Once again good luck in the upcoming election.



DMC
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#48 - 2017-03-05 02:19:38 UTC
Thanks again for the great AMA capsuleers. As I promised, i will attach my ideas document in this post. Hope to hear more feedback from all who are interested.


Ideas


- Jonn

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#49 - 2017-03-05 16:14:07 UTC
Now I know that I bill myself as a wormhole candidate, but if I am elected, I am not going to be representing just the wormhole community, I'll be representing everyone from the day 1 noob mining in a celestis in a 0.9 system who skipped the tutorials, to your bitterest of bitter vets in null who have 10 titan characters that haven't logged on in years scattered in different regions, who just buys another one every time his alliance moves regions.

So EVE, I challenge you, want your opinion heard? Shoot me a line here, or mail me in game, and I will come onto your comms and talk.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#50 - 2017-03-07 03:37:30 UTC
One more campaign thing that I'm hearing that a lot in the wormhole community want is better access to ore belts. We do not want the ore belts like they are in null, never dying, but we want a larger spawn pool, so for those who enjoy mining, they can make more money and more profitability on it.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Cochise Chiricahua
The Inglourious Bastards
#51 - 2017-03-08 14:44:47 UTC
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#52 - 2017-03-08 15:44:58 UTC
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space.


I encourage you to sit on what needs to be done to successfully suicide gank something. If you're not flying an untanked t1 hauler, there's a lot of math, planning, and execution that already needs to go into it before the first F1 press. I think it's totally reasonable as it stands right now in that regard. For example, ganking something like a freighter, takes planning and coordination by upwards of 30-40 ships so that dealing with concord happens at the right point and everything like that.

On top of that, it is quite dangerous for the ganker. They 100% lose their ship, guaranteed, and if they find some way around it, it's a bannable exploit. So while i sympathize with your plight of flying a hauler and occasionally getting ganked, I offer you some counter play.

1) Train your character to fly T2 haulers, DSTs are awesome boats in highsec, and its not uncommon to find people hauling in them will a billion+ in loot. They are quite tanky for their size (buffer tanked impels for example can break 100k EHP), and can still haul very fast if you know what you are doing (pulse MWD and warp, shut off mwd, when the cycle ends you go into warp, and it warps faster than most battleships).

On the flipside to the DST, the blockade runner, while not having the immense cargo hold that the DST has, it has incredible speed, and you can't be cargo scanned. What this means is that if someone is going to gank you, they won't be able to tell whether you're carrying 1 carbon, or 100 plex. And in highsec, as long as you're not afk piloting, you're very unlikely to be caught (the only places i tend to see blockade runners getting ganked is on trade station undocks, which can be fixed by burning an insta-warp location for when you leave station (you take a fast ship, undock, hit prop mod, go get a drink, go to the bathroom, come back and bookmark where the ship is. Using it, you undock and immediately right-click and warp to bookmark, and you're typically off the undock within 2-4s of undocking).

I get that you want to see members of the ganking community punished, but the idea of giving criminal flags for people who scoop the loot off a destroyed hauler like that is just silly. What if someone who was fast and on the ball scooped the loot from the ganker? Why should they suffer for being able to be faster than someone?

Overall, I honestly feel like this mechanic is already in a very stable place, and should work out well as is. I would not propose anything like this to CCP or push for any major changes at this point regarding changing how ganking works in highsec. There is a lot that goes into it, a lot of effort and planning more than "lololololololol F1! DIE NUB!" and the people who successfully pull this off should be given a chance to get a reward for their efforts.

I'm sorry if this isn't the answer that you want to hear, but I believe CCP has is right, EVE IS HARD, learn from your mistakes, get better, plan better, and then succeed.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#53 - 2017-03-11 22:18:24 UTC
Still taking interview requests from corps/alliances interested in speaking to me. I've done quite the few and it's been a fun experience so far!

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Verlyn
Minmatar Secret Service
Ushra'Khan
#54 - 2017-03-14 11:23:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Verlyn
Alexhandr Shkarov wrote:
Quote:
How long would it take to get a force into that wormhole? about 140 days. That's 1/3rd of a year committed to this. There is no group in eve that can handle this kind of slog, or would consider even doing it.


You're invalidating your own point by using an argument that has been the case in every single eviction and heavily relies on participation from both sides. If we take all structures out of consideration and look at the use of POS towers, you'd have the exact same problem you're dealing with before you even reach said structure. A group such as HK is entrenched enough that the structure in itself isn't so much the problem. It could be a Fortizar and they still put up a similar defense.

If you want to evict anyone, that above quote is a requirement regardless of what structure your opponent has to defend itself. If you can't bring the logistics to defeat the defending armies, you're not going to evict them even if they would live in small towers.


So wait in that case, taking down a Keepstar is the same as taking down a POS tower in terms of needed participation ?

Let alone 2 Keepstars on the same grid ?

Structure types/defenses dont affect the level of participation needed to take them down ?

Well errr... ok....
Jonn Duune
Biomass Party
#55 - 2017-03-20 17:23:54 UTC
Quote:
A group such as HK is entrenched enough that the structure in itself isn't so much the problem. It could be a Fortizar and they still put up a similar defense


Yes and no. The keepstar has a really big feature that i think is one of the problems, and that's its arcing doomdsay weapon. Done properly, a keepstar can essentially wipe several caps off the field with this, and in combination with using the bombs, missiles, and applicable ewar, it's a huge force multiplier.

I agree groups like HK are so entrenched that there's no easy way of doing any kind of eviction, but what I'm arguing is that a POS's defenses capabilties (even something like a large dickstar/deathstar) is at most as capable as a fortizar (though personally, i believe in terms of offensive capabilities a fortizar is significantly better, though it loses in the EWAR role to a proper dickstar), whereas a keepstar can add the equivalent of many many ships in support.

Also players of eve, if you haven't done so yet, find a candidate that speaks to you and get out and VOTE FOR THEM. If you don't participate in this game, you're essentially giving away your right to whine about any future changes that CCP wants to bring to eve, because you're demonstrating with your actions that you don't care.

My name is Jonn Duune, and I wholeheartedly support the message posted above.

Previous page123