These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Alekseyev Karrde for CSM7: War and Sov that Works for Everyone

Author
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#41 - 2012-02-14 13:24:42 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:
[quote=2bhammered]Removing local chat would basically isolate the clueless noob entirely.

There're a few ideas out there that would solve the problem of Local as in intel tool without removing the capability for chatting. Look at WH for instance; it's certainly possible to do there just has to be a design choice to do it.

I'm pretty sure we agreed on Local as an intel tool being a mechanic that we needed any way. Perhaps using it as a chat channel is not the neatest way to do it, but the principle is sound and it's information that you should know.

When I hear people raging against local, I think they want nobody to know who's in space with them, or they want the whole thing to be muted and boring. I agree with neither. I would be OK with splitting them into two different tools, but again, I'd probably put them in the same place myself, because they naturally go together. (Who are you talking to? The people on this list, who are in the same corner of space as you right now.)

IDK. I think it's fine and I don't understand all the rage, and nobody seems particularly keen on explaining it.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Devils Embrace
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#42 - 2012-02-14 22:16:20 UTC
If Widders isnt running, will cast my vote for you as i know you know your stuff as well. Good Luck!

It's like they usually say about fantasy MMO's and men playing female characters: "If I'm going to spend alot of time watching this character, it might as well have a good looking ass".

Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#43 - 2012-02-15 03:16:06 UTC
Devils Embrace wrote:
If Widders isnt running, will cast my vote for you as i know you know your stuff as well. Good Luck!

Pretty much, he's the guy. I will probably update my **** later, but right now I need to see a man about a ship.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#44 - 2012-02-15 20:30:54 UTC
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#45 - 2012-02-16 08:48:53 UTC
Couple of broad questions for you Alekseyev:

What are your thoughts on Incursions, particularly in High Sec?

What are your thoughts on Player interactions with NPCs, such as making player standings more meaningful, relating to docking rights, Potentially siding with Pirate factions etc?

Any opinions in regard to Malcanis' High Sec Manifesto?



Iam Widdershins wrote:

[...Regarding Local chat Intel...]
IDK. I think it's fine and I don't understand all the rage, and nobody seems particularly keen on explaining it.


My quick explanation would be this, Local chat intel kills sneaky gameplay. With no stealth/cloaking mechanics whatsoever in Darkfall it was still possible to sneak around with no one knowing, whether it be to sneak away or hide from threats, or ambush those you're hunting. In EVE I can be in a ship that makes me invisible, but because of Local Chat it results in everyone in the system with a working monitor and at least one functional eye instant knowledge of my presence. If people want to chat that's fine, but there's no need for the instant Intel function, players should have to work for intel, Overview, DScan, and Probes already offer a lot of intel tools.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#46 - 2012-02-16 22:48:44 UTC
In a post blessed by Mintrolio, lam Widdershins has dropped out of the race for CSM7 and thrown his support behind my candidacy. I thank him for his confidence that I'm the best voice to speak about how to get highsec wardecs and aggression mechanics right, and I welcome his supporters to my thread, blog, and twitter so we can make sure EVE stays true to its cold harsh roots.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#47 - 2012-02-16 23:13:53 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Couple of broad questions for you Alekseyev:

What are your thoughts on Incursions, particularly in High Sec?

What are your thoughts on Player interactions with NPCs, such as making player standings more meaningful, relating to docking rights, Potentially siding with Pirate factions etc?

Any opinions in regard to Malcanis' High Sec Manifesto?


I liked Incursions when they initially came out but as time went on and the capricious minds of the EVE player base got used to them some problems have been exposed. I see three major problems:

1. The different levels of Incursion sites do not progress well in terms of ISK/time, with Vanguards being vastly more profitable than their tier would suggest.
2. Players have managed to plot the sites out so effectively that there is perceived little risk, so the proliferation of Blingmobile-only fleets has distorted both the ISK/time and the inten for Incursions to be accessible to a broad array of players and bring them together
3, Players are farming the Incursions, having long pushed the Incursion back and spawned the "boss" there has been a brokered agreement not to kill it until the last possible moment to maximize the amount of time to grind Vanguards.

Players have finally stepped up and organized counters to 2 and 3 which have both prompted CCP to make mechanic changes to prevent them doing so (2) and finally admitting there's a problem (3). I'd like to see a balance of the ISK reward tiers so that the more difficult sites are not out rewarded by the easy ones, I'd like a little more unpredictability + ECM/Neuting in the spawns to keep people on their toes, and I would like to see some adjustment to the Incursion spawn/despawn mechanic to prevent players from intentionally prolonging the Sansha Invasion CONCORD is paying them to stop.

On NPC standings: I like the idea of having them matter more in NPC 0.0 space very much, provided there's tools to bring it up as well as down so players can choose their relationship. It brings some much needed immersion and some interesting gameplay options to the table. I'm cautious of making that too widespread though, since standings are easy to lose and more of a grind to gain. Preventing highsec docking because i dont have a sufficiently high standing with a certain corp, for instance, I'm not too keen on unless that came with a revision of standings in general.

I think Malcanis broke down the highsec population well. I'd also add in the "alt" factor ie 0.0 and lowsec players that maintain highsec characters to access the safe ISK making or other advantages of highsec even though they dont "live" there. While I agree wardecs need a major revamp, I differ on his other two solutions. I think the security rating/penalty system (and aggression system in general) should be made LESS complicated not more, and while i don't disagree high risk/high reward CANT live in highsec I staunchly oppose moving lowsec content into empire (it's bare enough as is) and I'd oppose the suggestion that the rewards be as high or higher than lowsec/0.0 which have more risk just by being there in addition to whatever you're trying to get done NPCing wise.


Xorv wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:

[...Regarding Local chat Intel...]
IDK. I think it's fine and I don't understand all the rage, and nobody seems particularly keen on explaining it.


My quick explanation would be this, Local chat intel kills sneaky gameplay. With no stealth/cloaking mechanics whatsoever in Darkfall it was still possible to sneak around with no one knowing, whether it be to sneak away or hide from threats, or ambush those you're hunting. In EVE I can be in a ship that makes me invisible, but because of Local Chat it results in everyone in the system with a working monitor and at least one functional eye instant knowledge of my presence. If people want to chat that's fine, but there's no need for the instant Intel function, players should have to work for intel, Overview, DScan, and Probes already offer a lot of intel tools.

Nicely said.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#48 - 2012-02-17 10:30:45 UTC
I hope your contacting every Pirate, Merc, and High Sec PvP corp to vote for you, because none of the other remaining High and Low Sec candidates are going to be good representatives for them on the CSM, and you're going to need a lot of support to have any chance of getting a seat.

Hans is looking really strong with all the FW corps backing him, but despite being the low sec candidate, if you read his thread he's all but officially endorsed consensual PvP as the norm for Empire space.

Kelduum the Eve Uni guy may get in purely on support from Uni members, and pretty sure if he has his way Empire space will be completely ruined.

You're going to need to rally and unify your own constituency around supporting you to grab a CSM seat..
Endeavour Starfleet
#49 - 2012-02-18 02:14:30 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Xorv wrote:
Couple of broad questions for you Alekseyev:

What are your thoughts on Incursions, particularly in High Sec?

What are your thoughts on Player interactions with NPCs, such as making player standings more meaningful, relating to docking rights, Potentially siding with Pirate factions etc?

Any opinions in regard to Malcanis' High Sec Manifesto?


I liked Incursions when they initially came out but as time went on and the capricious minds of the EVE player base got used to them some problems have been exposed. I see three major problems:

1. The different levels of Incursion sites do not progress well in terms of ISK/time, with Vanguards being vastly more profitable than their tier would suggest.
2. Players have managed to plot the sites out so effectively that there is perceived little risk, so the proliferation of Blingmobile-only fleets has distorted both the ISK/time and the inten for Incursions to be accessible to a broad array of players and bring them together
3, Players are farming the Incursions, having long pushed the Incursion back and spawned the "boss" there has been a brokered agreement not to kill it until the last possible moment to maximize the amount of time to grind Vanguards.

Players have finally stepped up and organized counters to 2 and 3 which have both prompted CCP to make mechanic changes to prevent them doing so (2) and finally admitting there's a problem (3). I'd like to see a balance of the ISK reward tiers so that the more difficult sites are not out rewarded by the easy ones, I'd like a little more unpredictability + ECM/Neuting in the spawns to keep people on their toes, and I would like to see some adjustment to the Incursion spawn/despawn mechanic to prevent players from intentionally prolonging the Sansha Invasion CONCORD is paying them to stop.


I can't support you because of this.

You don't seem to "get" that incursions are better than missioning and are replacing it due to the group or community aspect. This reactionary attitude in my opinion is unneeded on the CSM.

Vanguards need some fixing. Force complete is one. Nuking the rest is not the answer. They get "Farmed" due to the time it takes for new ones to spawn and travel time if you intend to fly anything other than a quick logi.

Incursions are FINALLY the real counter to nullsec CTAs and of course because of that the calls for nukes are coming more than ever. Therefore the only changes needed or small adjustments to vanguards and buffs to Assault and HQ payments.

If you are willing to reevaluate your position on this I would be glad to read it.
Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#50 - 2012-02-18 04:13:50 UTC
Anyone that had your support Endeavour would be by default a terrible candidate IMO, so that's another plus for Alekseyev.

Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
Incursions are FINALLY the real counter to nullsec CTAs and of course because of that the calls for nukes are coming more than ever. Therefore the only changes needed or small adjustments to vanguards and buffs to Assault and HQ payments.


How are Incursions a counter to Nullsec CTAs? That makes no sense at all.
Iam Widdershins
Victory or Whatever
#51 - 2012-02-18 05:11:22 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Iam Widdershins wrote:

[...Regarding Local chat Intel...]
IDK. I think it's fine and I don't understand all the rage, and nobody seems particularly keen on explaining it.


My quick explanation would be this, Local chat intel kills sneaky gameplay. With no stealth/cloaking mechanics whatsoever in Darkfall it was still possible to sneak around with no one knowing, whether it be to sneak away or hide from threats, or ambush those you're hunting. In EVE I can be in a ship that makes me invisible, but because of Local Chat it results in everyone in the system with a working monitor and at least one functional eye instant knowledge of my presence. If people want to chat that's fine, but there's no need for the instant Intel function, players should have to work for intel, Overview, DScan, and Probes already offer a lot of intel tools.

I know that that's how it works. The problem here is that EVE is often more a simulation than a game; sneaky gameplay is perfectly possible, it just requires an awful lot of patience.

If you're willing to wait for a couple days, you too can get kills like this. It comes down to the question of whether you think that it's good for the game to be able to immediately see everyone in local, and I think it is. In hisec, everything is so crowded that d-scan isn't going to help you one bit; in nullsec, perhaps it's different, but it acts as a crucial tool for those who hold sov or really any kind of superiority in an area. Without it a lot of things would change, as it is crucial to so many gameplay styles.

As it is, the immediate local-listing in k-space forms a major cornerstone of the way the game works today, and unless you can actually come up with a really good reason why it's bad for the game, I would be against changing it just to see what happens on principle.

Lobbying for your right to delete your signature

Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#52 - 2012-02-18 05:52:33 UTC
Xorv wrote:

Hans is looking really strong with all the FW corps backing him, but despite being the low sec candidate, if you read his thread he's all but officially endorsed consensual PvP as the norm for Empire space.


Wait, what?? I was hoping you could elaborate on what you mean by this.

I've never said PvP should be opt-in or consensual in any way, shape or form. I've argued for giving players more tools to enact their own justice through an overhaul of the bounty and kill rights systems, but I've never said that you should have to ask permission to shoot someone.

Verbatim from my thread:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Piracy should be possible in every area of space. If you are in a spaceship in space, any other spaceship should be allowed to lock and kill you. Anywhere. Without exception. I have no problem taking a firm campaign stance on this.


I will be recording an interview / debate with Marc Scaurus tomorrow on www.VoicesfromtheVoid.net, along with Kelduum Revaan of EvE University.

Given the guest lineup, I'm certain that wardecs, kill rights, crimewatch, and griefing will be on the table for discussion. If any of you want to know more about my stance on PvP in Empire space, please tune in and you'll have the opportunity to listen to my perspective on these issues in greater detail.

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Xorv
Questionable Acquisitions
#53 - 2012-02-18 06:55:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Xorv
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:

Wait, what?? I was hoping you could elaborate on what you mean by this.

I've never said PvP should be opt-in or consensual in any way, shape or form. I've argued for giving players more tools to enact their own justice through an overhaul of the bounty and kill rights systems, but I've never said that you should have to ask permission to shoot someone.


Hans your a likable guy, but your platform is overtly hostile to High Sec PvP, and although never called for directly the consequence of many of your positions is consensual PvP only, outside of seriously bad luck or mistakes made by a pilot. Here's some quotes by you from your platform and CSM thread.

On for profit PvP and High Sec PvP

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I'm going to give you my honest opinion here, though it will undoubtedly **** a few people off. I consider predatory high sec war declarations to be one of the cheapest forms of PvP available in the game. Truly hardcore PvP pilots move to low sec or null sec and seek out armed, skilled opponents who present a genuine challenge in return. Picking on a weaker corp and attacking them when you know they cannot fight back is some pretty unimpressive business. It's not worth glorifying, and I refuse to call this kind of non-consensual PvP one of the “defining features of EvE”because there's just so many cooler things you can do in the sandbox.

I have heard several, straightforward approaches to solving this issue, all of which have merit and are worth serious consideration. One approach would be to enable victimized corporations to simply bribe CONCORD, driving up the cost of war to the declaring corp. This would give true carebear corporations the opportunity to spend the wealth they accumulate to make bothering them much more costly. War fees could also simply rise each week if not declared mutual, making prolonged predatory harassment economically unsustainable.


Here we see your position that such PvP should occur in Low, not High Sec. This might be ok were it matched with a real rebalance of risk vs reward, but there's little emphasis on that in your platform. You did say the following which is encouraging:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Worsening the situation is that long overdue economic balancing in low sec has pushed a lot of true piracy into high sec space, where blinged-out mission runners holding false expectations of security end up gutted for profit. A proper reward balance should entice the lucrative targets to venture into dangerous territory to increase their gains, so that the bulk of for-profit warfare occurs in the region it is supported best by the game mechanics.


But where in your platform does it talk about pushing Incursions and other lucrative PvE out of High Sec?? In any case we move on to see what you say about non-consensual PvP Low Sec:


Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
The fact is, most ratting, missioning, exploration, mining, and hauling can all be done relatively risk free, if done in the proper ship, using the proper fitting, and the proper piloting techniques. Defensive scanning and working with friends goes a long way towards making low sec a lot less scary. You really have a choice 95% of the time whether to engage in PvP, or whether to avoid it if you so desire.

None of the low sec proposals I endorse really change that reality. [...]


So ultimately you want Low Sec PvE to be safe from PvP as well. I haven't seen anything about removing Local Chat Intel from Null on your campaign either, so the same can be said for Null Sec as well. Hans the fact of the matter is you represent players that want PvE and PvP separated, where you PvP for "sport" duels and e-honor safely funded by PvE that is free from PvP.

Now ask yourself why would Mercs, Pirates, and most High Sec PvPers want to be represented by someone who holds your views on EVE?

Alekseyev's platform is in the interests of Mercs, Pirates, and High Sec PvPers, your's Hans is not!
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#54 - 2012-02-18 17:14:10 UTC
Xorv wrote:
Now ask yourself why would Mercs, Pirates, and most High Sec PvPers want to be represented by someone who holds your views on EVE?


First of all, I just wanted to say I'm perfectly fine with you personally endorsing Alekseyev with your vote, but there are still some misinterpretations here that need to be cleared up.

You continue to assert that "the direct consequence to my actions" is consensual PvP only, when I've stated on numerous occasions that non-consensual PvP should exist everywhere in space. I've absolutely supported piracy as both a legitimate activity, and defended pirate culture.

What I object to, is as you pointed out – the fact that risk and reward do NOT currently scale well from high sec to null sec. There should be a reward gradient, moving from high sec out to the greatest rewards in null sec, where there should also be the greatest danger. This gradient is clearly not intact, and balancing most certainly needs to take place so that the lucrative activities in the game draw players outward, rather than inward as they do now.

Also, giving players normal advice on how to pilot safely through low sec is completely different than saying that low sec PvE needs to be "safe" inherently, or that PvP should be discouraged in anyway. My entire point has been that I would rather teach pilots how to mitigate risk, because especially in low sec I don't want to add more artificial restrictions on where and how PvP can take place.

The entire essence of the Jack Dant proposal is that it allows more ways for pilots to be engageable for PvP in lowsec, not less. To say that I want PvE and PvP separated, or that all PvP should be some flagged-only "e-sports" just isn't true.

The fact that piracy takes place in high sec is not the fault of the pirates – it is the fault of broken risk / reward balancing. By moving more of the lucrative activity into low sec we can continue to support a healthy pirate culture in EvE while mitigating some of the same circular "why is we griefed all the time" arguments that have plagued the forums with bickering for years now.

I encourage all the voters to download the upcoming podcast on so that you can hear about these issues in greater detail, rather than making up your minds based on one pilots interpretation of a few statements. If after hearing me out I'm still not the candidate for you, no hard feelings at all. I just want everyone to have all the facts before they make their decision.

Thanks for your time!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#55 - 2012-02-20 20:34:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Also real quick about Incursions: I never said nuke them; they're actually much much more enjoyable than most other NPCing and I like the teamwork aspect. They just need three tweaks to make them a bit less exploitable: better reward/difficulty scaling, less predictability, and incentive/mechanics so players try to complete the Incursion event as fast as possible not as slowly as possible.

BUT ON TO THE MEAT!

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I will be recording an interview / debate with Marc Scaurus tomorrow on www.VoicesfromtheVoid.net, along with Kelduum Revaan of EvE University.

Given the guest lineup, I'm certain that wardecs, kill rights, crimewatch, and griefing will be on the table for discussion. If any of you want to know more about my stance on PvP in Empire space, please tune in and you'll have the opportunity to listen to my perspective on these issues in greater detail.

Mmm wish they'd booked me for that one instead of this coming Fri. This weekend I was on Fly Reckless but we covered some of the same ground. Also, Fly Reckless is endorsing me now. Oh well, I'll have my shot at Kelduum at the upcoming Lost in EVE debates this Sunday. Are you coming Hans?

I think Hans' heart is in the right place, but as Christopher Walken would say "You're talkin to [the devs] all wrong. Wrong tone." Regardless of what anyone thinks (on both sides of the issue), a massive nerf to highsec income is almost certainly not going to be on the table for this CSM (if it ever is). We (PVPers of all stripes, people who interact with empire but care about lowsec and 0.0 development) are going to get a lot further engaging CCP about how we can create unique content for lowsec that appeals to players aspirations/sense of adventure as well as their wallets rather than whining that things highsec has should be in lowsec instead. The "move level 4s/labs/refining/etc/etc/etc" to lowsec mantra has been chanted repeatedly at CCP, both in general and at CSM summits past, but they're simply not interested in doing it; it's time for a new approach.

Other than that, I'd just like to say I think this:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I have heard several, straightforward approaches to solving this issue, all of which have merit and are worth serious consideration. One approach would be to enable victimized corporations to simply bribe CONCORD, driving up the cost of war to the declaring corp. This would give true carebear corporations the opportunity to spend the wealth they accumulate to make bothering them much more costly. War fees could also simply rise each week if not declared mutual, making prolonged predatory harassment economically unsustainable.


aka moving from bribing players to call off wars (with all the interactions and trust involved) vs. giving that money to CONCORD so it's automated isn't consistent with this:

Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
I've argued for giving players more tools to enact their own justice


I do so hope we get to debate..

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#56 - 2012-02-21 15:31:32 UTC
Yet, to receive a responce to my previous request on your views of Bounty Hunting.

Being a Mercenary Corp I would have thought the additional commercial opportunites of this would be of significant interest?
Skex Relbore
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#57 - 2012-02-21 17:09:25 UTC
While I respect you and your organization , I have a problem with your proposal for fixing the neutral RR "problem".

Primarily that it breaks legitimate RR everywhere else.

What everyone always seems to forget is that the only advantage neutral RR really grants is the surprise factor which is only useful once, beyond that you just have the issue of not being able to engage them until after they interfere.

The main complaint I see always boils down to the fact that neutral RR can instantly dock or gate jump ignoring the fact that the mechanic works exactly the same way for in non-neutral RR.

Putting an aggression timer on RR (which is not an aggressive act) basically makes RR a suicide role because you'd never be able to successfully disengage from any operation that takes place on a station or a gate. and warping off isn't always an option since we have these little things down here called bubbles.

I understand that the mechanic can be frustrating to deal with in High sec but your proposed change would affect more than high sec and frankly neutral RR isn't a problem where I live.

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#58 - 2012-02-22 00:41:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Skex Relbore wrote:
While I respect you and your organization , I have a problem with your proposal for fixing the neutral RR "problem".

Primarily that it breaks legitimate RR everywhere else.

What everyone always seems to forget is that the only advantage neutral RR really grants is the surprise factor which is only useful once, beyond that you just have the issue of not being able to engage them until after they interfere.

The main complaint I see always boils down to the fact that neutral RR can instantly dock or gate jump ignoring the fact that the mechanic works exactly the same way for in non-neutral RR.

Putting an aggression timer on RR (which is not an aggressive act) basically makes RR a suicide role because you'd never be able to successfully disengage from any operation that takes place on a station or a gate. and warping off isn't always an option since we have these little things down here called bubbles.

I understand that the mechanic can be frustrating to deal with in High sec but your proposed change would affect more than high sec and frankly neutral RR isn't a problem where I live.



There are ways to fix the highsec neutral RR problem without breaking logistics everywhere. lam Widdershins put forward a great example of how to do this by having the repper adopt the aggression timer of the player he's repping. That way logistics ships aren't stuck with 60 seconds after the rest of their fleet jumps out; you'd be able to jump or dock along with the rest of your fleet. I don't have a specific proposal I'm running on, but that'd be one way to address the issue of neutral rr in highsec without causing problems elsewhere and I support it or something similar.

I PVP in 0.0 more than anywhere else, frequently in a Guardian, Scimi or Onieros. Will the days of logi gate hugging the whole fight so we can jump in and out be over? Yeah, but we'll deal with it (it won't even be that hard). Believe me I know how important it is to not let any neutral RR fix screw logistics pilots outside of highsec and I do not support any change that would.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
The Network.
#59 - 2012-02-22 15:58:40 UTC
Some good posting going on in Kelduum Revaan's thread, check out my blog post about it

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Red Knight
The Royal Guard
#60 - 2012-02-23 18:34:51 UTC
I've known Alekseyev since the day he started playing EVE. In the years that I have known him he has always been a fair, intelligent, and honorable man. He runs a clean ship over at Noir and I think he did a good job the last time he was on the CSM.

He will be receiving my vote as well as the endorsement of my alliance, TANK.


Red Knight =TRG=
Imperator