Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
11 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
 

Psychotic Monk for CSM

First post
Author
#21 - 2013-03-05 11:20:00 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Aaaaack Psychotic, now I dont know whether to book James315 against a prohighsec guy or to have you and James go at it to joust for the non-ass highsec vote.

WHY DO YOU MAKE ME CHOOSE

Have you considered a longer 3 ringed circus episode?

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Amarr Empire
#22 - 2013-03-05 15:36:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Cannibal Kane
Monk has my Vote for CSM.

This is the first CSM member I can actually say I fully support.

On a side note... Monk don't advocate the grouping up of people that it will force me to have more members. I do enjoy my solitude.

"Kane is the End Boss of Highsec." -Psychotic Monk

New Eden Trading Company.
#23 - 2013-03-05 15:40:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde
Bombs Away Boy wrote:
I would like to see the issue of neutral logistics addressed

What are the continuing issues with neutral logistics, and what direction would Psychotic advocate to address them?

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

Nyx Legion
#24 - 2013-03-05 15:52:27 UTC
Well, there's still at least one way in which they can render assistance and not be legally shootable, which is broken as hell.

They are occasionally fun-killers in the context of solo or very small gangs, but as this game isn't balanced around solo and very small gangs, so that's no more unbalanced than Falcon. (/me shakes fist at Falcon) What would be better for me and my lifestyle isn't necessarily for the benefit of the entire game, and I think this is one of those times. As much as that sucks for me and mine.

A nerf to rep amount or possibly rep distance might have interesting consequences for the meta and is worth following logically along, but really only as a thought experiment at this point. If such a nerf were to happen I don't feel it would be in order to address any kind of need but rather just to shake up the game a bit.
Nyx Legion
#25 - 2013-03-05 15:57:42 UTC
Cannibal Kane wrote:
Monk has my Vote for CSM.

This is the first CSM member I can actually say I fully support.

On a side note... Monk don't advocate the grouping up of people that it will force me to have more members. I do enjoy my solitude.


Kane, if we do our job well they'll be forced to bring a higher level of gamesmanship to counter us. While I'm sure there will always space for they kiting 1vgang lifestyle and hunting will never go out of fashion, the day we can no longer just bring a 100mn tengu or legion and wipe the field nine times out of ten is a victory for us.

Besides, if we must form larger groups at least we have the best friends to do it with.

And I'd just like to say again, solo hunting lone dumbasses will never not be viable.
#26 - 2013-03-05 19:28:19 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
One man alt corps aren't subject to wardec as the owner can dissolve the corp and reform it, even with the same name, at a whim, costing 5m and not being subject to the wardec.


Good point but easily remedied by not allowing a corp to dissolve for (say) seven days after a wardec is issued (or maybe not at all), or up the cost of starting a corp to say 50mil.
Nyx Legion
#27 - 2013-03-05 20:51:53 UTC
Dissolved only happens when the last person leaves, so only required a CEO alt to leave in it.

If we're talking about locking more people than the CEO into a corp because of a wardec that's infinitely exploitable. I could lock an entire corp in for slightly more than 50m a week.

The band-aid solution is to have a war follow a player no matter what corp they go to if there were in the corp at the time of a dec. It's fairly inelegant and CCP has stated that they'd prefer to not have killability follow individuals because that's one of the reasons they got away from the previous crimewatch system. (There they were talking about complex chains of who could shoot who in agression flagging situations, so maybe they'd be okay with this, but you never know.)

The method I'd strongly prefer is some sort of investment the corp makes, whether that me parts fed into a structure or 'contracts' that the corp could buy that an individual would also have to buy into (at a much smaller amount). Individual invested monies would be lost if a character dropped corp and corp invested monies would be lost if it dissolved. This would also be the vehicle by which PC corps would be mechanically better than NPC corps.

That's just my thoughts on the matter and I'm not a developer, but in the NPC-corps-are-interaction-killers there's a couple of easy pitfalls that need to be avoided to come up with a good system.
Goonswarm Federation
#28 - 2013-03-05 21:21:49 UTC
A vote for Psychotic Monk is a vote for emergent gameplay.

This post was lovingly crafted by a member of the Goonwaffe Posting Cabal, proud member of the popular gay hookup site somethingawful.com, Spelling Bee, Grammar Gestapo & #1 Official Gevlon Goblin Fanclub member.

#29 - 2013-03-05 21:23:20 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:

If we're talking about locking more people than the CEO into a corp because of a wardec that's infinitely exploitable. I could lock an entire corp in for slightly more than 50m a week.


I was thinking more along the lines of a 7 day lock from the declaration of of the wardec, that's long enough to have an effect on the one man corps, but I certainly agree that it shouldn't be indefinite. Coupled with a higher tax rate on NPC corps I feel it would balance the risk more fairly and be easy for CCP to implement as the code is already in place (only tax rate and timers to change).

Psychotic Monk wrote:

The method I'd strongly prefer is some sort of investment the corp makes, whether that me parts fed into a structure or 'contracts' that the corp could buy that an individual would also have to buy into (at a much smaller amount). Individual invested monies would be lost if a character dropped corp and corp invested monies would be lost if it dissolved. This would also be the vehicle by which PC corps would be mechanically better than NPC corps.


Yes I'd be quite happy with this approach. It would obviously need some tweaking to get the balance right but certainly has potential
Nyx Legion
#30 - 2013-03-05 21:26:24 UTC
Dyvim Slorm wrote:
Psychotic Monk wrote:

If we're talking about locking more people than the CEO into a corp because of a wardec that's infinitely exploitable. I could lock an entire corp in for slightly more than 50m a week.


I was thinking more along the lines of a 7 day lock from the declaration of of the wardec, that's long enough to have an effect on the one man corps, but I certainly agree that it shouldn't be indefinite. Coupled with a higher tax rate on NPC corps I feel it would balance the risk more fairly and be easy for CCP to implement as the code is already in place (only tax rate and timers to change).


Sure, but then, on the sixth day I just have to declare with a new corp. Or even if they make it non-overlapping, I can redec almost immediatly after the dec fell off anyone wanting to leave would have to race me to the login screen in order to get out. For people who need to sleep and have jobs, that's just not feasible.
#31 - 2013-03-05 21:29:59 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:

Sure, but then, on the sixth day I just have to declare with a new corp. Or even if they make it non-overlapping, I can redec almost immediatly after the dec fell off anyone wanting to leave would have to race me to the login screen in order to get out. For people who need to sleep and have jobs, that's just not feasible.


So just have the first wardec count and a day or two of peace before a further wardec caused a lock in to stop overlap or back to back exploits.
#32 - 2013-03-06 02:01:15 UTC
I support Psychotic Monk, because as a newer player, my industrial alliance was wardecced by them, and we were brought somewhat forcefully into the world of PvP. I can't really describe what happened, but the atmosphere they created for us has now lead me to choose a more exciting life, and I thank him for it.

You have my vote Mr. Monk.
Nyx Legion
#33 - 2013-03-06 02:06:18 UTC
I love that. That's the best result to me murdering your corp. <3
Shadow Cartel
#34 - 2013-03-06 03:43:16 UTC
Do you like the war-dec system as it currently stands? What changes would you make to it, if any, if you had the power to do so? In particular, what did you think of the discussion in the CSM Summit Minutes about how in a typical war-dec, often neither side gets anything out of it because:
* the aggressor doesn't get any fights because the aggressed never undocks; and,
* the aggressed don't feel they can win because they are wildly outmatched in terms of ships, skill, and experience?

What do you think of James 315's proposals with regard to high-sec (found here). Do you support them in part or in full? If only in part, which ones?

Which member of CSM7 do you feel is doing the best job? If your answer is "Alek", who is doing the second best?

In your view, what is the most expensive hull a single player with a single account should be able to suicide gank? What ship should be needed to gank that target?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Soviet-Union
#35 - 2013-03-06 05:26:36 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:


In your view, what is the most expensive hull a single player with a single account should be able to suicide gank? What ship should be needed to gank that target?


Very sorta open question that somewhat like asking what the best ship in eve is there are so many variables to prove this I will go to the extreme

A single player in a 0.5 sec system with a 1400 fit macharial would be able to take out basically anything but on a similar note a 720 fit rupture may get lucky in a 0.9 sec system and alpha an unhardened tengu

It also doesn't take into account fitting or content I could fill a badger to the brim with plex and fit it with inactivated meta 14 invuls and take it out with a thrasher.

None the less to give the most sensible answer to your question lets take a t3 in a 0.5 sec system I think it shouldnt be able to take out much more than a faction cruiser or maybe a lightly tanked bc maybe even less all to promote working together something that people in highsec are doing less and less of which further supports monks ideals of making highsec in eve a place where people have to actually work with other people and not just play FarmVille with spaceships
Nyx Legion
#36 - 2013-03-06 07:09:42 UTC
Ripard:

1)

I feel wars are less broken now then that had been for the six monthes previous to Retribution, but that's not saying a great deal. All that means is that they are somewhat workable now, as opposed to absolutly worthless as they were in the era of dec scraping. The biggest problem I see right now is people dropping from wars or dissolving a corp to avoid a wardec.

If I had a magic wand, wars would follow players even if they dropped corp. If that wasn't possible I would refund for dropped targets, as CCP has explicitly stated that we pay per target.

Those are just bandaids, though. There are two more important factors that figure into drops: Firstly, if your goal in highsec is to make as much money through grinding as possible, the correct and safest choice is to be in an NPC corp or one-man alt corp, which is something I feel needs to change. If you read a little further back in the thread you'll see a couple ideas for that. Secondly, I feel that people drop because the meta of t1 ships being awesome has not filtered down to them. They expect to lose and they expect those losses to cost them a ton of money. The cruiser rebalance (especially the t1 logi) gives them a way to leverage their numbers to kick the **** out of the usually numerically inferior agressors and only risk a very small amount of isk to do so. I think they just havn't gotten the memo yet.

2)

In regards to James' proposals, I don't feel that on the whole highsec PvE needs a nerf. It might benifit from a bit of a nerf around level 4s and incursions, but not by much. In fact, I feel that the lowest level PvE needs a payout buff. Level 1 and Level 2 missions don't give newbs the money to go do something stupid and lose some frigs or dessies. They really are scraping together almost non-existent amounts of money and if they lose a boat in their first weeks it can be game-crushingly devestating for their wallets.

I *do* want to see the situational awareness required to be safe somewhat increased. I want those that have learned the mechanics of their chosen part of space to be rewarded over those that choose ignorance. That means that nerfs to interactive gameplay put in place because people brought their life-in-a-bubble mindset with them from other games needs to stop. Player skill in this game needs to be rewarded, not punished for fear that someone might lose something due to ignorance or narrow view.

3)

I feel Two Step did super well in this CSM term. We were given every impression that a POS revamp would happen. When CCP pulled it away at the last moment Two Step, whose constituents are the ones most effected by POSs made a big ******* scene about it, which is exactly what he should have done. He made sure he was speaking for the people that elected him and he wasn't just meekly rolling over to every bit of information handed to him.

4)

I don't feel that's quite the correct question. You're likely trying to indirectly ask if I feel that an exhumer should be gankable by a solo catalyst. I think that any ship sitting still with absolutely no tank and no situational awareness should be fairly easy to gank. So, a completely naked exhumer should be killable by a max skill cata pilot, yes. And so should a completely naked eagle or a completely naked muninn.

Safety is something you should get yourself, rather than having it handed to you. If a player is foolish enough to fit nothing on their boat and sit in a 0.5, far from their keyboard, I feel that suicide ganking should be a threat to them in anything smaller than a battleship, and not just by one of the very few most talented suicide gankers in the game.

If a player fits a tank or operates in such a way that they're likely to avoid suicide gank, then I think think their level of safety should be fairly high.

Shadow Cartel
#37 - 2013-03-06 07:49:53 UTC
Right on. I agree with you in nearly all particulars. Thumbs up from me.

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Goonswarm Federation
#38 - 2013-03-06 08:48:37 UTC
<3 your blog jester apart from you didn't put my naked chimera kill as kill of the week :(

ಠ_ರೃ

Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-03-06 08:58:07 UTC
A year ago, Psychotic Monk wrote:

"Too bad clever dudes aren't rewarded for their cleverness in this game."

He understands CCP. Perhaps he can change their thinking.
The Initiative.
#40 - 2013-03-06 18:43:53 UTC
Greetings, Mr Monk!

What are your feelings about the hi sec manifesto I wrote? Are there any themes or assumptions that you'd take issue with?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

11 PagesPrevious page1234Next pageLast page
Forum Jump