Mike Azariah for CSM 14

Well, that has happened in a way. To keep it short, after Incarna in 2011 CCP changed their development methods and in 2013 they shifted completely to “customer oriented design”, with CCP Seagull spearheading the development of EVE according to that principle. To do so they determined who was their “target customer” and decided that their “target customer” was someone who owned space and killed people for it -aka nullseccers. That was based on who was more satisfied, stayed subbed for longer and was more proactive about the game.

And ever since 2013, all EVE development has been along the lines of easing the transition from noob to “customer” aka nullseccer.

Of course in the process, people who are not nullseccers or don’t play like nullseccer or don’t have the least interest in nullseccer playstyle have been backburned and their numbers have thinned.

The funny part? Nullseccers in 2013 were about 5% of the game population, whereas highseccers were about 60%. In a way CCP was aware that backburning the majority of their customers was a harmful move, and they’ve done everything in their hands to ease the tansition from backburned highseccer to nullseccer… but alas!, you may bring a horse to the water, but can’t make it drink.

So here we are, with less people ingame, less revenue for CCP, F2P and all its toxic fallout, CCP bought by another company and no future development plans. Oh, and CCP Seagull left the company for somewhere where they don’t mind a Executive Producer who managed to drop like a brick every number related to the product she was managing. :woman_shrugging:

6 Likes

Best of luck with your campaign…I think you’ve demonstrated over the years that you can be an effective and communicative CSM member. If you are crazy enough to want another go, I’m happy to help with my vote! <3

3 Likes

Please add Mike to your ballot. With the loss of Brisc,Jin’taan, and Suitonia that leaves only Steve ( among the current CSM) with a proven history of at least communicating with us unwashed masses outside of nullsec. Mike communicates; he engages and discusses with all groups. We need that to happen on a regular basis for a healthy and fair game. With nullsec locking in at least 6 (7) votes, Steve probably getting the 7(8) seat, that leaves probably only 2 or 3 seats up for grabs. Let’s have everyone focus and put Mike on their ballot.

4 Likes

A great and accurate synopsis of EVE development cycle over the last decade. Wish you could mass email this to all of the CSM candidates and CCP Devs, but they already have shown, for the most part, that they don’t care what PvE players want or think.
I think that Mike will be one to listen and understand the PvE concerns.

4 Likes

I totally agree and wish Mike good fortune in the election.

3 Likes

Here’s a hairy one for you mike, also a bump

What is your opinion of gambling mechanics being introduced in eve?

And the second question regardless of your answer on the first is does the csm have any means of preventing the introduction of such mechanics?

1 Like

Fun subject with two sides to it, if you mean loot boxes that you pay for? against against against. But it is doubtful in this day and age of litigation on such things that Eve would go that way.

Sadly the baby goes out with the bathwater on the above issue and even in game gambling becomes questionable liability. I liked somer blink and eve bet. But I do not know if they will ever come our way again.

My first question would be . . . have you consulted with Legal on this one? How safe are you from charges from countries that have or are putting their foot down on such activities.

oh and thanks for the bump. I been feeling very left out for the past week.

m

1 Like

Why?

expanded version: With so many people running for highsec positions now, more than when you were in CSM before, what made you feel compelled to still throw your hat in the ring?

well? I thought I could help

Did you ask Goons the same question or take it as a matter of course that they can have 6 people on the council but Hisec should self limit? And it is also a case of I did not know how many hisec folks would be running but that would not have dissuaded me in any way. We could have nothing BUT Hisec candidates and I would still run offering my own take on things, my own focus on the new players and their experiences and my own experiences in seeing how all of eve ties together.

If you step back and look at it as a whole (and we all should) we need to acknowledge that Eve as a whole needs help/work/people. Choose people who can make that distinction of generalisation and not just try to feed/serve one tiny bit ‘their people’. We need council members who are willing to see the larger picture, the forest, not the trees.

I can do that.

m

6 Likes

There has been some interesting comments on PvE here, I am not so bothered about grinding and I don’t mind real danger as long as its fun, however what puts me off of the Abyss are two things, the first is the time limit and the second is that if I DC I lose my ship and implants. I also want to be able to say damn this one is too hard and be able to flee and get out.

I have done level 1 and 2, but I can’t quite push myself to try the higher ones even though I was going in on pretty high level fights with FOB diamond rats. And for that the main and most important part was removing those that could point you.

So what I am getting at is that the risk is above what I feel comfortable with and the no way out if I am outmatched puts me off.

But I really do like the Triglavian stuff especially their ships!!!

And the important question that I am asking all sensible hisec candidates, what do you propose to do with freighter bumping? Because it is just totally unbalanced as it is.

I want solutions that do not remove freighter ganking, but remove this poor mechanic where a player can effectively point someone with no consequences for hours. There is the timer suggestion, I have suggested that freighters be given the same fitting options as the bowhead, and my most recent one is that the safe log off will work with a five minute timer if locked and that timer only gets reset by the player ending it, not by other locks though an aggression timer will end it.

The reason for all of this is that bumping just gives too much advantages to the freighter gankers. And what you have now are multi-boxing players dominating solo players with one or two accounts with no real way to counter. And even if people group up to counter it they struggle to effectively counter it due to the certainty that bumping gives.

I don’t like the situation where a Bumper with a suicide point also on grid gives me only the option to dock up and wait it out. Also I want the freighter to have gate games with the cloak, I want the security status penalty to mean something there. So tags have to be purchased. I want the situation to develop more of a cat and mouse game around the gates like they do with JF’s. As a hisec CSM candidate what say you?

I am with Steve on the idea that the timer would be the first thing to implement and then run an evaluation to see what the effects are.

The suicide extensions is a different kettle of fish as the rules behind that are to block rage quit/consequence avoidance. Any solution in that direction would have to be seriously considered and debated or else the fix would make the game ‘too safe’ for any risk at all.

Last thing you asked was fitting choices for freighters. You know as well as I do that if they added the ability to tank or cargo extend the freighter a lot of people would make the bad choice. The freighters overall stats would probably be diminished to reflect the choices possibilities so that the wrong choice (moar spaces) would be even thinner than the freighters of today.

Midslot additions would be either shield or mwd for the faster getting into warp trick. How would that trick compare to the ally webbing method some freighters have used in the past.

Bottom line? I have a serious dislike for bumping because I think makes for poor gameplay and leaves the victim with few options. That said I do not want to make hauling a totally safe occupation. My question back to you is

If everybody on both sides of a gank do the ‘right things’ should a freighter survive or not?

The answer to that base question is the key to this discussion.

Thanks for the questions.

m

It is not just for that, more importantly it is for trying to warp out to a fleet mate in an interceptor who is in line of the bump, this can be done with the bowhead, but not with the freighters unless the bumper is not being serious. So for me it is adding that counter play to being bumped.

I quite understand that.

Good, and I don’t want to make it too safe either.

I would like you to think bump rather than gank for a start. Ganking to me is part of the game, I want to make that clear. I am looking for options to enable the freighter pilot to be able to get out of being bumped, that is it. So I will focus on being bumped as the issue, not the gank.

The most obvious thing is to have a scout, and seeing a macherial on the gate is the first stop. But do you think that at this point the only option for a solo player is to dock and log?

Obviously the next part is a webber, I used a Loki with twin faction webs and a large tank and that worked really well for me as a scout and a webber. Generally you have about five seconds to get into warp with a webber with a bumper on the gate but this can be less if you have a bad spawn.

At this point the counter is a suicide point. That means the webber is countered and I now have a bumper on me. What are my options at this point? He is protected by CONCORD and counter bumping is pretty difficult, it is not like bumping a freighter, you are trying to bump a fast moving BS and you have to try to anticipate the direction to be able to bump it.

From that point I have the option of ganking the bumper. A lot of hisec players have one account, I have two currently, A Macherial fit for bumping can be taken out with two Talos, but if they add a single tank module that goes up to three. I cannot counter that Macherial which is protected by Concord while carrying out an aggressive act which is not treated as such by the mechanics. And no I do not think you should make people suspect for bumping.

So at this point we have no counter for players with one to three accounts.

When you look at game balance you always have to get to the end point, when you look at Sov you look for the end point where the enemy can escalate, such as your super umbrella for Rorqual mining.

At this point there is no counter for the majority of hisec players if they can negate the webber.

They showed with the ganking of JF’s in Jita which they did with suicide points to stop them from using an out cyno that they can do this. This means we have a different more interesting gameplay if we can negate bumping in some way.

First of all those tags will have more meaning because they will need to deal with fac police. the freighter pilot can play with the gate cloak to give him more of a chance if they have not done this. the points of conflict will be around gates and it will be fleets following fleets in terms of trying to stop ganks. It would not be the stale gameplay we have now.

I also think that the value of cargo could go up based on the value of the required gank fleet, having your cargo be limited to 1bn is not an especially good level.

I would like to say that at the end of all this what option does a solo hisec hauler player have to do the right thing? When the game play is controlled by such a poor mechanic.

On the other side of things people who AFK and carry too much in terms of value are doing the wrong thing and do not deserve to survive. But I am looking for what the normal hisec player can do as a counter more than anything else.

I hope I have explained this well and given you something to think about.

And by the way the sheer toxic vitriol thrown at me by the freighter gankers on this issue is incredible. They will do anything to keep bumping in play, so I will warn you that they will be pretty nasty if you try to do something on this subject.

2 Likes

Hi Mike darling,

How are you?

So i’m extending my vote (apparently I can vote for more than 1 person??) to include others on top of my first candidate.

I would love to get your current view on highsec. Is there anything you will be campaigning for for us high-seccians?

Also, I see you’ve served on the csm board before. How was it?

Many thanks Mike.

:sparkling_heart:

Daisy

While occasionally, in the past, I have managed to push through a thing while on the CSM (Bowhead) I do not often make promises to ‘make x happen or abolish y’ . That is not what the CSM does. Instead it is a sounding board for CCP to bounce ideas off of an NDA protected group of players. It is also a chance for players to focus their voices through their elected representatives to CCP.

So what I am offering is a reasoned voice/representative who has a strong hisec background and a proven track record of involvement with new players.

And yes, you can vote with your (tries to remember) 2? accounts that are omega. You can vote a ballot of ordered preference for up to 10 candidates. STV voting is an interesting thing and if you are not familiar with it I can find you a link that explains it.

I enjoyed most of it. Do not make the mistake of thinking that it is a vacation to Iceland, mind you. We are in an overcrowded meeting room and team after team cycle through to present/discuss/listen. Being a retired teacher I am used to staff meetings that seem to go on for days but these ones DO. You treasure the little wins and try to ignore the losses of when you suggested something or warned against a course of action but CCP plowed on anyways.

But look back at my record in the game . . . I am trying to help. That is why I cheer others who are running, why I write summaries of the minutes (in character), why I Hotdrop so many podcasts. I push for the things I hope will improve the game and warn against those I think might damage it or be a waste of time (Like demanding corps have an accountant etc if they want to stay open, way way too easy to exploit/workaround with alts)

Oh, one last thing, before I go. One of your threads was about staying in Eve when you are losing interest. Would you kindly take a moment to watch a presentation I gave back at Eve Vegas in 2017?

Hope that answers your questions

m

4 Likes

Mike another issue which I would like to expose, something that I tried to push in the war dec discord before I got meta gamed out of it and in the dev threads, I especially noted Jin’Taans ideas here.

War decs, it got close to what I wanted to see, but there is still one missing piece, from my perception of war decs the real push should be to make the defender want to fight. CONCORD allows wars to develop capsuleers, but all the major war dec alliances and corps TZ tank. Therefore we need to make the structure in which the war HQ is in to be vulnerable in the TZ of the defender. Then we can turn carebears into carebears with teeth. What is your opinion of this?

2 Likes

I had two thoughts on this so I will give you both and a prediction.

  1. TZ tanking is why merc corps will still exist. The corp decced may not want a 4 am CTA but they can hire someone who will.

  2. If you asked me for an off the top of my head alternative? Each wardec an attacker declares widens the vulnerability window. Thus a single dec will still be TZ tanked but if you make a profession of wardeccing you are gonna be open 24/7

prediction, CCP is going to watch what happens with the structure rules before enacting any more changes. So wait 6 months to see how the tides of war have changed.

m

1 Like

Thanks, I was coming from it at the angle of getting more carebears to develop teeth, which is why I want allies to be able to rep each other in a war. Wait and see then. Fair enough and I think CCP are a lot better at assessing what is going on with their client base.

I should point out that I am coming at this only from the war HQ point of view. I do not like making hisec structures even easier to blap especially when it comes to accommodating nullsec.

Since TZ tanking is not an issue limited to hs wars, i don’t think that it is a good idea to adress it on a war dec only Basis. The problem has existed in all other areas of space as well as for wardec attackers before. The only thing that changed now, is that defenders get to experience it as well. From my perspective, a general approach is necessary…not a patchwork for one certain HS use Base.

True enough. I did come at this as a hisec prob but hisec corps are often smaller and do not have coverage across multiple timezones.

But it was specifically designed as a defence mechanism/tool and a choice the structure owners had to make.

m

1 Like

Nice to see you run for CSM, and I see that a lot of people are running on a community driven platform.

Question, I have no Idea what video card and even graphic settings is best for eve online atm.

Unlike in star citizen, where in that mmo comparisons are made to get the best options available.

In short, will you bring to ccp attention at least the option of an auto detect video card with settings ?