EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2007-09-22 23:05
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-09-29 15:11
  • Number of Posts: 136
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 169

Jin'taan

Security Status -0.7
  • Pentag Blade Member since
  • Curatores Veritatis Alliance Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Today is the last day for you to possibly vote in the CSM election, so I hope that you'll consider me for your ballot. Either way, I hope you do find someone who you feel will represent you to CCP and vote accordingly.

  • Time for the CSM to be Old Yellered in Council of Stellar Management

    Social Injustice Warrior wrote:
    Agreed, Eve is more enjoyable with friends. Your comment about how you can completely ignore me is amusing to me. It also exposes the CSM agenda. To be in charge of something. Sir, I do not pay you to improve my EVE experience. Your statement that CSM has been pushing EVE ONLINE for more PVE is fascinating. Missions are usually done solo. The CSM cannot stand solo players. IT basically eliminates the power they crave. I cannot help but think CCP was not distracted by the CSM CCP would have time to create more missions. Perhaps even some kind of randomizer to make them more challenging.

    At the end of the day less than 20% of the players vote! Clearly for all the whooey about the CSM most rank and file EVE players want to ignore you as much as me. I have learned in REAL LIFE if you want to get a business attention you vote with your gold! Remove the gold and I promise you the business will make changes to bring you back. I still think real game designing professionals have a better chance at fixing EVE then a bunch of self agenda driven well meaning amateurs.

    My only real suggestion is put the concept of the CSM up to a vote from the GOLD paying customers? If the results are to continue with the CSM so be it. I am ok with majority rule! I just think most will vote to cancel the CSM lower the financial pressure on CCP. In my real life workplace I have always found asking the customer directly what is wrong is more revealing then the loudest mouth screaming about their opinion of what is wrong.


    So, your argument is that because we raise issues that the playerbase in general has with existing mechanics to the people who own those mechanics and work on it, these people (who are not PvE designers) can't make PvE content that they can't produce anyway, and as such we're reducing the amount of fun that those who are in your playstyle can have?

    At the end of the day, we are not game designers, never have been, never will be, and don't intend to be. We bring feedback to CCP that we hear from all players. In fact, I held a PvE Townhall specifically to bring PvE related concerns to the PvE teams in CCP.

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
    07 Candidate!

    First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

    I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

    By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

    So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

    As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

    Regards,
    Cochise Chiricahua.


    First of all, as you might have seen, I ran a Highsec ganking roundtable and am familliar with the concerns of both sides. I think that right now perma-bumping is the most degenerate part of that mechanic, as it is the definition of gamebreaking (the only way to counter a bumper is with another bumper). However, bumping in and of itself is a needed mechanic, as it gives a way for the actual interaction to take place. As such I've talked to Fozzie about the idea he presented last fanfest (of ships entering warp after a given amount of time spent bumping off things) in detail, understanding how it might be implemented and what issues it would present in other areas of the game.

    I think that the idea you've presented would make logical in-universe sense, however given the way that the mechanics of EvE function with regards to Crimewatch, that would be hillariously difficult to implement, as the flag is given by the action of looting, not the cargo itself. In addition to this, the CSM is not a junior game development, and whilst yes we could champion an idea, CCP is very, very unlikely to actually implement it. And I can say that from having made that mistake in my current term. So, no, I wouldn't push it. However I have been willing to talk to both sides this term and discuss what their main issues are and how they operate so that if CCP wants to know about how either side works and what they do, or if I spot an opportunity to touch on a QoL benefit for either side, I'll take it.

    At the end of the day, it's difficult to make ganking 'dangerous' as it's a mathematically solved problem without the interaction with players that the Hisec Militia provides, or introducing some form of hard RNG into the game (which I find to be inherently un-EVE). I find many people use it as an obfuscating term for making ganking 'harder' as they feel it's too easy, and perhaps that's a valid stance, but I dislike the way it's presented in that manner. I - and both the gankers and anti-gankers I've talked to - feel that introducing more room for interaction on the ganker and anti-ganker side would improve the overall experience for both sides of the law, and the potential victim. Still, I'm always open for reasoned discussion here, so feel free to present any counter-arguments you have :)

  • Time for the CSM to be Old Yellered in Council of Stellar Management

    Social Injustice Warrior wrote:
    Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
    Given that CSM input was most certainly listened to in regards to citadels/ECs and the mining changes I think they are most certainly still quite useful. Citadels have been probably the biggest change to the game in recent years and have opened up all sorts of new gameplay possibilities and content generation, the mining changes have also been a major source of content (usually in the form of shiny Rorqual killmails :) )



    Bingo, you just showed exactly why the CSM does not need to exist. The CSM paved to way to promote a certain type of game style. PVP is wonderful. But so is mining and missioning. PVP should of course sometime be non consensual. War declarations, ganking and other issues. But now EVE via the CSM has decided to give a competitive advantage to larger players and group play beyond market forces. As the EVE subscription numbers continue to freefall I understand EVE ONLINE'S desperate bid to retain and recruit players.

    EVE ONLINE needs professional management . EVE ONLINE does not need a bunch of well meaning amateurs getting in the way. EVE needs to build new missions, new stories that promote fantasy and enjoyment. Creating and to promote player bosses to pay homage too ( CSM members) does not encourage working people to want to check out EVE. Let me boiled it down some more. Most people log on EVE ONLINE to escape their boss infested lives! Now I forced to join up with a large group so I have a fighting chance to enjoy EVE???? So then new plaers can be BOSSSED around by 20 something ???? Are you seriously??? You want people to pay to bossed around????

    I have multiple industrial toons that have now been exposed as suckers. Really glad I spent all that time just to watch it all be snipped away by the CSM. The subscription numbers have shown I am not alone as people terminal log off forever.

    I call upon EVE ONLINE to take charge and rebuild their product. New missions, new ships and new objectives are far more needed then worrying about entertaining the CSM !!!! I call upon EVE ONLINE to take the entire CSM concept to the players. I would vote if an option would be NO MORE CSM!!!! The CSM was created in response to a player called Klugsman cheating with a CCP employee. Klugsman clearly wanted an advantage just like the CSM!

    Clear away the old guard and put the individual player and give the creative juices of CCP that created EVE back in charge.


    It is managed by CCP. We just advise on changes regarding certain things, for example the way rigs/tax operate on Engineering Complexes, rather than saying "CCP you need to do Engineering Complexes this way". If you'd like to actively point out ways in which something that is negatively impacting your game experience, you're welcome to elaborate on them and provide actual constructive feedback.

    Or you can just post with massive amounts of superfluous exclamation marks and question marks and engage in the lowest form of outrage sophistry that you can muster and I'll completely ignore you.


    Also, we have advised about PvE in general as well, in fact if you had bothered to read the minutes from the first summit, you'd have noted that social/group PvE was top of all of our lists for things we felt needed to be improved or added to the game, as we feel being able to make money with your friends is a key point that has been missing in EvE for a long time.

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Thank you all for your kind words and recommendations, and hopefully your votes as well. If you have any further questions, let me know, I'd be happy to answer them. Also, I just put out CSM XI's last Quarterly Review, which contains some of the thoughts of us on both the past term, and the ongoing election. I'm also happy that the CSM Podcast, hosted by Apothne, has been able to hit it's stride this time with third episode up. I really hope we're able to continue this into the CSM 12 term :)

  • CSM Weekly Review & Attendance Sheet in Council of Stellar Management

    CSM XI Quarterly Review 3 - December to Febuary is also up!

  • CSM Weekly Review & Attendance Sheet in Council of Stellar Management

    Weeks 40 & 41 Summary Up!

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    Hello Jin'taan,

    We had a small discussion about Faction standings in my Assembly Hall proposal :
    Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions.

    Now I'm not going to ask if you actually conversed with CCP about it nor do I want to know the outcome of that discussion if in fact you actually did bring it to their attention.

    My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

    Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


    DMC


    I quite enjoyed the discussion we had there, and hope that you felt it was as productive as I did, even though our overall assesment of the issues didn't really align in that circumstance. At the end of the day I believe that the fact that your plan exists is a symptom of the overarching problem with standings, in that they are incredibly complex and unintuitive to the average player, as they're not communicated particularly well in both terms of how they work, and the consequences of lowering them.

    I wouldn't propose any changes directly, as I don't think that's a good way to talk to CCP on a topic like this, however I have - as a result of you bringing it up - tried to discuss with CCP on what they feel the intent and value of the standings system is for the game, and how we can better utilize it for those aims.

    I know that's not the answer you're looking for, and that you're dissapointed nothing has been changed, but that's the reallity of the CSM and how it works. At the end of the day we're not CCP's boss and I think anyone who is going to try and tell you that they'll make CCP do something is not only wrong, but will actively hurt the CSM when they're on it. Our job is to give the community feedback on topics (as we have) and provide expert knowledge on subjects that CCP don't have the same depth of understanding that we do.

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    DeMichael Crimson wrote:
    Hello Jin'taan,

    We had a small discussion about Faction standings in my Assembly Hall proposal :
    Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions.

    Now I'm not going to ask if you actually conversed with CCP about it nor do I want to know the outcome of that discussion if in fact you actually did bring it to their attention.

    My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

    Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


    DMC

    Seems you're a bit indisposed at the moment to reply so I'll just post my rebuttal now.

    This game was based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences' which makes this game great. Currently the only way to repair negative Faction standings is to grind missions. It takes time for players to ruin Faction standings and it should take some time to repair those standings. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

    Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
    Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
    Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
    All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
    High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
    At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

    I think CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. I'd like to see more content pertaining to Faction standings be added to the game but at this time my inquiry is based more on the effects of negative Faction standings.

    I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase back in 2010. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in 'The Plan'. Most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life. A lot of players in-game don't even read the forums so they don't know that guide is available. In fact repairing negative Faction standings is a big task for experienced players. New players who haven't even learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings right from the start without even knowing it, resulting in no access to half of Empire space.

    Anyway these are some options I think would help players in-game.

    Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game to be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
    Changes to Faction standings notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
    Actions that would cause negative Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
    All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning to inform players those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
    Implement Tags for Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security.
    Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

    Once again good luck with the upcoming election.


    DMC


    Goddamnit, I was just typing up my response.

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    I've been lucky enough to catch both Ashterothi (from Crossing Zebras) and Matterall (from Imperium News Network). If you'd like to listen to some more casual discussion from me, take a listen!

  • CSM Weekly Review & Attendance Sheet in Council of Stellar Management

    Weeks 37-39 Up!

    Will be returning to a fortnightly schedule at this point.

  • Silly question about CSM summit in Iceland in Council of Stellar Management

    Steve Ronuken wrote:
    Knitram Relik wrote:
    Thanks for the detailed info. Obviously it's more work than play for the CSM. It's good to know that CCP pays for most of the expenses. I assume that if a CSM wanted to bring a guest that flight and extra cost would be on the CSM. I'm not planning on running for CSM anytime soon. I'm just more interested in it from an academic standpoint.



    Correct.

    Depending on the room, you can probably share with one person. (Every room I've been in was a double)


    Some of us end up using that second bed for wasted devs.

  • ☼ Sullen Decimus for CSM XII ☼ in Council of Stellar Management

    I cannot vouch for Sullen's efficacy as a CSM member enough. He has been a consistent hard worker, running discussions with industrialists on Capital Industrials from before we even knew they were going to be re-balanced as he saw problems with them and wanted a head-start on it. He's always been approachable, reasoned, and willing to converse on any point. I will be putting him high on my own ballot, and would recommend that you do as well.

  • Jin'taan for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    For those of you who are interested in how I see the CSM, I made a video here which I think sums it up nicely.

  • Suitonia for CSM XII in Council of Stellar Management

    Given your own aptitude and interest in balance as a candidate on the CSM, do you feel there are any other candidates who you feel serve the same areas or would compliment your efforts on the CSM? MrHyde last year had a large amount of his vote go to Exhausted (i.e not counted) after he was elected, and I feel that CSM 12 could do more with the raw mechanical knowledge that he and Gorski provided in CSM 11.

  • NDA and in game advantages to csm members. in Council of Stellar Management

    Tetsel wrote:

    Considering how CSM have low impact on Eve online evolution, I think CSM should be shutdown just because of that particular advantage CSM players have (cause we all know they are not leaking AT ALL)


    To the highlighted piece I would like to apply the adage which underpins the concept of rationality as a philosophy, simply as it is so appropriate in the circumstances - "What do you think you know, and how do you think you know it?"

    I would argue that the CSM has, in fact had a significant impact on the evolution of EvE Online, and whilst the best examples will likely only be heard about in 6 years when my NDA runs out, I can still point to ways in which the CSM has had a significant impact on the development of EvE Online in even the past term - without the fire and brimstone brought on by CSM 8 following the Summer of Rage;

    Alpha Clones Multiboxing - This was something that was brought into focus by the CSM during our initial talks with CCP, and as one can see from their initial devblog, they weren't certain as to how limited multiboxing would have to be for them. And, as my own article at the time attests, 1 Alpha + 1 Omega was a fairly common thing being bandied about. However, the CSM talked to CCP about their concerns that this would make multiboxing an Alpha the optimal - and therefore only - way to play, and highlighted specific areas where it would cause significant disruption to existing gameplay (Lowsec griffin alts, Hisec ganking) that would only benefit an older, more experienced player.

    The NPE - This was worked on as a collaboration from the very first drafts being shown to us at the first summit, followed up by in depth discussions and constant work to raise concerns and prevent 'bad habits' from creeping in. Since its release we've worked with the team to identify and raise points where the NPE is failing, or not teaching a lesson that is important, and generally gather as much feedback to them as possible - leading to a number of small iterative changes.

    Engineering Citadels (And Structures in general) - This is something I, personally didn't even input in, as I am not an expert in the field and felt my other compatriots could better explain the problems. But they pushed CCP to constantly iterate on the structure system, and fix many problem areas with it, such as the lack of insurance in citadels, or tethering not working to repair certain items, or cap not regenerating alá stations. In addition to that, they have worked tirelessly to bring the painpoints of EC's vs existing manufacturing facillities to CCP, with especial attention to smaller producers, as they're not easy for CCP to contact, nor are they particularly visible in CCP's overall stats. (P.s. poke Sullen Decimus & Steve Ronuken with feedback there).

    Pushing for more Balance Changes - This is something that's had relatively few tangible results so far, but this CSM has been in constant talks with CCP about what they (and their constituents) feel is a very slow rate of motion in terms of addressing problem ships in the meta, or reworking broken mechanics. But, the conversation was started with CCP, and I hope it continues into CSM 12, as we have reached the point of changing a few minds, especially given the current imbalance between the races of Alphas.

    I doubt any of this would change your mind, and perhaps the minimal advantage you highlighted there is greater than the value you assign to any of the work we do, and quite honestly I would love it if we could stop people from planning on the CSM as well, but I feel like the advantages we are able to give to the community outweigh that, at least from my own personal experience and beliefs.

  • NDA and in game advantages to csm members. in Council of Stellar Management

    Tetsel wrote:
    Jin'taan wrote:
    Tipa Riot wrote:
    You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.


    Yes, planning is allowed, but speculation is not. Equally, plans based around NDA information could not be shared, and any large post-reveal, alliance level action that had been pre-organised would be heavily frowned upon by CCP.


    Thx for confirming CSM should be shutdown, they have first hand intel we don't have, even if they don't share it with allymate (lol), they are ready.


    If, prior to a patch - where CCP releases information on what they will be patching as with the Rorqual, or moon mining - and you do not simply plan for every major possibility, leaving execution down to quick reading of the devblog and going on a predetermined course of action, you are doing speculation wrong as a market player.

  • NDA and in game advantages to csm members. in Council of Stellar Management

    Cearain wrote:
    Jin'taan I'm not sure I follow your point from CSM 5. No there were not many null sec entities on that csm. But there really wasn't much that impacted null sec either.


    CSM 5 was where they literally tried to remove Jump Bridges from the game IIRC. Perhaps I am thinking of CSM 4, but I am almost certain that was why CSM 6 was so incredibly Nullsec dominated.

    Cearain wrote:
    Do I think CSM gets a very unfair inside scoop that they use to their advantage? Yes CCP has kicked people for this, and CSM members have even admitted they took advantage. A current csm openly said he ran specifically so he could see ccps long range plans and plan accordingly for his coalition.

    Aryth:

    "What happens when you put the long term planner on the CSM and seeing the long term plans. Good things for us that's what."


    So I think the days of naively believing no one takes advantage should be long gone.


    That is a fair concern, and I wish there was some way to police that.

  • NDA and in game advantages to csm members. in Council of Stellar Management

    Tipa Riot wrote:
    You just proved the OP's point. CSM members are ready and allowed to act with plans long prepared at second first. Also, big power blocks send their representatives to CSM in order to claim an advantage, assuming else would be naive.


    Yes, planning is allowed, but speculation is not. Equally, plans based around NDA information could not be shared, and any large post-reveal, alliance level action that had been pre-organised would be heavily frowned upon by CCP.

    The primary reason big blocs send representatives - who very often burn out in the experience - is to ensure that the CSM isn't used as a blunt force object to push through things that are overwhelmingly harmful to nullsec. See CSM 5 for an example of when this wasn't a case, and the sudden rush from nullsec blocs to involve themselves in the CSM.

    I would suggest if you take exception to this however, to vote in the election for as many non-bloc candidates as you can, and rally support for them.

    (Also, I can tell you that I, personally, have nothing to do with our leadership. My primary reason for running is that I felt like NRDS and NPSI gameplay needed to be represented to CCP to ensure that NBSI wasn't simply presumed to be the be-all end-all of engagement doctrine.)

  • NDA and in game advantages to csm members. in Council of Stellar Management

    Cearain wrote:

    I wonder how anyone on csm can participate at all on any alliance level decisions if that is the case.


    You say nothing, and if anyone asks, you say "NDA". That's pretty much the blanket statement and execution from CCP on this regard. There are exceptions where - for example with regards to moon mining - one member is already so heavily involved in the market, them leaving said market would massively disrupt it. As such, they are told to freeze prices at the state they were in prior to any NDA discussion, and only allowed to react when the information is revealed to the general public.

    And, having talked to CCP's Security, the amount they can see and watch of you and your friends is terrifying.