Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
43 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Malcanis for CSM 8 Vote till you drop

First post
Author
Caldari State
#41 - 2013-01-13 04:22:17 UTC
I have seen few men as articulate and sharp as Malcanis, having had the pleasure of working with him I must say I find few candidates as qualified or suited for the position, and if I can spare a few votes myself from voting outside any TEST candidate, Malcanis is my go to guy.

Not because he is blue to me, not because he partially plays in null or anything of the sort, no, it's because he is an intelligent man who can easily stand his ground in any debate, articulate in his reasoning and razor sharp logic on points that go asides matters of taste.

Malcanis for CSM8!
Electus Matari
#42 - 2013-01-13 07:11:08 UTC
Now that Hans has stated he is not running for CSM 8, all my votes will be going to Malcanis.

A war that would’ve involved 20,000 players, 75% of nullsec space, and hundreds of supercapitals was halted not by diplomacy, but by a game mechanic so dreadful that those who have experienced it previously have no desire to do so again. - Fix POS & SOV

The Initiative.
#43 - 2013-01-13 08:27:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Kenpachi Viktor wrote:
Now that Hans has stated he is not running for CSM 8.


Wait what? Sad

Man that's a shame. Working with Hans was one of the things I was looking forward to.

EDIT: Yeah his blog confirms it. Welp.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2013-01-13 09:03:12 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Kenpachi Viktor wrote:
Now that Hans has stated he is not running for CSM 8.


Wait what? Sad

Man that's a shame. Working with Hans was one of the things I was looking forward to.

EDIT: Yeah his blog confirms it. Welp.

Well, I voted for Hans last year with my accounts. Haven't profiled the rest of the candidates, but sure as hell hoping you make it,mate.

p.s glad to hear dad is well now :)
Goonswarm Federation
#45 - 2013-01-13 10:00:59 UTC
Lord MuffloN wrote:
I have seen few men as articulate and sharp as Malcanis, having had the pleasure of working with him I must say I find few candidates as qualified or suited for the position, and if I can spare a few votes myself from voting outside any TEST candidate, Malcanis is my go to guy.

Can't you guys just skip the messing around and make Malcanis the HBC bloc vote candidate this time around?

Every time you post a WiS thread, Hilmar strangles a kitten.

The Initiative.
#46 - 2013-01-13 11:22:44 UTC
Scatim Helicon wrote:
Lord MuffloN wrote:
I have seen few men as articulate and sharp as Malcanis, having had the pleasure of working with him I must say I find few candidates as qualified or suited for the position, and if I can spare a few votes myself from voting outside any TEST candidate, Malcanis is my go to guy.

Can't you guys just skip the messing around and make Malcanis the HBC bloc vote candidate this time around?


I believe the HBC are sponsoring Dovinian again. I'm happy to be an independant.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#47 - 2013-01-13 11:50:39 UTC
Interesting

Akrasjel Lanate

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Caldari State
#48 - 2013-01-13 12:12:33 UTC
Whenever I read one of your articles, I can't miss that you really seem to think of the game as a whole, not just an assorted bunch of playstyles working against each other.
I think that is exactly the quality a good candidate needs. You can count on my votes.
Amarr Empire
#49 - 2013-01-13 22:15:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Inggroth
Will probably get my vote (and possibly of some others i know).

Still: i want a broad stance on the type of gameplay i care about - 0.0 non-bloc sized PvP aka. pretty much everything that doesnt involve shooting a sov structure at some point.
Solo, small gangs (up to a full squad), medium gangs (up to a full wing), (semi)-consentual gang vs. gang engagements.

Do you have any ideas of your own on how to make people in 0.0 undock or care about PvP except when their space or main source of passive income (Tech) is in danger?

How do you feel about ideas that are/were at some point being discussed? (~farms and fields~/reducing eHP of structures/scrambling rats/constellation-wide structures inhibiting ratting potential/delayed local/ you name it)?

Now i'm aware of the fact that CCP pretty much shelved everything directly affecting 0.0 for the near future apart from revamping POSes.
I also understand that a CSM member cant magically make CCP do stuff.
Still, i want to know how in your opinion the part of the game i care about could should look like.
#50 - 2013-01-13 22:50:40 UTC
@Malcanis

Glad to see your platform is as sensible as your posting. My only question is what would you do to try and improve lowsec (specifically non-FW, CCP seems to forget about us) beyond the extensions of your Manifest? More industrialists trying to run the gates is good, but I would rather be able to describe where I live as something other than "Nullsec without bubbles, but gate guns".

Regardless, I wish you luck sir. +1
Gallente Federation
#51 - 2013-01-14 01:45:24 UTC
I have two votes for you, ~good poster~, and a not-blank-anymore sig.

CCP has no sense of humour.

Caldari State
#52 - 2013-01-14 05:22:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Wescro
What do you mean by "no troll this time"? What happened last time?

Also woe befall any noob who accidentally jumps out of his 1.0 crib system and gets locked out in the woods with all the bad bad high sec pirates. The idea is right (protect noobs) but the policy is bad (super secure crib system). It cuts noobs off any meaningful interaction until they are outside, which is self-defeating. Also, it's far too easy to accidentally venture out and get locked out.

Why am I an expert in noob care? I tried to get 3 of my friends into EVE, on 3 different occasions. None of them made it past the trial period. The problem is noobs get too little interaction, not too much.

I say drop them smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation.
Goonswarm Federation
#53 - 2013-01-14 05:29:54 UTC
Wescro wrote:


I say drop them smack in the middle of a fleet battle soon as the exit character creation.


Planetside 2 does this and even to someone familiar with FPSes it's hilariously off-putting. I don't recommend it, at least not for a game as complicated as Eve. Lol

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

The Initiative.
#54 - 2013-01-14 07:36:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Inggroth wrote:
Will probably get my vote (and possibly of some others i know).

Still: i want a broad stance on the type of gameplay i care about - 0.0 non-bloc sized PvP aka. pretty much everything that doesnt involve shooting a sov structure at some point.
Solo, small gangs (up to a full squad), medium gangs (up to a full wing), (semi)-consentual gang vs. gang engagements.

Do you have any ideas of your own on how to make people in 0.0 undock or care about PvP except when their space or main source of passive income (Tech) is in danger?


Yes indeed I do. Basically, as a point of game philosophy, sov alliances should explicitly derive their strength from their members, not from any one specific structure or resource. That means that things like Tech moons" should be in the "nice to have, but not essential" category, not the "if you don't have them then you're a second class alliance at best" category. This has some pretty far reaching implications, but as an absolutely vital and very urgent first step, I want CCP to make it viable for the 0.0 players to start repatriating most of those hi-sec alts back to their own space.

When it's worth while for 0.0 players to do their mining, ship building, invention, R&D etc etc etc in their own space, then the population of sov 0.0 will rise dramatically (my best guess is that it would at least double, probably more). And all those guys in belts and anoms, hauling ore and datacores, attending to research POS and so on an so forth, those guys right there should be the foundation of a sov alliance's wealth and power, and by their presence and by their importance, right there you have your "small gang" objectives. And that in turn will give "small gang" obectives for the defenders too.

Inggroth wrote:
How do you feel about ideas that are/were at some point being discussed? (~farms and fields~/reducing eHP of structures/scrambling rats/constellation-wide structures inhibiting ratting potential/delayed local/ you name it)?

Now i'm aware of the fact that CCP pretty much shelved everything directly affecting 0.0 for the near future apart from revamping POSes.
I also understand that a CSM member cant magically make CCP do stuff.
Still, i want to know how in your opinion the part of the game i care about could should look like.


It's pretty discouraging that the "Farms And Fields" project seems to have been basically ignored. I'm sure I don't have to tell you that the situation in 0.0 is getting pretty desperate. Right now, there's not really much incentive to actually hold space other than moongoo and as a long term speculative investment that it might be worth having someday. CCP should have learned the lesson of 2011, that the patience of players isn't infinite, and I intend to make it my business to remind them.

Now all my comments above refer specifically to sov space. I know very well that you gentlemen live in Curse. When you think about how busy and active Curse can be when several alliances are living there in a relatively compact region of space, that's a good analogy for for the level of action I'd love to see in sov space as well.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Initiative.
#55 - 2013-01-14 07:52:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Dibblerette wrote:
@Malcanis

Glad to see your platform is as sensible as your posting. My only question is what would you do to try and improve lowsec (specifically non-FW, CCP seems to forget about us) beyond the extensions of your Manifest? More industrialists trying to run the gates is good, but I would rather be able to describe where I live as something other than "Nullsec without bubbles, but gate guns".

Regardless, I wish you luck sir. +1


Lo-sec is a conundrum, I freely admit. When you say "improve", what exactly do you mean by "improve"? "Improve for whom"? Defining the problem is the first step in constructing the solution. I feel that I have a fairly clear idea of what sov 0.0 should look like, but I freely confess that I'm not as sure about what kind of lo-sec we should be working towards.

At the moment, lo-sec is a haven for small independent corps, and it's a ghetto. I can easily think of quite a few ideas to raise it up from ghetto status, but by the very act of making the space better, there's a danger to that "small corp haven" status. CCP did well to make Faction Warfare more attractive, and that has surely increased both the PvP activity and the economic activity in lo-sec. Would you like more of that?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Point Blank Alliance
#56 - 2013-01-14 08:18:33 UTC
Quote:
At the moment, lo-sec is a haven for small independent corps, and it's a ghetto. I can easily think of quite a few ideas to raise it up from ghetto status, but by the very act of making the space better, there's a danger to that "small corp haven" status.


FW is, despite being very lucrative, not owned or unduly influenced by massive blocs. I think the key to that is that the wealth of FW cannot be effectively excluded from or occupied and space can't really be controlled. Extend that general idea to the rest of lowsec in some fashion.

Regardless, with Hans not running again, it's all down to reputation. Malcanis is the only candidate so far who has +repped me on the other EVE forum, so he gets my vote.
The Initiative.
#57 - 2013-01-14 09:12:17 UTC
Milton Middleson wrote:
Quote:
At the moment, lo-sec is a haven for small independent corps, and it's a ghetto. I can easily think of quite a few ideas to raise it up from ghetto status, but by the very act of making the space better, there's a danger to that "small corp haven" status.


FW is, despite being very lucrative, not owned or unduly influenced by massive blocs. I think the key to that is that the wealth of FW cannot be effectively excluded from or occupied and space can't really be controlled. Extend that general idea to the rest of lowsec in some fashion.

Regardless, with Hans not running again, it's all down to reputation. Malcanis is the only candidate so far who has +repped me on the other EVE forum, so he gets my vote.


Basically I'm really cautious about making sweeping proposals for lo-sec. I lived in lo-sec as a pirate for a few months, but I certainly don't think that this gives me any standing to speak authoritatively on behalf of the lo-sec community as a whole. I've asked Hans to help with giving me some insight on the FW issues, but even that's only a part of lo-sec. The last thing I want to do is be involved in inflicting a "Dominion" on lo-sec. I'd rather do nothing than do that.

I'm not quite so sanguine as you are that FW is immune to either being controlled by outside powerblocs or evolving into powerblocs itself.

The only idea that I've ever really been enthusiastic about is making lo-sec the focal area for trading and making boosters, so that people would have a reason to go there. But that's pretty small beer really.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

The Initiative.
#58 - 2013-01-14 09:16:37 UTC
Wescro wrote:
What do you mean by "no troll this time"? What happened last time?


This

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

#59 - 2013-01-14 10:37:49 UTC
Perhaps I missed it somewhere but what's your stance on jump bridges, jump capable ships and power projection?
The Initiative.
#60 - 2013-01-14 11:00:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Malcanis
Vilnius Zar wrote:
Perhaps I missed it somewhere but what's your stance on jump bridges, jump capable ships and power projection?


It's a complex subject, and I don't think that it's amenable to 1-liner catch phrase solutions.

Jump Bridges I am basically happy with at the moment. They don't contribute to power projection (you can't isntall them until you've held the space for weeks); they're a great quality-of-life enhancer for the low level alliance citizen, they're one of the few perks of owning sov. I supported the Jump Bridge nerf limiting JBs to one per system, but I definitely don't think they need any further nerfs. Even if I did, I would utterly oppose nerfing them until CCP have put in some significant changes to the way sov 0.0 works to make it into a more viable space for the average alliance member to conduct his daily business in.

Jump Capable ships: they definitely have a place in EVE. Whilst I don't really like the idea of being able to move whole fleets across the map in a few minutes, the secondary and tertiary implications of removing or significantly nerfing cyno-jumping are so huge that I am frankly nervous of going down that road. I think it's best to accept jump ships belong in 0.0 and that we're always going to have to take them into account. EDIT: I might be OK with minor tweaks like increasing the cost of jumps & titan bridges if a good case were made, but the problems with changes like this is that the large rich powerful organisations barely notice the difference unless you make it so expensive that smaller, poorer groups are priced out of the option altogether.

IMO The essential first step to dealing with excessive power projection is to build in greater incentives to stay close to home. If you read up, you can see that my idea of sov 0.0 is a busy, lively, labor-intensive local economy. That implies a substantial effort to protect that local economy, or accepting that whilst you're on campaign, your alliance has to live on accumulated reserves. "There are no reinforcement timers on a mining op."

I'd also like to see the potential economic density of 0.0 (that's a fancy term for "how many people can make a living in a given area") greatly increased. A busy trade hub or mission hub in hi-sec can support hundreds of players. A fully upgraded 0.0 system is barely able to support half a dozen ratters. If we can get CCP to restructure 0.0 space to encourage alliances to have a relatively small amount of highly developed, intensively utilised space (insert appropriate Civ 5 mechanism for analogy purposes here!), then I think power projection issues will take care of themselves, at least to a certain extent.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

43 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump