Wednesday 20 March 2013

The great wormhole CSM 8 debate

Down the pipe has hosted a podcast with a lengthy wormhole debate  

Two-step has a post with links to the different announcements for candidates.  Rather than try to keep a partial list here, I will just send you to Two-step's page.

In this post I may enjoy being the peanut gallery.  However it is a wall of text.  If you don't care about WH's (or maybe POS roles) and CSM, then this post may not be for you.

As an open letter to the WH candidates :

Somewhat random thoughts

You can please some of the people some of the time or all of the people some of the time.  You can't please all people all of the time.  Same applies to fooling them too, which might be the same thing.

You are speaking to a wormhole audience.  During this an interview to a specific audience seeking votes, speak to what they want to hear.  Null sec players might have highsec mission alts.  I suspect many WH residents use highsec to buy and sell stuff, but have null oriented PVP alts which look and act a lot like their WH pilots.  You are a WH candidate. Don't dismiss nullsec or lowsec concerns, but you are after the WH players vote.  You won't get the goon vote regardless, don't spend time trying. You can go after the newbie vote; that is worth while (if you can get them to vote).

As a personal preference, I get information from blogs.  I can make sure to read your blog, I know what I am getting.  Don't make me read the forums, a horrible "noise to signal" ratio.  (If I was talking about anything other than blogs I would use the term signal to noise).  By preference, don't make me listen to to podcasts.  Some might even say it's easier to read blogs during 9-5 than it is to consume other Eve related material.  Others players will clearly have their preference too.  ().

One of the suggestions is that Random NPC attacks on POS/POCO, and that they should be capable of their existence, 'to keep players active'.  This is not required.  Those part time corps established in wormholes already have to do POS fuel, which does not come cheap to a part timer.  If you want to spend ISK (or time) on fuel but don't want to use it your POS, go for it.  You won't get more players in a wormhole by telling part timers that they can't set up POS.

Random NPC attacks on player ships are OK if you want, but I lose ships to random player attacks on my ships anyway.  I am not sure what you gain, but it might give the appearance activity.

Randomise NPC abilities on sites is a fine idea.  Variety is always good, but those that bash out sites will ask more reward for the increased difficulty/time.  That is not to say that players should get it.

I would have no issue destroying ships inside a forcefield if attacked, and feel 'entitled' to continue to do so.  However if you are attacking my forcefield while I self-destruct ships, I have no issues with it showing up on a kill mail.

An additional WH conflict point may be desirable (not convinced but then I don't shoot things).  Player deployed 'minor buff' structure.  One way to implement this (and there are plenty others) is a device that must be anchored around a moon, offers a minor buff: a few % 'bonus' to scanning probes; maybe an occasional hint as to wormhole collapses; or possibly even a few % reduction to POS fuel requirements.  Maybe even several different modules doing all of the above but with a smaller individual bonus.  All of these devices would be 'bashable' in the way of POCO's but with far fewer hit points.  These would have timers of some kind, on a scale similar to the wormholes for that class (say 16- 24 hours for c1-3 wormholes, 48-72 for c6 wormholes).  They should also have crap shield regen, but a lot of armor.  This would enable and maybe even require a large amount of time spent outside of a POS shield to either break or repair.

On POS: I agree that there is needed change to the wormhole role granularity.   I agree with Two-step's comment about private storage (1:47).  I would like to grant permissions on a POS by POS basis, rather than on a corp/division/role basis. I won't grow a WH corp past 7 players due to this.  I might add multiple corps to a WH as alliance. 

Interviewers question about ECM/ECCM : Are you asking a question or telling interviewees the answer?  You have a gripe about ECM/ECCM - sure.  Caveat : I get shot at; I like overpowered ECM.

For the record: I don't like active nerfs.  You 'forgot' how to do something you knew how to last week.  However, learning a counter makes perfect sense to me.  Disruptive things happen in first life.  Then they get counters.

Oh and I love the (nearly) closing comments regarding ... a certain country and free speech.  There are certain individuals you could send your regards to.  (One of them is planning on running for my first life government's senate).

Impress me with your competence and enthusiasm.   By competence, I am speaking by preference of "unconscious competence".  One guy in the interviews impressed me with this; pity he is not running for CSM.  Mind you, I loved Nathan's challenge "Are you saying that the creation of your character date is the most important part of your resume?" (1:30:40).  Probably not always the best thing to verbally shove your interviewer onto their back foot, but I loved it the same.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Posts older than 14 days are subject to moderation before being published. I do so sporadically. If you have a question regarding older posts, also evemail dotoo foo.

Blogger comments supports basic html. You can make a link 'clicky' by <a href="http://yoursite/yourpage">yoursite/yourpage</a>

While I currently accept anonymous users, please include a pseudonym. I get confused answering anonymous.

If the word verification is preventing you from adding a comment, please evemail DoToo Foo for alternative methods