EVE Forums

 
Capture Portrait
  • Date of Birth: 2008-03-22 16:20
  • First Forum Visit: 2011-10-10 14:48
  • Number of Posts: 988
  • Bounty: 0 ISK
  • Likes Received: 1,123

Retar Aveymone

Security Status -10.0
  • DJ's Retirement Fund Member since
  • Goonswarm Federation Member since

Last 20 Posts

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Le Mittani wrote:

    on the bright side it will end the cherry picking drama so thats good for you guys

    it's gonna make it way worse because if you're not going to be there in 5 hours why bother clearing out the garbage to respawn it :cripes:

    thanks for putting in those merx asteriods despite literally everyone telling you they should be removed ccp, you wrecked merx mining as a thing AND made ore anoms more annoying and stupid!

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    Francisco Belaqua wrote:
    CCP Fozzie wrote:
    Hey folks.
    Firstly, we are adding a respawn cooldown to all Asteroid Cluster anomalies. This cooldown scales based on the size of the anomaly:
    • 20 minutes for the Small Asteroid Cluster
    • 1 hour for the Medium Asteroid Cluster
    • 2 hours for the Large Asteroid Cluster variants
    • 4 hours for the Enormous Asteroid Cluster variants
    • 5 hours for the Colossal Asteroid Cluster variants


    Is this cool down timer from the time the anomaly last respawned or from the time that it was finished? Because the phrasing of "only affecting the tiny percentage of busiest systems" makes it sound like it only affects those colossal's that are mined out in 5 hours. If the timer is from the time it's finished, that affects every system in Null.

    he apparently confirmed on tweetfleet slack it's like ice: the timer starts when the belt is cleared

    i do not know how fozzie managed to rationalize in his head these delays that apply in every ore anom system affect only a tiny number of systems

    like, that's very obviously not true. now, if you clear a colossal belt, it's gone for 5 hours. no matter if you've mined only the last bits of that belt in the past 24 hours. no colossal for you for 5 hours. i don't know how he reasoned himself into claiming that only affects goonswarm systems.

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    have we had one rorq nerf every 1.25 months since they initially put them in or am i miscounting

  • [June] Nullsec Asteroid Cluster and Excavator Drone changes in EVE Technology and Research Center

    jump fatigue was such a hit, now it's time for mining fatigue!

  • Monthly Economic Report - April 2017 in EVE Information Center

    all lies

    there are no goons

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Retar Aveymone wrote:
    there is a thing very stupid people do, where they say x, then when that gets smashed, they say they never said x, they said y

    it doesn't work very well on forums where your dumbassery is there to quote

    how, precisely, do you think that null is less risky than highsec, which you already admitted is risk-free

    have we discovered the secrets of negative risk


    /sigh....anyone watching local chat in sov null will literally never get killed when PvE-ing. It's the safest place in the game to make ISK. In terms of risk, LS and WHs are the only places left in game that are actually challenging. Being in goons nearly made me quit the game given how easy/boring it was. I like a challenge, and to the topic at hand I don't like the idea of CSM getting a disproportional share in an area of space that's not challenging and easy.

    Next time you're in HS ask yourself if you know every person in local chat. If the answer is no, sov null is safer. Get rid of local in null and we're onto something.

    i got bored in goons and wanted a challenge, says the man who was actually in SMA, not goons, and then went to highsec

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    i know all about risk, said the man who whines that the region he lives in takes several seconds to automatically blow up anyone who shoots at him

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:
    Retar Aveymone wrote:
    you know, i think we've reached a breakthrough here

    yes, i definitely think we can all agree that highsec characters shouldn't vote. if your character hasn't spent 50% of its time in nullsec, it should be disenfranchised


    Null is safer than HS ATM. Why should they get a bigger share of the vote, given they are a minority of the players living in the safest part of the game? Good point though, 0.0 players who take no risk in game shouldn't be able to vote.

    Get rid of local in null so 0.0 has risk again and then we can talk, though.

    there is a thing very stupid people do, where they say x, then when that gets smashed, they say they never said x, they said y

    it doesn't work very well on forums where your dumbassery is there to quote

    how, precisely, do you think that null is less risky than highsec, which you already admitted is risk-free

    have we discovered the secrets of negative risk

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:

    What's stopping you from doing your shopping and production in null now? If you want to live in null, live in null. Take a few risks for once. Why are people in 0.0 always the ones who refuse to take any risk in game? That's our problem here.

    the game is specifically designed to require nullsec to trade in empire by making certain moon minerals regional and ice regional

    goonswarm, however, has (by far) the biggest market in nullsec

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Sonya Corvinus wrote:

    You're proving my point. There should be a consequence of you hiding your alts risk-free in HS. That is less CSM representation. You can't have your cake and eat it too. Remember when people in null took risks? I 'member.

    you know, i think we've reached a breakthrough here

    yes, i definitely think we can all agree that highsec characters shouldn't vote. if your character hasn't spent 50% of its time in nullsec, it should be disenfranchised

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    oiukhp Muvila wrote:

    I doubt your Hi Sec vision is shared by the majority of players.

    I've been on Goon comms enough times over the years as allied to know many of the half-baked ideas SomethingAwful has come up with, and they never have the welfare of the overall player-base in mind.

    The general theme has always been how to ruin the game experience for as many as possible outside your little anti-social clique as often as possible, with ultimate goal of a rage-quit.

    Your more Hi Sec'y incarnation by the name of CODE. has always been the vanguard of that effort. with its clever mission statement to mask its basic griefing objectives.

    Granted Eve Online has always had some of that element since launch, but emergent game-play that resulted in far more organization has resulted in what many consider to be cancer to the game.



    lets go to the tape

    hmm, goons have won ten times as many to infinity times as many seats as people whose primary platform is whining over ganking

    i guess it is shared by the majority of the players! thanks for playing, whiny npc alt, best of luck in your future endeavors

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:
    Frostys Virpio wrote:

    Nobody can represent the idiots who can't even be bothered to vote.


    Correct. This is not about people who do not vote. This is about people who vote and have a a playstyle that does not lend itself to the numbers game - see the long tail of first choices. Their groups and play styles do not have the organizational largess to effectively force the election of a candidate, yet the players themselves are, at least in my appraisal, part of the larger eve community, and if the CSM is to report the stated goal of representing the eve community, they should not be so systematically shut out of the process. They are.


    i am actually grateful that you are a walking, talking proof that pubbies who whine about the csm underrepresenting highsec literally have no idea how the voting system works

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:
    Querns wrote:
    Vic Jefferson wrote:
    When the community at large is composed of many smaller groups

    Have you considered that this isn't true?


    So, at least from the initial votes, there's a fairly huge tail of candidates that all get some votes, and a small group which gets a significantly larger share. The spread of the initial votes shows that these smaller communities exist, and that they do have representatives, and that together they represent a good deal of the community, simply that they aren't unified enough to vote as one homogeneous entity, because they aren't - that's not the EvE they play. Does that mean they aren't part of the community?

    Certainly when 'pubbies' aren't thought of part of the community, well, that pretty much speaks for itself.


    the spread of initial votes is fairly meaningless, man who has no idea how the system he is complaining about works

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:

    The stated goal of the CSM is to voice for the community. When the community at large is composed of many smaller groups, and a few very large groups, the current system does a very good job of depriving all the smaller groups of a voice, thus failing to accomplish the original goals - voice the community. I am not faulting the SVT system for being SVT, that's fine, I am saying SVT may not be the best choice here, as clearly the end result of each election is very skewed representation.

    it's STV, not SVT

    and this is, at its core, the WAHH I DIDNT GET ELECTED THIS MEANS THE VOTING SYSTEM IS BAD

    the waterfall of the votes are there for the past two elections. if your point had any validity, you'd be making it by reference to those waterfalls. it doesn't. its a dumb point you came up with because you don't understand the voting system and wanted to blame someone else for losing.

    the voting system doesn't skew representation. the representation reflects the electorate. you just don't want to believe that.

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Mr Mieyli wrote:
    Zanar Skwigelf wrote:
    When I was in charge I took the opposite approach. The event is going to be Wednesday at 7pm, and I don't care who is there. You have 3 days to get your **** together and free your schedule for it, and you choose your level of involvement.

    We were able to plan more events, and had stronger member showings at each event because only the people that wanted to be there would show up. No more dragging horses to water, just to watch them not drink.


    Taking this comparison back to eve in my view; your system would in fact be more like regular player surveys of the entire playerbase, where each player can choose the level of representation he gets, in the responses to the questions. Instead of the once a year scheduled CSM elections which involve research outside of simply playing the game.

    no actually, that is exactly the opposite of what he said

    you can choose to be part of the csm election or not, but stop whining if you choose not

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:

    Still comes down to playstyles that innately revolve around organizing mass numbers disenfranchising playstyles that do not. It's not really a question of non-voters vs voters, many people do vote for the candidates they think will best represent them, but due to the size of those niches, or the lack of centralization in those niches, the candidates have less chance of actually getting elected, as the vote for that niche ends up spread. Considering the CFC (Imperium) is more than twice the size by player number of the next biggest null bloc, it should come as no surprise they can stack the panel, versus what is probably a very flat distribution of lots of mom and pop, smaller corps which may vote for their 'local' candidate, thus ensuring their defeat.


    hi

    i'm going to suggest that when trying to whine about losing a csm election, you figure out how the voting process works. in fact, ccp explained it fairly simply, and the fact that you didn't understand it and also didn't research it does not speak highly of your abilities were you to make it onto the csm

    it was very obvious you had no clue how it worked given your graphs on the first page, but let's educate you and potentially the readers of this thread

    single transferable vote, STV, specifically solves these organizational problems with more diffuse representation. unlike first past the post, you do not vote for a single candidate, you vote for a ranked list of candidates.

    let us say you are Johnny WantstobeaBot. you just love highsec missioning. there are 8 different highsec candidates competing for your vote. but you don't know how popular any are! who do you vote for! you don't want to waste your vote!

    you vote for all of them. Your ballot, 1-8, has each of these bot-aspirant wannabe csmers, in the order you personally prefer them. now, it turns out that 1-6 are utterly unlikable, even for highseccers. is your vote wasted? no! as each of them is eliminated from the pool, your vote transfers according to your list. once unlikable highseccer #1 is eliminated, your vote transfers to unlikable highseccer #2. and through this process, those highsec votes all finally consolidate on one guy that they all like enough to get elected.

    now, if there are lots of highsec votes, the excess are not wasted either! imagine a world where there are many Johnny WantstobeaBots. they all love unlikable highseccer #1. there are twice as many Johnny Wantstobeabots as needed to elect unlikable highseccer #1. what happens? why, half those votes them fall down to unlikable highseccer #2, and he too gets elected.

    that is why the highly organized Goonswarm Federation, The Only People Who Bother To Look At How This Works, Apparently, all vote aryth #1, yet Innominate, who got fewer #1 votes than many illiterate vanity candidates, easily claimed a seat as well: our excess #1 votes flow down to Innominate.

    and this is why we know there are not a lot of Johnny Wantstobeabots flying around: because if they were, even though they all hate each other and don't work together, the magic of STV would do their organizing for them and get them representatives anyway

    i hope this has been edifying and that next time you try to run in an election you will take the thirty seconds to look up how the election even works

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Vic Jefferson wrote:
    Aryth probably got the highest number of votes. What does it say about the voting system when the top player representative calls most of the voters 'pubbies' and terrible ones at that? Clearly Aryth can afford to be completely realistic and cynical and the same time. I mean that's some bravado, but at the same time that should hint at how broken the system really is.

    it says that the system works, because it allows groups to elect representatives without needing broad approval, so similarly highsec pubbies can elect someone without needing to kiss the ring of the mighty goonswarm empire. you've just proven the complete opposite of the point you claim to be making. you did, of course, prove what your actual complaint is: you are very mad that better-respected people got elected and you didn't

    also are you ever going to explain what you think your idiot graph in the first post means

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Max Deveron wrote:

    LOL ok, either now you are backpedaling on theoretically discussing a theoretical topic, or as just a Director of Finance somebody higher than you told you to quit your lid. either way, unless you want to actually continue it, this troll discussion of a troll post has pretty much run its course i think.

    psst if you're trying to say you were only pretending to be an idiot you have to stop posting like an idiot once you reveal that you are, in fact, the puppetmaster and not a guy who ties his shoelaces together most mornings

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Cade Windstalker wrote:

    This is a kind of erroneous conclusion to come to and is based entirely on the conclusion that people will only vote for CSM candidates representing the area of space they most frequently play in.

    I personally don't think I've ever done this, I've voted for a WH candidate despite not being in WHs at the time. I've voted for various Null candidates belonging to various groups, none of which I was a member of, I've voted for Steve Ronuken despite not being a High Sec industrialist or having more than a causal interest in 3rd party development.

    There is absolutely no evidence that the CSM represents any kind of census of player distribution in the game or where those interests lie. Someone could probably write a couple of pages on the lack of statistical validity of using the CSM vote to draw such conclusions.

    The CSM process offers the strongest incentive to have all alts self-identify what playstyle they most favor. It is blatantly obvious in a game such as EVE that the location of the character is significantly less predictive. Certainly there are ways that the census properties of the CSM could be improved - but it is far and away better than any other metric. It is widely advertised and CCP seeks to get as many people as possible to participate. It has a tangible incentive not to lie: your responses are private and anonymized but have actual effects. And it goes to the person behind the character, so it avoids the trap mechanical measurements of where characters are, what their skills are, and what their frequent activities are where they miss the underlying reality.

    I have an npc freighter alt. It does nothing but autopilot packages from point a to point b in empire or, in rare cases, manually pilot them. I have nothing in common with a red frog guy though a mechanical review of the characters would show them as very similar. My NPC alt is simply part of my personal logistics chain, not how I play the game. A red frog's guy is how he plays the game. Many characters in highsec are simply bots that supply someone else: most stats won't tell the difference between someone's L4 missioning bot and some poor guy whose life is so terrible his leisure activity is running missions in empire (because if the stats could, the bot would be banned!).

    Highseccers have believed for a long time, in defiance of all reality, that they are the vast silent majority. They rail against the CSM because it shows that it's not true. There is no groundswell of people who run missions in highsec. There's no silent majority of people who actually love mining in empire without the wonderful player vs player interaction offered by CODE, Goonswarm, and other noble self-sacrificing EVE players who take the valuable time out of their day to venture into highsec to make it a little more exciting for everyone else. People begged for a more representative voting system, they got it, and huh, it turns out that that silent majority still isn't there. So despite the fact that STV is very well understood, used in real life, and its edge cases are well known garden-variety EVEO idiots continually spout as a postulate that it prevents highsec from getting representation, without the slightest attempt to explain why. It is taken as a given that because highsec gets little representation and nullsec lots, that the voting system is flawed: not that that's what the reality is.

    This highsec majority doesn't exist because most of the people who just play eve in highsec quit, because frankly EVE's pve is not very good and never has been. And people who like it despite how terrible it is are the very last people you want representing highsec. Hi, i'm the person who still likes highsec despite highsec driving away every normal person. I'm the person you should speak to about making it better, me, the crazy person who if i get what i want will only reinforce the things that make it terrible for normals. What this game needs is to appeal to people who want to roleplay as bots more, without any annoying interaction more difficult than someone with thirty seconds of coding experience can script a response to. Please eliminate anything like that like ganking, thanks.

  • The CSM – Council of Sov. Management. in EVE Communication Center

    Zarek Kree wrote:

    Just so that I'm clear, are you actually arguing that most players live in nullsec and that highsec is just where their alts hang out? I think you'd be hard pressed to support such a position with objective facts. But if you have some, I'd be interested in hearing them.

    I'm not suggesting that the CSM is some kind of a conspiracy. I think CCP instituted a perfectly reasonable voting system to get player representation. I think it does a reasonably good job. I'm simply arguing that it structurally disenfranchises a significant percentage of the player base and can be improved with minor modifications - specifically designating a handful of seats that are reserved for functional interests that are otherwise not represented because they aren't as organized as the nullsec alliances. That's hardly an irrational or unreasonable view.

    That's what the voting data shows. Nullsec people keep winning, in the one test where people are incentivized to select the person or playstile they most identify with. Where an alt happens to be does not.

    There is no structural disadvantage null has. You do not need organization to vote in STV. That's a myth people keep spouting because its either that, or admit reality. People take as their base assumption most people are highseccers, but the vote totals keep not bearing that out, so they assume the vote totals are wrong. But voting systems are very well studied and understood. There is no silent majority of highseccers. You don't need organization to vote in STV. You pick the people you like, that's it. You do not need to know which ones have which amount of support so you can properly allocate your voting power strategically, like you do in many other voting systems. You just vote.

    The one edge case is if highseccers were still spreading their vote among so many candidates that none can ever get a quorum and votes keep expiring unused but I have analyzed every single vote register and never seen anythign of the sort. The sole case where a ton of people lost their voting power was when provibloc told everyone to vote corebloodbroothers iirc and no one else, so their excess votes all poofed.