Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
11 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
 

Psychotic Monk for CSM

First post
Author
#41 - 2013-03-06 19:32:42 UTC
Malcanis, the specific suggestions of your manifesto are good ones, on the whole.

That said, you paint a picture of highsec that is largely a transitional place or a home for people who can't hack it elsewhere. My friends and I choose highsec because we enjoy the kind of play it offers. We feel that there's some excellent engaging play to be had and I think there can be much more. The highsec you propose is still one where the majority of players plod through the CCP-given content, glassy eyed and unaware of their surroundings, barring some proposed deadspace pockets.

So while I would support all of the suggestions you make, I don't feel that any of them help create an environment where people are interested in their surrounds, are rewarded for player skill (rather than character skill) and are engaged in their community. I'm looking for something that's a little less Mall of America and a little more Illegal Arms Bazaar.
Minmatar Republic
#42 - 2013-03-06 20:39:09 UTC  |  Edited by: High Sec Dan
Psychotic Monk, what do you think of Ripard Teg's ISK tanking proposals? Specifically, Ripards suggestion that it should cost more to gank expensive ships than it currently does. To what extent should ISK determine a pilots PvP capabilities?

We've all heard the stories about ridiculously expensive ships being brought down with guile and ingenuity, such as this 12b ISK Scorpion, killed with t2 equipment costing a fraction of the victims ship. Should this be eliminated from EVE in favor of Ripards idea of providing ISK armor to the wealthy?

To focus the question even more in light of your previous statements in this thread, let's assume that two pilots have similar situational awareness and neither fits horribly. Should the more expensive one be at a significant advantage as Ripard suggests?
#43 - 2013-03-06 21:22:31 UTC
I don't think ISK tanking should be a thing in the slightest. The vast majority of your success should (and currently does) rely on pilot skill, either by being a better combatant in space, having a better support system, or arranging a situation that's to your advantage. SP and equipment should account for something like 20-30% of your success.

I will note here that I'm counting the fit mostly as player skill. Building a good fit and bringing the right tool for the job is much more important than if that fit is shiny or not.

The price of the ship simply represents the intersection of the demand for that ship and the supply for that ship. The demand is based in part on the performance, not the other way around. If a ship gets more expensive for whatever reason that doesn't mean it's stats should be adjusted upwards.

In short, your safety should be something you do, not something you buy.



Additionally, and at a slight tangent, one of my favourite things in the whole world is watching a newbie who's gone through the trouble to acquire the knowledge, support system or correct situation slap around a player several times their senior who felt they were safe simply by virtue of their age, ship or money. It makes my heart positively sing that newbros can start enjoying the life and outwitting opponents using nothing more than a bit of rope and a big ******* rock.

Isk tanking would take that away.

(Edit: I feel I rambled a bit there. My apologies.)
Minmatar Republic
#44 - 2013-03-06 21:37:56 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
(Edit: I feel I rambled a bit there. My apologies.)


Not at all, your response was pretty sharp and actually gave me hope for better fights if your ideas are heard.
#45 - 2013-03-07 07:42:49 UTC
Torn between voting for you or James 315.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Sabriz's Rule: "Any time someone argues for a game change claiming it is a quality of life change, the change is actually a game balance change".

Caldari State
#46 - 2013-03-07 07:45:51 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Torn between voting for you or James 315.


Why not both? You get to make a list this time of your top 14. You can rank them in the order that you want them too.
Gallente Federation
#47 - 2013-03-07 21:22:56 UTC
What is your stance on AFK skill training?
#48 - 2013-03-07 23:28:36 UTC
It's absolutly fine as it is. This isn't a game centered around grinding and the SP and equipment account for only a very small factor in your success.
#49 - 2013-03-08 06:53:41 UTC
I find your candidacy interesting because part of the reason I started playing Eve was because of people like you. It's hard for me to imagine me emulating your play style or joining a corp that does what yours does, but I DO like the idea of having people like you in the game world so I have to watch my back. It makes even the more banal aspects of the game more interesting.

Rambling aside, I have two questions for you.

You've mentioned having Wardecs follow players who drop Player Corps for NPC Corp safety. On paper, the idea seems appealing in that you don't let people "chicken out" for lack of a better phrase. On the other hand you may find yourself in a situation like the one my main is in. (All apologies for the alt, but I can't afford to be burning any bridges.) Our corp has been under wardec for a lengthy period of time now from a small but highly skilled merc. corp. They have been ruthlessly efficient in their work and my alliance seems unwilling or unable to deal with the problem. If, out of frustration, I was to drop corp despite suggesting counter measures or possible alternatives to total inaction and the wardec followed me, I would effectively be punished for their incompetent leadership. Do you believe such an outcome would be acceptable? After all, I made the (potentially) poor decision to join the corp in the first place. On the other hand how is a new player to know, right off the bat, if leadership is on the ball about handling wardecs?

Second question somewhat pertains to the first. I read your blog a bit, along with the blogs of several other candidates and I notice a common theme. All of you have multiple accounts, neutral sets of eyes to run intel / logi, and numerous other assets at your disposal that make the execution of your various real and hypothetical schemes viable. The group wardeccing my corp, I'm sure, has eyes inside our Alliance and neutral alts watching systems we are known to frequent. Many, if not all of you, imply that in order to get the most out of Eve, that's the way it has to be played. This, to me, seems unrealistic for many players. Do you feel that this constitutes an acceptable advantage on the part of players like you vs. more casual players? Or, to put it another way, do you feel as though a player should be able to get a great deal out of Eve without having to play six characters across two accounts with all the investment that entails?

Incidentally, you probably have my vote regardless. I think you appreciate Eve for what it is and your reading comprehension and communication skills seem to be considerably better than some of the other candidates.
#50 - 2013-03-08 08:23:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Psychotic Monk
Ariadne, those are super good questions.

1) This one has a couple layers to it. Firstly, I'd like to state the idea of a dec following individual as the best possible solution, but it's one of the best around at the moment, so I'll defend it as such. If anyone has a better one, I'd love to hear it.

A dec following a character would, if I had a magic wand, last for seven days or until the war dropped, exactly like the timer to rejoin a corp at war currently does. This way an aggressor gets what he paid for and the defenders aren't locked into something without even the option to leave. However, that's the short-term effect. A while ago I put up a forum post ranting against terrible CEOs feeling that having a corporation was their right despite the fact that their poor leadership was poisoning our newbies by filling them with fear and ignorance. That's one of the reasons that I do what I do in game, hoping that terrible corps either crack under the pressure or find a hidden reserve of excellence.

In my hopes and dreams, highsec would have far fewer corps that have much more organization at the top, guiding and protecting their newbies and also interfering with each others business as they saw fit. The way to do this is to kill the weak corps until a corp can no longer leave their members out in the cold and dressed in filthy rags and still expect to survive. CCP seems to think instead the ignorant and badly organized should be protected as a 'play style' rather than letting them lose for the greater health of the game.

This is the same line of reasoning that would cause CCP to prefer those in nullsec being disorganized or without material support of some kind were it applied to nullsec.

2) Yes, you gain immense advantage from having alts in this game. And you gain some amount from having better equipment. But these are roles that can be more than made up for by having friends. All else being equal, two t1 cruisers are most often better than one t2 cruiser. (Except for Falcon, that ************.) While it is advantageous to have alts, having actual dedicated human beings filling those roles is better.

The second part of this question is do I think a player should be able to get a lot out of this game without very much invested in it. The awnser is a qualified yes. When properly supported a new or casual player can get a great deal out of this game. The way Goons treat their newbees and line members is a great example of this. They're taken in, given several great sources of information, both static (their wiki) and live (their mentorship programs and jabber channels) and are handed the things they need to get ahead without undue grinding. A newbie's first Noctis is pretty commonly free. And past that stage, they're given a communication system so that even if they don't want to do anything else they know when they can log in for an hour or two in fleet, or whatever.

Or there's a parallel in my own work. I'm fairly experienced at what I do, but I can invest an hour or so and find several ways to get a kill or steal something. It won't be something large, but then I only spent an hour doing it . This can be done solo or with one or two friends and, more importantly I can take a one-day-old player and lead them as they do it, too. Our systems aren't as sophisticated as goon systems, but the effect is the same.

So yes, a single player with minimal investment should be able to have a fulfilling play experience, but that's best achieved with the guidance and support of competent leadership or a system that serves that role.
#51 - 2013-03-08 08:48:33 UTC
Psychotic Monk wrote:
In my hopes and dreams, highsec would have far fewer corps that have much more organization at the top, guiding and protecting their newbies and also interfering with each others business as they saw fit. The way to do this is to kill the weak corps until a corp can no longer leave their members out in the cold and dressed in filthy rags and still expect to survive. CCP seems to think instead the ignorant and badly organized should be protected as a 'play style' rather than letting them lose for the greater health of the game.


And that's the million dollar question in this election isn't it? Improve quality of the game play experience by "forcing" bad leaders from the roles and inexperienced players into PvP OR letting it slide so as to minimize rage quits and lost revenue. I'm inclined to side with Ripard Teng's observation that if a survival of the fittest mentality was either implemented or returned (I haven't been playing long enough to know) people wouldn't HTFU, they'd quit and play Star Trek online or something else. By definition, I suppose that would improve the quality of players remaining but I honestly wonder how many people would accept a "safer" or status quo Highsec if it meant more and better improvements to other parts of the game. Regardless, I want someone who can articulate the arguments with nuance and clarity and I think you fit the bill. You'll have a few of my votes at least. Thanks for your time.
#52 - 2013-03-08 09:08:44 UTC
Ah! This is a favourite topic of mine.

But first a slight correction. You say that one side of this question has players being forced into pvp (and I assume what you mean here is the pew pew ship combat sense of the term.) That's incorrect. The one side has players forced to protect themselves or find some sort of mechanism to protect them. If that means keeping a sharp eye on your intel tools and a finger near the warp button then that's good. If that means shooting other ships in space, that's also wonderful. If that means joining a corporation that protects you then I'm super glad you're actually getting some value out of your corporation. By no means should actually getting into a combat boat be your only option, but protection should be something that you or someone looking out for you does, rather than something you simply get to have.

That correction aside, I tend to equate the money through large subs vs. character of the game to the arguement between McDonalds and a high-quality intimate resturaunt. Eve was not built as a Skinner's Box, meant to give you small sense of accomplishment at regular enough intervals to keep you playing. Eve is a contact sport for your brain, meant to cater to a specific audience. You could argue to the owner of a fine resturaunt that he would make more money if he opened a McDonalds, but that's not why he opened his resturaunt. If he wanted a ton of money there's many better ways to do that. He has a specific feeling and a specific clientele and a specific menu in mind. His client-base isn't as large as McDonalds, but the clients he wants wouldn't go to McDonalds anyways. Showing up there and expecting a Big Mac is absurd and even if he did retool to serve those customers he'd make a ****** imitation of McDonalds, if that's even possible.

Caldari State
#53 - 2013-03-08 09:26:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Jensaro Koraka
I want to vote for you or James, but I can't decide. Would the two of you be willing to decide this in single combat?

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H.L. Mencken

#54 - 2013-03-08 09:32:55 UTC
That would be unwise. James often points out that he's invincible and it's a little known fact that I'm unstoppable. We best not tempt fate.

James is a fine human being doing important work, but if you're looking for a more interesting and interactive highsec you should read his platform again. The changes he's proposing are stated to be in order to drive people to lowsec and nullsec. I instead feel that there can be engaging and challenging gameplay here in highsec if only the players were treated as adults and allowed to interfere in each other's gameplay.

While the most general direction is the same between us, both the destination and the course are quite different.

Also, I have a monocle and he doesn't.
Caldari State
#55 - 2013-03-08 09:43:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Jensaro Koraka
Psychotic Monk wrote:
That would be unwise. James often points out that he's invincible and it's a little known fact that I'm unstoppable. We best not tempt fate.

James is a fine human being doing important work, but if you're looking for a more interesting and interactive highsec you should read his platform again. The changes he's proposing are stated to be in order to drive people to lowsec and nullsec. I instead feel that there can be engaging and challenging gameplay here in highsec if only the players were treated as adults and allowed to interfere in each other's gameplay.

While the most general direction is the same between us, both the destination and the course are quite different.

Also, I have a monocle and he doesn't.

Your cowardice, misunderstanding of James' position, and irresponsibility with money are noted. James has my vote.

"Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats." -H.L. Mencken

Minmatar Republic
#56 - 2013-03-08 09:47:08 UTC
Should James 315's platform be realized, there is no reason why all the interesting things you allude to wouldn't follow people into low and null. It's certainly not the Concord that keeps the fun in high sec.
Gallente Federation
#57 - 2013-03-08 11:47:57 UTC
Interesting.

Lots of good candidates this time. My two top votes will go to mynnna and Malcanis, but Monk isn't too far behind. Anyone who wants to slow EVEs current trend towards becoming more safe, more themepark, more AFK-friendly is a good man.

My siren's name is Brick and she is the prettiest.

#58 - 2013-03-08 12:28:46 UTC
I agree with most of your points, Mr. Monk, but, I'd like to throw a question at you re: wardecs following individuals.

How would you feel about some sort of "escape valve" allowing an individual to extract themselves from a corp wardec? Being a continual target that can't fight back does suck, and it would be a real morale killer for some.

A hypothetical example of what I am speaking of:

Corp gets wardecced. Individual can drop corp, and have a guaranteed 7 day end, or individual can suspend skill training for a week, to end being "target listed" instantly.

That may or may not be a good idea, but I think it gets my idea across. There should be a way to get off the target list instantly, but it should involve a hefty cost to the person using it.

Thanks in advance for your time, and good luck on the CSM bid.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide

Kane Alvo
#59 - 2013-03-08 15:55:45 UTC
I'm endorsing Psychotic Monk for CSM8, and will be amending my forum signature to link to this thread upon completion of this post.

I've spent a great deal of time reading the various platforms, investing more hours than I'd care to admit. There is a unifying theme to most of those platforms, and that is calling for CCP to make fundamental changes to the game in favor of their preferred play style or cater to the needs of special interest groups.

Psychotic Monk is a candidate advocating for more of what should be prevalent in a sandbox MMO: player-generated content. Emergent and interactive gameplay is one of the things that makes Eve Online unique, and it should be nurtured and encouraged.

I am not a pirate. I play in low sec where they are a constant threat and nuisance, often more so than war targets. As a former high sec carebear, I can honestly say that the week I have spent in faction warfare has been 10x more fun than the 2 months I spent running missions and attempting industry in a risk averse corp. In large part due to my new surroundings and the ever present danger presented by those who have chosen to engage with their fellow players instead of NPCs.

Caldari Militia  ☜★☞ Psychotic Monk for CSM8

#60 - 2013-03-08 19:20:16 UTC
High Sec Dan wrote:
Should James 315's platform be realized, there is no reason why all the interesting things you allude to wouldn't follow people into low and null. It's certainly not the Concord that keeps the fun in high sec.


There can be and frequently is interesting gameplay outside of highsec, yes. But there also can be interesting and engaging gameplay inside of highsec, too. Each area of space has a particular flavour, and gutting one area of space and destroying its flavour of gameplay in favour of another isn't the answer.

In my work, people do occasionally find that they aren't tough enough for a highsec where people can find ways to shoot them and they leave for nullsec or wormholes, so I'm sure I'm driving content in those directions, but losing all content in highsec because it's been made into the starter area that some people actually think it is destroys that flavour as surely as no one being able to shoot anyone else does.

Let me be clear. I do believe that the top end of earning potential in highsec should probably be nerfed, and the correct solution for a nullsec industry buff may (but not neccesarily) require a highsec industry nerf. I don't feel that highsec should be made smaller or that concord should be removed or that level 4 and level 3 missions should be moved to nullsec entirely.
11 PagesPrevious page12345Next pageLast page
Forum Jump