These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next page
 

TF for CSM X

First post
Author
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#1 - 2015-02-05 01:10:46 UTC
Greetings. I am Trinkets friend. You may remember me from such forum topics as Trinkets Friendly Wormhole Advice Column, various F&I threads, and not much else.

I have a blog. You may read this blog to find out a bit about how i think. I do some YouTube videos, but not many, as I forget to activate the recording most times.

I run Prolapse. TBGRL- alliance, and Sudden Buggery -BUGRY- corporation. This in no way entitles me to any respect, just a kind of deep, enduring pity.

Here is my terrible manifesto of things I will do while avoiding deep vein thrombosis on the flight to iceland:

Highsec

Highsec content is dominated by boring mining and war dec griefing. I think EVE needs more valuable and varied content than camping 4-4 in instalocking ships or circling belts before being ganked.

No capital RR. I will agitate to prevent capital access to high security space in any manner where capital RR's come into play. If you think that CODE or marmites, or any organisation full of cowardsauce mouthbreathing gate-hugging cretins will not utterly exploit the hell out of even Rorqual RR on the Sivala or Niarja gate or Dodixie, Jita or Amarr undock, then you have your head ensconced firmly buttockward.

Capital Transit Pass. Capital transits of highsec, for a 50M ISK, 24 hour license fee to CONCORD? Sure. I have a dread effectively trapped in Thakala, I'd pay to avoid space AIDS getting it across Empire.

I will agitate for Tags For Standings. I screwed my Amarr standings harder than a carpenter screws a door to it's hinges, far too early in my EVE career, and I cbf to do the 4 hours plus of the bloody epic arc to fix the standings, and you can only do the COSMOS missions so many times. With the success of Tags For Sec, I will promulgate and agitate for Tags For Standings.

New Player Experience. This is a vital part of keeping EVE strong, CCP liquid, and the community growing. I will work on improving the NPE, particularly with the 50% of players who go out solo missioning and never discover a corporation and the social aspect of the MMO. I will agitate to put more leaders in the NPE to let new players access corporate content.

Loyalty Point Rebalance. Ever seen a Khanid navy 1MN MWD? No? Wonder why that is? Ever wondered why Derelik and Khanid are so dead? maybe it's because the LP cost, tag cost and usefulness of the modules you can buy from the stores is so out of wack it's not even funny. I will agitate to have CCP rebalance the tag cost, LP cost and mission availability of all highsec faction missions to improve rewards, interest and content.

Lowsec
Lowsec content is accessible to everyone, and generally fine. However, there's a few things I think need some work, and I will go in there batting for you pirate scum.

FW Missions. I really detest the LP payouts for something farmable by alts in bombers. Million LP per hour harvests are entirely too common. Whilst this results in deliciously cheap faction ships it is stupid.

Pirate Faction missions and content.
I want to see Pirate Faction COSMOS style missions, a better spread of pirate faction content, phat loots and more exploration content to drive or lure more people to live, work, and exist in lowsec such as Aridia, Solitude, etc.

Nullsec
I see nullsec's problems as being its general emptiness, and this is driven in part by the massive amount of rentinggoing on, where whole regions are leased out to risk-averse bears by colaitions of greedy spitballs.

I will push for activity-based sov control. I want to see, for example, Shadow of xXDEATHXx lose 90% of its sov simply because no one lives there. I want to see small alliances of clueless noobs move out to the echoing halls of abandoned stations, existing like space moss between the toes of the monolithic coalitions, a real nullsec ecology not a monoculture of instadocking farmers.

Skynet carriers. Screw them in particular, I will not support anything to do with risk averse assigned DPS.

Wormholes
I will be Corbexx's stunt coq. We will form a team Voltron-***-human centipede of fact-based investigations of what really makes wormholes tick, what is really wrong with them, and how to improve their content.

I will table flip like a pro when we get ignored by CCP railroading content onto us which we don't need.

I will try to get POSs fixed without CCP Greyscale style no-bubble POSs. I love the bubble and all its foibles.

I will get you title-assigned SMA's, sensible corporation role and title management, POS security.

I will get you universal one size fits all Subcapital Assembly Arrays, because what industry in wormholes REALLY needs is 4 different types of arrays to build ships!

I will get you a soft-nerfed Proteus. I will attempt to get you a viable cloaky Loki and cloaky Tengu that carry more than 250 DPS. I will get you a laser Legion which doesn't suck. I will, sadly, be agitating to nerf a few things too, like the Guristas ships and Mordus ships.

You will get a re-look at W-R effects. Admit it, it's a bit ridiculous in a clownish way.

But most of all, wormholers, you will get sensible, analytical and in-depth brains representing you on the CSM.

Incursions
I will contact Teamspeak and agitate for a feature which detects whiny entitled Incursion FC speech patterns and replaces it with a recording of Catherine Zeta Jones saying "Primary the Jita Nagamanen" or whatever. This will improve incursion viability 100 fold instantly
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#2 - 2015-02-05 01:13:58 UTC
I will also be going for cross-dressing capabilities for avatars in the NEX Store, Boy George style makeup for duders, and Crocs footwear.
Proclus Diadochu
Mar Sarrim
Red Coat Conspiracy
#3 - 2015-02-05 05:48:20 UTC
+1

TF has been one of my favorite wormholers/bloggers/videocasters in this game! Not only did I get the privilege of flying with this gent for a while, but I can confirm that he knows the community he intends to represent. I think that along with Corbexx, TF will make a fine addition to the CSMX delegation, and his way of communication will always keep everyone engaged.

So excited to see you running, and best of luck!

Minister of High Society | Twitter: @autoritare

E-mail: diogenes.proc@gmail.com

My Blog: http://diogenes-club.blogspot.com/

The Diogenes Club | Join W-Space | Down The Pipe

Axloth Okiah
Ehefkae
#4 - 2015-02-05 06:44:13 UTC
I'm happy to see you running, I'd just like to ask you this (I bet you can see why):
How do you plan to balance out what you believe is right and needed with what your voters and constituency will think and want? You are clearly very good at making your point and having it heard. But it is sometimes quite different form what the rest/majority (judging by forums) of wormholers would want.
Raziel Walker
NPC Tax Evasion Corp
#5 - 2015-02-05 10:16:29 UTC
You want to keep CCP liquid. What's wrong with sober and solvent?

LP rebalance, any blog posts out there or soming that explain what is wrong for the people that ignore LP?
-just nerf FW LP into the ground please-

Get Corbexx to endorse you and I'll place you above him in my voting list.
Nox52
Pterygopalatine
#6 - 2015-02-05 10:20:56 UTC
Please vote for TF, for future epic moments of wife aggro.

And because he knows left from right. Mainly the aggro tho.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#7 - 2015-02-05 11:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Just out of curiosity with regards to your Tag/LP Cost rebalance:

What do you think about a dynamic Tag/LP cost where most farmed factions (NPC corps are too specific I think, as you can game the mechanics easier) require more LP/Tags and those factions which are less activity require less Tags/LP. It would mean that players need to check more and compare more for who they run missions and move around more to find juicier LP stores than just Caldari Navy for certain items. It should obviously depend on the availability of modules, if there is only 1 LP store faction supplying a thing, it should not suffer from overfarming as there is no other choice. It is rigable and manipulatable if not implemented correctly, but what do you think about it?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Phoenix Jones
The Markoni Dragons
#8 - 2015-02-05 14:42:25 UTC
If this is a serious run, you got my vote.

TF, you need to publish yourself a bit more. Didn't notice you till I was actively looking for wormhole candidates on this forum (there is Corbexx, you, and one nullsecr mascarading as a wormhole guy.

You probably want to jump onto podside, or cap stable podcast.

Yaay!!!!

Phoenix Jones
The Markoni Dragons
#9 - 2015-02-05 15:48:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Trinkets friend wrote:


I will get you a soft-nerfed Proteus. I will attempt to get you a viable cloaky Loki and cloaky Tengu that carry more than 250 DPS. I will get you a laser Legion which doesn't suck. I will, sadly, be agitating to nerf a few things too, like the Guristas ships and Mordus ships.


You do realize that if you advocate for a dps cloaky ship on the Loki and Tengu, you basically shoot all T1 and a good chunk of T2 cruiser ships and quazi force people into the realm of 400+ dps at 30+ range dps 80,000 ehp cloaky cruisers. I'm somewhat disagreeing here but its not because those ships in those configurations need help, but because we really shouldn't have covops cruiser setups that can tank like the dickens, output sizeable damage, with no real significant downside.

The DPS of the Proteus comes with the sacrifice of mobility. You have to be within scram range in order to apply significant damage. That's the downside (there are others, that's the most glaring).

Giving kiting setups that can cloak on a dime and do significant dps will cause problems. You know your stuff, I just disagree with you on that point.

Still keep the good fight going.

Yaay!!!!

Darth Bex
Boundless Exploration
#10 - 2015-02-06 00:07:36 UTC
I think in regards to Strategic Cruisers he's just suggesting it would be nice if the Tengu, Loki and Legion Covert Ops variants were at least capable of doing the same sort of damage as Combat Recons, lest W-Space become Combat Recons online. They could then fulfill a heavy tackle role whilst still being a contributor on the damage output, and the Combat Recons can lay down the eWar.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#11 - 2015-02-06 02:40:51 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
I'm happy to see you running, I'd just like to ask you this (I bet you can see why):
How do you plan to balance out what you believe is right and needed with what your voters and constituency will think and want? You are clearly very good at making your point and having it heard. But it is sometimes quite different form what the rest/majority (judging by forums) of wormholers would want.


Behind the silk screens of a Chinese Wall which you get in the CSM (NDA's etc) you have to be able to divorce yourself from in-game allegiances, pet hates (eg, the Corax), etcetera, if presented with evidence by Fozzie's "metrics" for example, and do what's best for the game and/or community.

Now, sometimes this may mean, for example, if the roteus needs a PG nerf to balance its uber tank and the evidence and arguments are ample, I will have to accept that a nerfed proteus cannot mount 5 x Large Smartbombs. If I have to give up my smartbombing Proteus in order to see viable cloaky legion DPS and loki DPS then so be it. I understand what balance is.

The constituency can be quite rabid and knee-jerky, at least on the forums. C.F. the last time something happened to wormholes. I think CCP has made it clear they have a vision for EVE and will do what they think is needed - the CSM is there to moderate the process and provide feedback. CCP's effort in PR have been abysmal lately (lockageddon) so the CSM should be there to provide a pressure valve.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#12 - 2015-02-06 02:55:40 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:


I will get you a soft-nerfed Proteus. I will attempt to get you a viable cloaky Loki and cloaky Tengu that carry more than 250 DPS. I will get you a laser Legion which doesn't suck. I will, sadly, be agitating to nerf a few things too, like the Guristas ships and Mordus ships.


You do realize that if you advocate for a dps cloaky ship on the Loki and Tengu, you basically shoot all T1 and a good chunk of T2 cruiser ships and quazi force people into the realm of 400+ dps at 30+ range dps 80,000 ehp cloaky cruisers. I'm somewhat disagreeing here but its not because those ships in those configurations need help, but because we really shouldn't have covops cruiser setups that can tank like the dickens, output sizeable damage, with no real significant downside.

The DPS of the Proteus comes with the sacrifice of mobility. You have to be within scram range in order to apply significant damage. That's the downside (there are others, that's the most glaring).

Giving kiting setups that can cloak on a dime and do significant dps will cause problems. You know your stuff, I just disagree with you on that point.

Still keep the good fight going.


I think we can Stratios the Stratios here, which sort of 600 DPS / 60K EHP and sentries for damage projection.

Your cloaky Prot has a DPS envelope of 250-550+ (700?), and 60-140K++ EHP right now. Balanced? Yes. You can fit rails to cloaky Proteii,with decent tank and decent damage projection and reasonable speed.

Try fitting a cloaky Arty Loki and see how you go. That's my point. To my mind there's no real competition from Lokis and legions with Stratios and Proteii. You may disagree, but to my mind upping the cloaky loki's potential DPS envelope from 220-270 to 220-400 isn't beyond the realms of rational.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#13 - 2015-02-06 03:18:05 UTC
Raziel Walker wrote:
You want to keep CCP liquid. What's wrong with sober and solvent?

LP rebalance, any blog posts out there or soming that explain what is wrong for the people that ignore LP?
-just nerf FW LP into the ground please-

Get Corbexx to endorse you and I'll place you above him in my voting list.


https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/

http://www.evedata.org/iskPerLP.cgi

This is of course an argument about return on ISK, which is in part an argument about where the market is and where the metagame is in terms of demand for faction modules. For example, as above, khanid navy webs, neuts, armour hardeners, etc, are all roughly as expensive (if not more expansive0 than the Imperial navy variants.

The ISK per LP returns are affected by faction warfare LP, in many instances, but also by tag cost. For example, in the field of 1MN prop mods the tags required to even cash in on one of these modules are to my mind insane, hence why some of these modules would cost over 100M to make, and hence cannot compete with deadspace modules, which are also superior.

The question really is, what's the point of having something in the game, and going through module tiercide, if some of these modules are basically worthless to build under any forseeable scenario? The meta of the game isn't going to change to favor faction 1MN MWD's over C-type MWD's any time soon.

Therefore, i see a lot of scope to address these issues. The objective would be to throw open a lot of high-sec and low-sec space for missioning to supply modules which people may actually use. Reducing the number of tags required to build these things, down from 255 in some cases, will also address the ability of people to care about moving around, exploring space and content.
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
Evil Monkies Incorporated
#14 - 2015-02-06 08:06:38 UTC
+1 would vote Big smile
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#15 - 2015-02-06 18:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Trinkets friend wrote:
I will get you


I'm going to read that as "I will try to get you," because tromping into the CSM saying "Give me this" is probably not going to end well.

Otherwise, +1 for a solid and engagingly-written platform.

Question: Given that CCP has said that sov is next on the menu, what are you going to bring to the table on that subject? I know it's not your forte, but the odds are approximately 100% that you're going to be in real and virtual rooms with CCP developers over an extended period of time discussing the subject, and with only 14 people on the CSM there's not much room for abstention. So what are you hoping to bring to the table?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

corbexx
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-02-06 19:11:27 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:

Question: Given that CCP has said that sov is next on the menu, what are you going to bring to the table on that subject? I know it's not your forte, but the odds are approximately 100% that you're going to be in real and virtual rooms with CCP developers over an extended period of time discussing the subject, and with only 14 people on the CSM there's not much room for abstention. So what are you hoping to bring to the table?


I'm seeing this alot from people, for some reason everyone thinks ccp will be doing nothing but sov or null stuff and its just not the case. There will be tonnes of other stuff going on along side this, POS's, roles, npe, balancing stuff, loads of little things the list goes on. Another example of this was last summit which was "Null focused" had a grand total of 2 hours out of 4 days of meetings.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#17 - 2015-02-06 20:13:51 UTC
corbexx wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:

Question: Given that CCP has said that sov is next on the menu, what are you going to bring to the table on that subject? I know it's not your forte, but the odds are approximately 100% that you're going to be in real and virtual rooms with CCP developers over an extended period of time discussing the subject, and with only 14 people on the CSM there's not much room for abstention. So what are you hoping to bring to the table?


I'm seeing this alot from people, for some reason everyone thinks ccp will be doing nothing but sov or null stuff and its just not the case. There will be tonnes of other stuff going on along side this, POS's, roles, npe, balancing stuff, loads of little things the list goes on. Another example of this was last summit which was "Null focused" had a grand total of 2 hours out of 4 days of meetings.


Just for the record, I don't believe that. I'm essentially asking what he brings to a subject which will come up, and which is outside his core competency.

But thanks for the clarification.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#18 - 2015-02-07 00:36:52 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Trinkets friend wrote:
I will get you


I'm going to read that as "I will try to get you," because tromping into the CSM saying "Give me this" is probably not going to end well.

Otherwise, +1 for a solid and engagingly-written platform.

Question: Given that CCP has said that sov is next on the menu, what are you going to bring to the table on that subject? I know it's not your forte, but the odds are approximately 100% that you're going to be in real and virtual rooms with CCP developers over an extended period of time discussing the subject, and with only 14 people on the CSM there's not much room for abstention. So what are you hoping to bring to the table?


True, I'm not Mittens' right hand man. i don't run a rental empire. I don't rat in a carrier, or even an AFKtar. But I have done my time in nullsec on 3 occasions, from Stain to Delve to NC Dot.

Like I said, I will be supporting and, depending on CCP's willingness to listen, providing feedback to them on occupancy based sov. This is because I believe that the game needs more reasons for people to fight, and two whole regions of space being permanently transferred in an instant from one rental empire to another, to perhaps never be utilised, doesn't sit right with me.

If you're familiar with the R3PO-Z story, an ex-BUGRY member has been part of that. This stuff should be happening more often. Occupany based sov should be a catalyst for conflict.

Right now, a band of ne'er do-wells terrorises a ratting Empire and stops a whole region ratting for a month, and nothing changes except the small band of aggressors get ground down by sheer numbers while the farmers take a break for a month and pay NC Dot to evict their annoyance.

In the future, if you don't farm the region, constellation or individual systems enough they should fall off the back of your truck. No month-long breaks while you rat blue space safely - you won't be going back to your home, your assets and towers will be lost, your landlords impoverished and more and more predators will move in.

Sure, it will force people to play the game smarter, but nullsec is boring as hell, safe as hell and empty.

Where my experience comes in from wormholes is being able to see a vision of a game where you take a calculated risk. Every time you get out of POS in a wormhole your ship can be killed, no warning, no chance. Yet we thrive and prosper and we develop skills in PVP, PVE, flying, fighting, making money and getting over the sense of whiny entitlement.

I see a lot of nullsec as being entirely too risk averse, and preserving their entire way of life is about maintaining security blankets versus bringing on more fights, more content, more excitement.

As a wormbro, i'll be there to ask questions and drill down into the motives and reasons behind why people do what they do, and why CCP thinks that one thing is better than another, why one choice in balancing is better than this or that. There's a lot in this game where the consequences of changing one thing can impact greatly on many others, not that you see that from most feedback which is one-dimensional Q.Q.

The other way to put it is this - I have no vested interest in the current state of nullsec, or indeed wormholes. If it looks sensible, I won't have fear of losing income, prestige, status and territory holding me back from saying it's good. Not that the current CSM's nullsec representatives seemed overly negative about the recent changes, far from it.
Ariete
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2015-02-07 13:57:02 UTC
Hi Trinkets, I am sorting out a wormhole debate next week. If you want to take part i have sent you the details in game.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#20 - 2015-02-08 01:02:44 UTC
Consider my gauntlet thrown down for this debate.
123Next page