These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM - Do you think? (... continued)

First post First post
Author
Richard Hammond II
Doomheim
#61 - 2011-09-07 15:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Richard Hammond II
El'Niaga wrote:
The only real affect anyone can have is to cancel their subscriptions if they aren't happy.


Bad part of that is youre supporting the CSM's efforts to blackmail CCP.
Theres no winning fo us here

Is it funny to anyone else that Mittens gets to troll freely? Is that a part of being CSM too?

Goons; infiltration at its best - first bob... now ccp itself. They dont realize you guys dot take this as "just a game". Bring it down guys, we're rooting for you.

Aracimia Wolfe
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#62 - 2011-09-07 16:05:28 UTC
During the battle of VFK multiple excellent kills and defensive strikes were made possible due to week old bonafide newbies in Rifters.

I's true, I was there.

0.0 can be as noob friendly as anywhere

Just saying

Kill it with Fire!

KaarBaak
Squirrel Team
#63 - 2011-09-07 16:13:14 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
ok so in this thread i've got too much power, in the other thread i'm a powerless marketing shill of ccp

OH GOD SO CONFUSED



It's simple really. You have too much power when your views/plans align with CCPs. You are powerless when your views/plans oppose CCP's.

This latest drama-llama shows that CCP is going to do whatever they like. Assent or dissent from the CSM or player population is not relevant.

They like having CSM available to approve changes, as it allows them to point and say "hey...we're doing what the players want." Even to the point of giving CSM members credit for the change--hence the claim of too much influence. When the CSM and CCP are in opposition, CCP simply shuts down/ignores them-- recent meeting minutes kerfuffle.

Personally, I think the CSM gives some people something to do with their otherwise meaningless lives. People with low self-esteem who seek e-fame in order to validate themselves. If it makes them feel better about themselves, then it's a good thing.

KB

Dum Spiro Spero

Jenshae Chiroptera
#64 - 2011-09-07 19:44:36 UTC
ABC are a necessary step but they probably aren't potent enough! Shocked

Compared to some gas mining, PI and just killing sleeper, ABC ore is trailing behind. We need more miners but it is boring and doesn't pay enough. Still ore is a must.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Sheol Duncan
Perkone
Caldari State
#65 - 2011-09-08 04:32:10 UTC
Neither CCP nor the CSM is trying to nerf hisec, they are simply working on the principle that "taking risks should be rewarded." I think almost everyone in the game would agree that that is one of the guiding principles of EVE and should continue to be. It currently applies across the entire game, whether its taking the risk of undocking you officer fit mission running ship, and risking a suicide gank, speculating on the price of minerals, transporting goods through low sec, or bringing out your kickass pvp ship. The more you risk the bigger the reward is. Your officer fit mission ship rakes in more cash than a T2 fit would, the more money you dump into a commodity mean you stand to lose more or gain more, taking that shorter route through low sec means you can do more trips and make more money, but it puts your ship at risk. This principle exists both in hisec, lowsec and nullsec. But obviously it tends to place the rewards slanted towards nullsec because nullsec is where the risks are.

Goons and the other 0.0 alliances gain nothing by forcing you into nullsec, we need you in hisec to fuel our economies. But, I don't think it follows the above mentioned principle if hisec residents can make as much or more isk/hour than nullsec residents can with a vastly increased amount of risk.
Vayna Miychovich
NED-Clan
Goonswarm Federation
#66 - 2011-09-08 08:05:57 UTC
Sheol Duncan wrote:
Neither CCP nor the CSM is trying to nerf hisec, they are simply working on the principle that "taking risks should be rewarded." I think almost everyone in the game would agree that that is one of the guiding principles of EVE and should continue to be. It currently applies across the entire game, whether its taking the risk of undocking you officer fit mission running ship, and risking a suicide gank, speculating on the price of minerals, transporting goods through low sec, or bringing out your kickass pvp ship. The more you risk the bigger the reward is. Your officer fit mission ship rakes in more cash than a T2 fit would, the more money you dump into a commodity mean you stand to lose more or gain more, taking that shorter route through low sec means you can do more trips and make more money, but it puts your ship at risk. This principle exists both in hisec, lowsec and nullsec. But obviously it tends to place the rewards slanted towards nullsec because nullsec is where the risks are.

Goons and the other 0.0 alliances gain nothing by forcing you into nullsec, we need you in hisec to fuel our economies. But, I don't think it follows the above mentioned principle if hisec residents can make as much or more isk/hour than nullsec residents can with a vastly increased amount of risk.


This. The whole deal is about the broken end-game of EVE, which for a majority of senior players takes place in 0.0. Without a proper end-game, which will still be challenging and keep you interested, EVE will loose seasoned players faster then it can attract newbies.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#67 - 2011-09-08 08:21:18 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Jita Alt666 wrote:
I can argue that unless you have dealt with the logistics of fitting fleet ships for a 1000man alliance when the nearest market hub is 24 gates away while under constant encroachment by enemy roaming gangs, that you little about time and energy investment.


Learn to delegate {more} and exaggerate less.


Those numbers look very credible to me, even rather conservative.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

El'Niaga
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#68 - 2011-09-08 08:31:46 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
El'Niaga wrote:

They can't force folks into 0.0 by nerfing other areas of the game. It won't work, never has and never will.

Nerfing 0.0 has forced a lot of folks (and their alts) into hisec. Not sure why the reverse wouldn't hold.


The nature of 0.0.

To entice the folks in empire you have to make sure they can sustain their current level of income despite additional ship losses. If you can't do that they won't come.
El'Niaga
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#69 - 2011-09-08 08:34:32 UTC
Richard Hammond II wrote:
El'Niaga wrote:
The only real affect anyone can have is to cancel their subscriptions if they aren't happy.


Bad part of that is youre supporting the CSM's efforts to blackmail CCP.
Theres no winning fo us here

Is it funny to anyone else that Mittens gets to troll freely? Is that a part of being CSM too?


It's not blackmail it is plainly laid out in Greed is Good and the leaked Hilmar email. They are not looking at anything but the datastream, to get them to listen to anything else the datastream must drop below their expectations and maintain it for an x period of time, that is only known to them.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#70 - 2011-09-09 04:26:21 UTC
Strangely enough you get more ABC ore in and more asteroids in C3+ WHs

There is your benefit.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Puppet Mas'ter
The Merchants of War
#71 - 2011-09-09 05:15:19 UTC
El'Niaga wrote:
Richard Hammond II wrote:
El'Niaga wrote:
The only real affect anyone can have is to cancel their subscriptions if they aren't happy.


Bad part of that is youre supporting the CSM's efforts to blackmail CCP.
Theres no winning fo us here

Is it funny to anyone else that Mittens gets to troll freely? Is that a part of being CSM too?


It's not blackmail it is plainly laid out in Greed is Good and the leaked Hilmar email. They are not looking at anything but the datastream, to get them to listen to anything else the datastream must drop below their expectations and maintain it for an x period of time, that is only known to them.


Youre right its not blackmail, its holding the game hostage
and CCP cant be seen to negotiate or theyre screwed if they ever wanna take a stand again

CCP: Madness!!! This is FiS Us: Fis? chuckle (╯°□°)╯︵ ┻━┻ Us: THIS IS EVE

Simetraz
State War Academy
Caldari State
#72 - 2011-09-09 05:26:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Simetraz
CCP and the players have had 5 years to get people to live in 0.0
Face the facts, there aren't that many players out there who enjoy that play style.

0.0 doesn't need to be more accessible or easier.
Let the people who enjoy that play style enjoy it.

High-sec will always have more players.
I really don't see what the problem is.
A Million high-sec players just means more subscriptions, and you never know some might decide to go to 0.0.

Let people be and let them enjoy the game how they see fit.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#73 - 2011-09-09 05:32:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
El'Niaga wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
El'Niaga wrote:

They can't force folks into 0.0 by nerfing other areas of the game. It won't work, never has and never will.

Nerfing 0.0 has forced a lot of folks (and their alts) into hisec. Not sure why the reverse wouldn't hold.


The nature of 0.0.

To entice the folks in empire you have to make sure they can sustain their current level of income despite additional ship losses. If you can't do that they won't come.

Or just decrease what their current level of income is. I'm more for shifting the second part of your statement, increasing the "additional ship losses" part of hisec life. CCP seems to be in favor of just outright removing hisec monopolies such as T2 manufacturing, T2 research, certain kinds of ice, etc. Pick your poison.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#74 - 2011-09-11 02:17:07 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Or just decrease what their current level of income is. I'm more for shifting the second part of your statement, increasing the "additional ship losses" part of hisec life. CCP seems to be in favor of just outright removing hisec monopolies such as T2 manufacturing, T2 research, certain kinds of ice, etc. Pick your poison.

Beat the players with a stick and it is so much easier to quit the game than try to move into null sec. ;)
Simetraz wrote:
CCP and the players have had 5 years to get people to live in 0.0
Face the facts, there aren't that many players out there who enjoy that play style.

In Anarchy we had the PvP players making a lot of noise, changes were made and more changes are coming to meet their demands. However, it turns out that they can't get 12 people together most of the time to do some PvP in a 25% level range.

Those changes affected PvM and drove many away from the game. As you might know, AO is extremely low population now.

I see a lot of similarity between EVE and AO in this regard.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#75 - 2011-09-11 02:29:16 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:

Or just decrease what their current level of income is. I'm more for shifting the second part of your statement, increasing the "additional ship losses" part of hisec life. CCP seems to be in favor of just outright removing hisec monopolies such as T2 manufacturing, T2 research, certain kinds of ice, etc. Pick your poison.

Beat the players with a stick and it is so much easier to quit the game than try to move into null sec. ;)
There's an imbalance in the game and either way it is solved. Your empty threat doesn't really change that.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#76 - 2011-09-11 07:51:19 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Your empty threat doesn't really change that.

Threat? Observation based off the other games I have played.


Tohmu Blackwing wrote:
Basic Premise:

Most of the wealth of EVE is too easily captured by a few alliances.

Most of the alliances are controlled by only a small number of actual players, compared to the total player base of EVE.

It is too easy for large alliances to hold vast stretches of 0.0 space. It is even easier for these few players to dominate other regions and even lowsec thru the use of alt-corps.

This means that only a few actual players can dominate most of the best parts of EVE, and the vast majority of the player base is cut out of the best parts of the game.

PVE <> PVP. The fittings are different, the play style is different.

It is too easy to make boatloads in 0.0 through macros/botting.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.

Prince Kobol
#77 - 2011-09-11 08:04:07 UTC
Its seems to me some people who think that nerfing High sec will get more people into null do not get it.

A lot of people in high sec chose not to go into null because they can not be bothered with the crap that comes with it.

Who wants to join an alliance were you have some 14 yr old with a god complex having emo rages every 30 seconds telling you what to do.. yeah that sounds like fun.

Yeah blob fest.. so exciting..

nerfing High sec wont make people go.. I must go to null, it will just make them say, feck it, can't be bothered I'm out of here.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#78 - 2011-09-11 08:16:52 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
Its seems to me some people who think that nerfing High sec will get more people into null do not get it.

A lot of people in high sec chose not to go into null because they can not be bothered with the crap that comes with it.

Who wants to join an alliance were you have some 14 yr old with a god complex having emo rages every 30 seconds telling you what to do.. yeah that sounds like fun.

imo it's the 14 year olds with god complexes who refuse to entertain the idea of working together for a goal.
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#79 - 2011-09-11 08:18:09 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Your empty threat doesn't really change that.

Threat? Observation based off the other games I have played.

Threat. An empty one.
Prince Kobol
#80 - 2011-09-11 08:19:39 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
Its seems to me some people who think that nerfing High sec will get more people into null do not get it.

A lot of people in high sec chose not to go into null because they can not be bothered with the crap that comes with it.

Who wants to join an alliance were you have some 14 yr old with a god complex having emo rages every 30 seconds telling you what to do.. yeah that sounds like fun.

imo it's the 14 year olds with god complexes who refuse to entertain the idea of working together for a goal.


Yep.. and they all live in null :)