tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post5527757867199394369..comments2013-03-26T15:03:23.154-07:00Comments on Meissa Anunthiel's ramblings: Last CSM 7 Meeting MinutesMeissa Anunthielhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03337698496250363060noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-88467533967738727272012-04-27T16:26:19.402-07:002012-04-27T16:26:19.402-07:00"There is a difference between allowing playe..."There is a difference between allowing players to choose what they dont like - remove it - to apply somewhere else AND reimbursing players for skills that where completely removed from game." ~Max Kolonko<br /><br />So that's what "respec" means? okay, well then i totally agree with your argument. I was a bit leery about attribute remapping, but these days with the new player experience it just makes too much sense. Giving 'sp respec' any credence doesn't make sense at all. To start with, "don't fix what ain't broke" seems futile versus CCP's whimsy, so i'll try another approach: CCP would be removing risk from a game that rewards it on more levels than just "isk" and won't be measured on the forums or blogs or anything...people will just quietly walk without anyone but the trolls giving vapid tunnel-vission pro-pvp explanations that CCP will foolishly buy into. <br /><br />Pvpers are notorious asskissers. Doubly ironic how brazenly potty mouthed they are, along with their epeens. They stand in stark contrast to the new customers who'll beat a polite and quiet retreat in the face of condescension.<br /><br />People like a feeling of equality whenever they can get it, and removing this from skill trees by giving "remaps/respec" to skills won't please 'bittervets' ...those folk will look at the game in general and wonder why CCP waste time fixing things that aren't broken when there's LOTS of things still broken.<br /><br />Like the aggro timer one gets when rats attack noncombatants. Sure if you attack back you should get a timer. IT'S CONFUSING when carebears face pvpers for the first time and misunderstanding becomes fatal.<br /><br />Stuff like that. important, screwed up, hasn't-been-fixed-from-day-one that aren't "challenges" but exploit loopholes CCP are ignorant of that griefers walk through every day. The stuff they probably couldn't put into the EULA and TOS cuz they'd look like idiots.MinorFreakhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02935448943839231164noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-43334588743262841312012-04-17T00:55:42.961-07:002012-04-17T00:55:42.961-07:00"
This would be a long post, and I'm not ..."<br />This would be a long post, and I'm not sure this is the place to handle it because it's going to be long-winded argument. The short version of it is I am in favour of a mechanic, no matter what it is, that removes the invulnerability that some people well entrenched in their wormhole enjoy. Obviously that position is not one shared by AHARM. That said, the difficulty with which one can reach a wormhole (logistics wise and all that) is what makes it interesting and viable too, something that makes it unique and interesting. Balanced mechanics can be found, and the wormhole stabilizer idea is but one that has already been discussed (we actually had a discussion with Two Step from AHARM and CCP Soundwave on that very subject during the emergency meeting), but I do not shy away from stating that I was the one advocating for a mechanism to get rid of the invulnerability some groups enjoy in wormholes while keeping the overwhelming majority of the wormhole dwellers in no worse a position than they are now. Which is a bit not mentioned in the minutes. I don't care if it's a stabilizer, a destabilizer, an undectectable wormhole entrance, or a divine intervention. I'll make a longer post as soon as humanly possible on the subject because, as shortly described, this would be a negative game-changer for everyone living in a wormhole. So if you can hold your judgement on my position until you heard it in full, that'd be great. And if you want to bash me then, by all means. :-)"<br /><br />So, why didnt you comment on it at fanfest and instead give a very short and rude response to Sandslinger when he stepped up and asked you about this? It seems to me your much better at writing spin than actually engaging other members in debate.Zarak1 Kenpach1https://www.blogger.com/profile/13206779564549174644noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-91035743977491334532012-02-07T14:16:27.334-08:002012-02-07T14:16:27.334-08:00dang - can't edit. Last para should have star...dang - can't edit. Last para should have started "WH fleets are ship diversified - not monolithic - requiring . . ."Knug Lidihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08168621175894976018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-67848087600258496662012-02-07T14:15:07.275-08:002012-02-07T14:15:07.275-08:00I don't believe you should be able to build un...I don't believe you should be able to build unbeatable fortresses in WH. However, the logistical effort required to crack them should be larger than the effort needed to build them. <br /><br />A wh stablilizer is a bad thing. For obvious reasons. However, I will say that perhaps the current ratios of the ship mass limit to wh mass limit should be more to what exists currently for C1 wh. I.e. it takes more jumps to kill a wh. Right now, C1 wh are the hardest in the game to close.<br /><br />I will say as well, that anything that will keep the sov/low blob tactics out of WH space is a good thing. The small gang warfare there is fantastic. Its not an easy life in a WH, and getting your "curbstomp" fleet should be very hard indeed. <br /><br />WH fleets are ship diversified - not monolithic requiring multiple ships of multiple roles. There is no where else in EVE where being so careful about fleet composition carries more weight. This is fighting with style - with finesse. This isn't Conan swinging a sword where sheer weight of muscle (numbers) carries the day - its the Man in Black vs Inigo Montoya. A symphony of skill, tactics, planning, and luck. What could possibly be better ?Knug Lidihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08168621175894976018noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-19992877463873575672012-01-25T02:17:50.300-08:002012-01-25T02:17:50.300-08:00Most simple fixes to Factional Warfare fail to tak...Most simple fixes to Factional Warfare fail to take into account the fact that the system is flawed at its core.<br /><br />The reliance on PvE complexes with imbalanced ewar, not to mention the easy with which such systems can be gamed makes those "simple fixes" non-functional in the long run.<br /><br />Factional Warfare is a great idea (when I first joined the game, I thought it was built in, and shot an amar dude that I saw flying around in "my" minmatar space, and got concorded for it ;-) ). Now that we have development resources available to make something truly great out of it, going with half-assed fixes that will do little to make it truly what it should be is not the way to go.<br /><br />My gripes are that ranks mean nothing, and they shouldn't be obtained by being a glorified ratter. Occupancy should be meaningful. PvPing (particularly small scale and "low barrier of entry" [frigs, cruisers]) need to be fostered, it should be self-sustaining enough an activity but not so profitable that bigger alliances would come and ruin the fun for everyone, and it should be easily accessible to newcomers.<br /><br />I don't believe I disregard the opinion of the factional warfare community, I speak with FWers on a regular basis and aim at providing them what they want, which is actually *more* than what they ask.<br /><br />I'll make a longer post as to why I think the more commonly requested changes to FW will fail to accomplish the objectives they want to achieve, and why the ones I am advocating instead would. Not that they're new ideas either, just not the ones people have been yelling most for (small fixes) as opposed to the ones they want but think the amount of effort to get them would accomplish.<br /><br />There are a couple of factors most people asking for fixes to their particular area of the game fail to factor: development cost vs return. What seem like "simple fixes" frequently aren't and the development time to make them, check and balance them is frequently disproportionate to the return. My background as a developer helps me assess that better, but so does having talked with the devs about these very issues for the better part of 3 years. The second one is synergy. The changes that are currently being made to systems such as Crimewatch (the system responsible for everything security related from standing gains/losses, sentry gun reaction, kill rights, killmails, aggression flagging) make some of the changes to FW easily integratable as part of the revamp of the system much more cheaply than if they are tacked onto it after the fact.<br /><br />I just got back from my trip so haven't had the time to go through my notes again about FW, I'll comment on that more thoroughly in a separate blog post, because it is a subject worthy of attention.<br /><br />The stablizer thing, I'll repeat, is not a concept I'm attached to, I really don't care about it itself, the flaws of the idea are well known and have already been articulated at length prior to the release of these minutes, by all sides of the table. It is used as an example of things that need to be checked to see how it could accomplish the objectives (some of those one can disagree with, with that I have no issue). I'm pretty sure that people who don't limit themselves to posting "you suck" are already posting alternatives to that idea, some of which most likely will end up better ones. Either way I feel it would be beneficial to find a solution to that issue. But if you're one of the people thinking "people should be able to build fortresses that nobody can invade, and from thence be able to roam free and kill anything they want", then I'm afraid I'm of a different opinion.Meissa Anunthielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337698496250363060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-35461917235955911052012-01-21T10:59:02.345-08:002012-01-21T10:59:02.345-08:00I have to say somewhat in Meissa's defence tha...I have to say somewhat in Meissa's defence that a lot of what he says is well thought and articulated. We don't agree on all things BUT he's not far away from the community. In fact totally the opposite in both my experience and opinion. I say this all in general terms as I find it's not always wise to comment on details of another person's availability or understanding of certain areas when I do not know of his research or methods or reasoning behind the. I'm sure he'll comment in due time about the FW specifics. Don't worry. :-)<br /><br />K, enough defence Meissa!! :-P<br /><br />I want to comment on the wormhole part...the stabilizer/destabilizer thing. While I think it would be abused to no end, as a concept....I repeat...as a concept, I think there's a lot that can be done with it for defence, offence, AND for logistical reasons. I've outlined this already in the main CSM minutes thread. However, I see such danger of messing with the mechanics so much that we start changing the beauty of the current small scale warfare that we see today. This is one of the many reasons the wormholers love them. Mess with that and we have null sec blob warfare creep in and there goes the wormholes.<br /><br />Bit extreme and paranoid to some degree but these kinds of changes need to be weighed very carefully and where I AGREE that this would aid in chipping away at some of the larger corps in the WHs, the same mechanic could be used to decimate the smaller, industrial corp who's there to make ISKies and sell t3 goodies on the market. I don't see a real benefit to that myself. The idea is very intriguing but I can't see a good implementation and application of it, hence my personal lack of support for it.<br /><br />Nice to see you're still in the mix Meissa. Good luck to you. :-)<br /><br />--JadeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-1365327331212645492012-01-20T17:15:59.760-08:002012-01-20T17:15:59.760-08:00I disagree with a lot of your points, Meissa. I...I disagree with a lot of your points, Meissa. I'm concerned that some of the idea that are proposed will cause more harm than good to the game.<br /><br />I would prefer if nothing was done instead of implementing an imperfect system that might make things worse.<br /><br />Concerning the faction warfare fixes, I feel that you're discarding the opinion of the faction warfare community. I know quite a few of them are upset that the simple fix they have in mind aren't being considered.<br /><br />Also, about wormholes, if there was a stabilizer of a sort, it should only be a limited one. It should in no case cause the wormhole to lose it's mass limits. Second, about sleeper attacks, they should attack offline POS in wormholes (This serves as a clean-up service)and they should -not- attack POD. NPC in EVE do not attack POD in any other area, there's no reason why they should in wormhole. It's pure sadism and adds nothing to the game experience. If you still consider it though, then make sure it's -every- NPC that starts PODing people to keep things consistent throughout the game.<br /><br />A last point; ask the community. You're a CSM and you're here to pass on the player's concern and idea.Tahna Rouspelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10172054744138768498noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-41235446033833905112012-01-20T10:26:44.349-08:002012-01-20T10:26:44.349-08:00Thanks Carole, you know how much I hate posting. B...Thanks Carole, you know how much I hate posting. But jester was right in his blog, it looked too much like a hive mind. Wish I had written more earlier.<br />Hopefully if we keep on with the same style (skype/forums) in CSM 7 we'll get the secretary to publish weekly activity reports. I had floated the idea about, but it didn't take...Meissa Anunthielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337698496250363060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-27371706344669814052012-01-20T10:24:06.957-08:002012-01-20T10:24:06.957-08:00Nice post, Meissa. The clarifications and discussi...Nice post, Meissa. The clarifications and discussion are useful and informative.Carole Pivarnikhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06787775846290065794noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-87084451932461784652012-01-20T10:00:18.374-08:002012-01-20T10:00:18.374-08:00Every elections I ask myself whether I have outliv...Every elections I ask myself whether I have outlived my usefulness, my conclusion at this stage is that there are too many things that would go unopposed and unadvocated for in my absence at the current time.<br /><br />So, confirming I will run again for CSM 7.<br /><br />And, as usual, should voters not be convinced by my candidacy, I'll drop a kind word for other people I personally know to be valuable even if I disagree with them. The process matters.Meissa Anunthielhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03337698496250363060noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2535325341184135257.post-88121345892699218782012-01-20T09:55:24.073-08:002012-01-20T09:55:24.073-08:00Excellent post! I daresay the best post you'v...Excellent post! I daresay the best post you've ever written. Clear, remarkably candid, and quite interesting.<br /><br />The last full paragraph seems to strongly imply that you will be running for CSM7. Confirm/deny?Jesterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06362457304801165584noreply@blogger.com