These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Solo/small entities CSM10 rep = vote Borat (En/Fr)

Author
Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#41 - 2015-02-15 21:37:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Bellak Hark wrote:


My Name is Borat Guereen, and I approve this message (minus the two spelling mistakes... Smile )
Thanks!

Mon nom est Borat Guereen et j'approuve ce message (sauf pour les deux fautes d'orthographe Smile )
Merci

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#42 - 2015-02-17 00:33:07 UTC
Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#43 - 2015-02-18 02:20:51 UTC
Gevlon, from the Greedy Goblin blog, has published his CSM X recommendation list today.
Give it a read!

Candidate for CSM XII

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#44 - 2015-02-18 12:04:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Your suggestion about alts is one of the key things that is wrong with this game and your reasoning around it detailed in the post here is spot on, that in itself means you have my vote.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#45 - 2015-02-18 18:20:01 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Your suggestion about alts is one of the key things that is wrong with this game and your reasoning around it detailed in the post here is spot on, that in itself means you have my vote.


Thank you!

I know this aspect of my campaign is vigorously attacked and/or dismissed, and I appreciate hearing voices that support my choices in the matter.

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#46 - 2015-02-18 21:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Two good articles I stumbled upon today bring up the subject of toxicity in the community.
http://eveoganda.blogspot.com/2015/02/guest-post-toxicity-in-corp-culture.html
http://hotdropoclock.com/?p=32

I am not a woman, I am not gay, I am not black, I am not jew, I am not autist or suffering from having special needs, but I still do not like when "players" use the chat comms to propagate their insult against one group or another as if it was funny to everyone.
This is also amongst the reasons that contributed to me starting playing solo, and not have to suffer through trash-comms episodes.

If you are amongst that kind of players, do not even bother to vote for me, and understand that as the Eve community grows, most won't accept your immaturity, and you will end up surrounded by people like yourself, aka anonymous losers.

Candidate for CSM XII

Nolan Kotulan
Nova Tabula Rasa
#47 - 2015-02-18 21:39:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolan Kotulan
Borat Guereen wrote:
Two good articles I stumbled upon today bring up the subject of toxicity in the community.
http://eveoganda.blogspot.com/2015/02/guest-post-toxicity-in-corp-culture.html
http://hotdropoclock.com/?p=32

I am not a woman, I am not gay, I am not black, I am not jew, I am not autist or suffering from having special needs, but I still do not like when "players" use the chat comms to propagate their insult against one group or another as if it was funny to everyone.
This is also amongst the reasons that contributed to me starting playing solo, and not have to suffer through trash-comms episodes.

If you are amongst that kind of players, do not even bother to vote for me, and understand that as the Eve community grows, most won't accept your immaturity, and you will end up surrounded by people like yourself, aka anonymous losers.
THAT is something on which I agree with you! o7

Per aspera ad astra

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#48 - 2015-02-19 08:29:18 UTC
CCP to give out a new shuttle and trinketsf in honor of ten years of CSM!

I would have preferred that CCP give the diplomatic shuttle BPC to those accounts that will vote, and the trinkets to everyone on Feb 25th, but kuddos for the efforts to raise awareness about the CSM and the importance of voting...

CCP va célebrer les 10 ans du CSM en donnant des BPC d'une nouvelle navette diplomatique et des bibelots référençant tous les noms des membres de chaque CSM jusqu'à ce jour.

J'aurais préferé que CCP donne la navette diplomatique à ceux qui voteront, et les bibelots à tous les joueurs actifs le 25 Février, mais malgrè cela, bravo pour leurs efforts pour améliorer la visibilité du CSM et l'importance de voter.

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#49 - 2015-02-20 10:32:42 UTC
I really like the upcoming changes to new player experience. Congrats to CSM IX for participating to what seems like a good way to improve this experience.

I particularly like that people will start in a ship in space, warping to their own anomaly, instead of inside a station without a spaceship...

I just hope that they won't be able to be probed in that starting anomaly and no griefer can mess with their first experience, until, of course they leave it after having acquired some basic rudiments (including not shooting at somebody targeting you, having learned that being targeted is different than being shot at...)


Je trouve la nouvelle approche du jeu qui est presentée dans le dernier post de CCP plutôt bien. Bravo au CSM IX pour leur participation dans ce qui semble être une amélioration majeure de cette premiere expérience.

J'apprécie tout particulièrement que les nouveaux joueurs démarreront dans un vaisseau de novice, warpant sur une anomalie qui leur sera spécifique, au lieu de démarrer en station sans vaisseau...

J'espère juste que les nouveaux ne pourront pas être probés dans leur anomalie de départ, et qu'aucun griefer ne pourras venir déranger leur première expérience, jusqu'à ce qu'ils quittent cette anomalie de départ après avoir acquis quelques rudiments de base (incluant de ne pas tirer sur quelqu'un qui vous cible, en ayant appris que être ciblé est différent que de se faire tirer dessus...)

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#50 - 2015-02-21 04:13:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
All the official candidates for CSM X are now known.
Voting will start Feb 25th and ends on March 10th.

For those interested in endorsing me publicly, I have an offer I think you will like:

Put the sentence that is between quotes below both in your character bio in-game and as your eve online forums' signature until March 10, and send me an e-mail in-game about your endorsement (I will not respond to your email, but your endorsement will be noted).

"I will include Borat Guereen in my top three votes for CSM X to bring in some independant voice to represent us, and help support the solo play style. Vote Borat Guereen for CSM X."

At a random time between now and March 5th*, I will take a screenshot of your signature on the forums (make sure to post there to let your endorsement be known) as well as a screen shot of your in-game bio.

For those that have my endorsement sentence on both screenshots, if I am elected, I will set up a 10mn one on one discussion in english via my Team Speak server to hear your most important opinions about Eve, and discuss them with you to understand your perspective (I plan to set up all these one-on-one discussions within the first three months of my tenure). If you have more than one character endorsing me publicly, our one-on-one will be 10mn per 3 characters with this endorsement.
One of your character of your choice will also be given an "endorser" access to my CSM X forums that I will set up to discuss about Eve with my electorate, for the duration of my tenure.

*Edit on 2/25: Now that voting has started the time frame for meaningful endorsements has been reduced to 3/5. For all those that have send their email before 2/25, the end date remains 3/10

FR

La liste complète des candidats officiels pour le CSM X est maintenant publique.
Le vote démarre le 25 Février et se termine le 10 Mars.

Si vous souhaitez me soutenir publiquement, j'ai une proposition qui je pense vous plaira:

Ajouter la phrase qui est ci-dessous entre guillemets à la fois dans votre biographie de personnage en jeu et dans votre signature sur les forums eve online, et envoyez moi un email en jeu pour m'indiquer votre soutien (je ne répondrais pas à cet email, mais votre soutien sera noté).

"Je vais inclure Borat Guereen dans mes trois premiers votes pour le CSM X pour donner une voix aux joueurs indépendants, et aider à soutenir le style de jeu solo. Votez Borat Guereen pour CSM X!"

A n'importe quel moment jusqu'au 5 Mars*, j'irais faire un screen shot de votre signature de forums (assurez vous de faire au moins un post pour faire connaitre votre soutien) et de la bio de votre personnage.

Pour ceux qui ont ma phrase de soutien à la fois sur les forums et dans leur bio, si je suis élu, je mettrais en place une discussion privée avec vous de 10mn sur mon serveur Team Speak pour entendre vos opinions les plus importantes sur Eve, et en discuter pour comprendre votre perspective (Je prévois de faire ces discussions dans les trois premiers mois de mon mandat). Si vous avez plus d'un personnage me soutenant publiquement, notre entretien dureras 10mn par 3 personnages me soutenant.
L'un de vos personnages de votre choix obtiendras aussi un accès "Soutien" à mon forum CSM X que je mettrais en place pour discuter de Eve avec mon électorat, pour la durée de mon mandat.


* Mise a jour le 25/2: Mainetant que les votes ont demarres, la periode pour un soutine utile est reduite au 5 Mars au lieu de 10. Elle reste fixee au 10 Mars pour tout ceux qui m'ont envoye un mail avant le 25/2 .

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#51 - 2015-02-21 22:10:17 UTC
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

CSM representatives can only be elected once. This is important to make sure the CSM seats truly represent all players each year and does not become a stagnant pool of power players

Eve Online is not like any other MMO out there. Players build resources and assets that they can lose in-game, and have a wide variety of options to set their own goals. There is no final boss, no end point in a players' influenced story line. For a lot of players that chose to stick with this game, Eve is more like a hobby than just another game.
Eve has celebrated its 10 years already. For all those involved, the passion, and the stakes, are high and the nature of this game is about long term commitment.

The more recent information about the CSM interaction with CCP clearly shows that CSM members will have the ability to voice their thoughts directly in confluence, the system that CCP uses to manage their projects.
CCP also clearly stated that they are the sole and final decider about what they do with the game, and they reserve the right to not make everything public to the CSM (as I think insider knowledge on some stuff can favor certain groups over others, and is difficult to verify regardless of NDA signed).
Still, a direct access to the makers and deciders of the fate of New Eden is a significant power, as the teams in CCP can read everything logged and kept in Confluence.

CCP's goal is different from the players' representative goals: CCP is there to make money while providing long term fun and a unique sci-fi experience. The CSM members represent the voices of the players that voted for them. CSM members are not game designers, they are part of a focus group, or a think tank, and represent the community that elected them, to bring up points that may be ignored, or acted upon at CCP's discretion.

My main point is that being elected only once will keep in check a non-CCP employee individual's influence over the game we all share, and allow other voices and faces to rise up. As younger players become vets, there is no shortage of talents in the player base to represent a community that evolves each year.


I also support an increase of the term for CSM to two years, and possibly an increase to the number of representatives to keep up with the growth of the active community, keeping one election every year for half of the members
Large players' groups, with their voting recommendations, will always have representatives on the CSM, but it is up to them each year to find new people to represent them.

I also support activity feedback for CSM members, with a public activity report for every CSM member every 6 months, and consequences for two poor activity reports in a row, like loosing your seat to a candidate next in line from the last election. This process must not become a possibility for other CSM members to black-ball someone they do not like, and be fact checked with activity data, and clear expectations.


version Française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#52 - 2015-02-22 21:38:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Make sure new features that encourage small groups actions, like the siphons for example, do not get nerfed to uselessness before they are introduced by the established power groups

I chose to highlight Siphons because I believe the way they have been released and discussed is very representative of the way features intended for one play style that CCP recognizes actively, yet get little support from the CSM because of a lack of independent active voices.

As a note, I do not use siphons myself for reasons I will explain more in a moment. This is sad as I have been very excited about them when they were released. The concept of guerilla warfare is one that I believe both independent solo players and small groups share a similar taste for.

This is the CCP page introducing Siphons. It is all about guerilla-warfare and this Dev blog present siphons as introducing an asynchronous gameplay, something that is significant for the smaller entities. I can't dream to go head to head with a fleet of more than 2 or 3 individual players, so asynchronous gameplay is fairly attractive to me, and can generate smaller engagements I can take where a timer is just a lost cause in my case.

The following community thread ended up being 77 pages long. Two members of the CSM participated publicly, one in a very minimal way at the beginning (Ali Aras), while Mynna, representing the Goons, kept her activity in that thread pretty high, together with plenty of other goons. This is interesting because of course they represent the main target of this new feature. So after a while, CCP decided to make a change at which point Mynna mostly disappeared from the thread. I can't know what happened behind the scene, but it seems obvious that the goons got what they wanted from CCP.

I wish that another CSM member representing the other side would have been as active as Mynna has been on that topic to defend the siphons. There was certainly no shortage of players debating in favor of the siphons effects, and as a CSM member believing in asynchronous gameplay and guerilla warfare, I would have been all over that thread too..

So siphons got released, their waste factor reduced from 20% to 10% (the power groups managed to reduce the more obvious damage to their production line, as siphoned content themselves can always be recovered once the siphon presence is identified). For reasons that I do not know about, CCP did not follow up on their promise that the siphons would not be identifiable by API, and naturally there is no pressure anymore to fix this as it benefits the power block with a quick and automated identification of the leaks.

From my point of view, siphons are mostly useless until the APIs stop ratting them out, and that is a pity. There are certainly a few things I would have advocated for them, like making them recoverable instead of being a certain net loss with a uncertain benefit for the people deploying them, as well as doubling the steal output with no wastage for the first 6 hours after being deployed, then having the current rates after that and a wastage factor increasing to 20% after the first day of them being deployed...

If I am elected I will use my influence to defend the features that would allow beneficial guerilla against the larger groups.

version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#53 - 2015-02-23 00:04:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Make sure API data availability does not provide too much Out of game information, and allow some kind of in-game data privacy option.


My goal is not to make API data disappears altogether. API have a large role to play in a MMO such as EvE, and there are a lot of excellent third parties' tools that use them, but...

The amount of information API generates automatically is too prevalent in the metagame and favors large groups with the IT capabilities to sift through the data and identify information. This is currently too exact, without even needing to log in. What I support will not fundamentally change available information, but as it will involve players’ action, it will not be as exact and will add a fog of ‘metagaming’ war effect.

My main focus is around the killboards' data, as I am not as familiar with the other aspects of the API, even if I believe that each API aspect should be looked at with the concept of fog of "metagaming" war in mind...

What I'd like to see regarding the killboards is that players opting for privacy would not have their destroyed modules in any killmails, so that the exact value of their fit would not be represented with such accuracy.
All the other information would still be there as it is now.

More importantly, I'd like to see a human factor to the data gathering, and limit the all-automatic nature of killboard data uploading, when APIs have only been shared by one side.
Privacy for each character would be considered for any killmail, and if any of the pilot involved in the killmail has their privacy setting set to ON, the killmail would not be automatically uploaded to any killboards, but the player receiving the kill mail would still be free to upload those themselves once they have it.
If all pilots involved have not opted for privacy then it would stay exactly as it is now.

This is the only extent of this aspect of my program, and I believe it is fair to intorduce a concept of fog of "metagaming" war around the Apis, with more involvement of players choices.

I have also mentioned in my post about siphons about the consequence of a too precise API data system, that allows to locate wich POSes are under a siphon effect from out-of-game. When API have a direct effect on in-game features, there are questions to be asked, as I believe it only benefit a specific section of the player base at the expense of others...

version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#54 - 2015-02-23 01:23:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Gorski Car blogged about Skynet, and brings a possible solution I would fully support.
Skynet has to go...

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#55 - 2015-02-23 21:09:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Encourage new features that would truly allow for a nomadic life style in New Eden.

New Eden is huge, and only small parts of its vastness beyond high sec are heavy with activities from the current sovereignty holders (null sec) or inhabitants (low sec and wh) while most of it remains nearly deserted except for the automated POSes that get only get visited once in a while, or the occasional or regular farmer. The permanency of the Eve servers and single world approach adds to that emptiness from the simple timezones requirements, as a system may be bustling on AU TZ zone, and be a desert a few hours later or earlier in in EU TZ.

The introduction of Wormholes has created real possibilities to be more nomadic as the gates to Null-Sec are not anymore single points of passages. We can roam deeper via wormholes routes, while remaining only a few jump away from home. But we still all need a home that is a fixed feature. Home can be an station or a POS. Both are the main places where our assets can be stored reasonably safely for long amount of time. For most of Eve pilots, it is where you can start from and roam around, and then come back

Ships like Rorqual, or Orca immediately comes to mind as potential staples of nomadic life, but today risking them for long amount of time away from home is a huge risk for those that are not looking to establish or increase their SOVs. Other options includes setting up temporary POSes and dismounting them but carrying those limit the capability to transport other things and benefit from the nomadism.

Here are a few concepts I'd like to discuss more with everyone, to encourage seeing nomadic outpost in the most deserted parts of New Eden (and I fully understand that the upcoming activity based sovereignty may change some things in that aspect in the next year).

- A concept of a ship that can morph into a POS, thus not having to carry the necessary weight to bring a POS infrastructure with you

- Some kind of respawn bay (no jump clone!) that could allow nomadic players losing a fight and podded to not get totally cut out of their nomadic assets, so as to encourage them to participate in fights instead of clamming up.

- A nomadic outpost would not necessarily have timers like structures have, and once deployed should still have defenses that only a coordinated efforts from a fleet would be able to take out, without needing capital action.

- The capacity for ships that would become a staple of this nomadism to use any WH (so having a max mass like an orca) and possibly tie this to the black ops redesign and capabilities to bridge such ships across more dangerous areas.

version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#56 - 2015-02-24 00:13:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Make some of the carrier paths that are advertised to bring new people in the game to become realistic, like Bounty Hunter.

In the past, CCP used to communicate to new players about certain career paths that could be done in Eve Online, like industrialist, Pirate, Freedom Fighter or Bounty Hunter. This communication has changed (I am not sure when) and it seems that these paths are no longer visible in the marketing efforts to communicate to new players.

This is a good thing, as Eve is a very open game and a single "career" does not make much sense. Players are free to embrace different play styles, as well as different activities while building the skillset of their characters. Furthermore, the bounty hunter path was really not supported properly in-game to be defined as a carreer in the same sense as industrialist, trader or pirate.

CCP has thus addressed this point of my platform already by focusing their new landing pages to the game's features and the spaceships themselves, which is better. Their action removes a lot of the grief I had about bounty hunting, as I was seeing it as an unfair way to lure new players in the game, only to disappoint them.

I am still not too happy about the current bounty hunting rules and I wish one could really make a living out of it. I do not like the usage of the current bounty system as a glorified ISK leaderboard. I appreciated the efforts made a while ago to improve it, even if it did not go far enough. But by removing this bounty hunter career as an advertisement to the game, CCP has pro-actively de-fanged most of my grief about this specific topic.

I can live with the system as it is, where bounty hunting may be more of an opportunity to seize rather than a long hunt to do. I am sure some very dedicated players still can do it after a while, but i do not know if there is a real benefit to it at the moment. I would really like CCP to do another pass on bounty hunting, and I would support it whole-hearteadly, but as it is not used anymore to lure new players in, I can live with the current status-quo, as there are bigger issues to work on.

This is an opportunity for me in the middle of explaining in more details the various points of my program to give credits to CCP for the turn-around they have shown in the past year. From the new releases schedules, to the choices made, I applaud the work done. This is what encouraged me to put myself on a run for CSM and in the public eye, something I am usualy not fond of.

version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#57 - 2015-02-24 03:57:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Request that all players link all their alts publicly, with a slight change in the EULA


This is the most controversial point of my program. The point causing prominent members of the public community to shake their head condescendingly at my run for CSM X and sigh, the point that sets me apart from the accepted "norm", the black sheep, or the simpleton that just "does not get it".... Everyone is entitled to their opinions.
For me this point is the true test of the votes of this CSM X to bring independent voices to bear.

X like 10 years... Eve is already ten years old, and all the doom sayers of "Eve is dying" have been proven wrong so far. Eve is leaving infancy behind, and entering teen years on a human age scale. Many tantrums have been had, and the game continues to grow, and offers an unparalleled experience of social interactions mixed with a cut-throat environment where players build assets, and can loose them on simple mistakes, or a bad look from a powerful individual, or long lasting grudges. Eve is not for the faint of heart, or the ones full of great ideals... It is gritty and unforgiving, but everyone can set their own goal and agenda and expect a reasonably fair field of play...

but is the gaming field truly fair as the power of a player is multiplied exponentially by the number of unrelated accounts one has?

This was very visible with the thankfully now banned input broadcasting, where fleets of bombers handled by one player could destroy a gang of numerous players with a single coordinated bomb run, or locust mining fleet could empty a site in mere minutes to the dismay of local residents with a more casual approach to their gaming hobby. They were not alts of the same accounts, but different accounts organized to operate at the same time. In that case, they gave away their anonymity to multiply exponentially the effect of one player on the game.
The community as a whole started seeing that as an abuse during the last year, while it was accepted for many years before. But as it started being more visible, as more players saw it working for some and duplicated the trend, this created a snowball effect that could not be ignored anymore. Gone is the very visible input broadcasting, because it became too obvious, but it also clearly showed that some players could afford many many accounts....

... and there are still today many ways that are not as visible to influence the game with a lot of anonymous different accounts and only one player behind them. From corps infiltration by "clean" alts, to non-productive cloaky campers that block in-game activity for local residents, to trading manipulated by alts of the same player, the power of multiple anonymous accounts is very much around, but it is not visible.

My goal with this point of my program is to cast a light on it, and continue the cleaning process for a fairer gaming field to all players that the input broadcasting ban started. Multiple anonymous account is, simply put, a subtle form of pay-to-win.

Removing the anonymity does not mean preventing players from having multiple accounts, as I believe this is truly a staple of Eve, but it will change the impact on the game that these extra alts can bring to the same player.

All activities in Eve are designed around risk versus rewards. Anonymous alts is all rewards with no risks. I have received angry messages saying I am going to kill the spy game....

Where is the difficulty in the spy game today? you are not working to turn another player, but you are adding a new account and having a real easy, no risk involved, run at a group of players in their corp that have no other way to protect themselves than not recruiting anymore...

What is the difficulty and the risk of sending a cloaky alt for weeks around, totally anonymously so that the recipients can't even know who is behind it and retaliate in other ways? A cloaky alt does not produce anything for the game, and has a no-risk opportunity to jump those that ignore the cloaky camper at the first opportunity. Why being afraid of retaliation against other productive alts?

The tenants of this type of play are the worst and most hypocritical carebears of the game, wanting to wield significant influence with the multiple anonymous accounts, and wield an influence that has little risk involved. It is not about the number of accounts, it is about their anonymity* hence my proposition to change the EULA accordingly.

I also received multiple messages of various sort about the paradox of me running from an anonymous alt and having this item on my agenda. Well it make sense for many different reasons:

- First I want to run on ideas I believe will make the game fairer for all, and be judged on these ideas, and not from the corps I have flew with or the state of my killboard. With me you get what you read on these forums, baseline statements that helps identify the points I will defend if I am elected.

- Not showing my main also ensures that I will not suffer from backlash in-game about ideas that I understand are threatening some players' influence over the game. Playing solo, my best defense is into this kind of secrecy.

- Running as an anonymous alt is also making a point about this particular aspect of my program. I have little reason to be the one linking my alts publicly, while anonymous alts remain a part of the game for all other players. If this change, I will be the first one to link all my alts to this account.

*Clarification: I am talking about the anonymity of alts, not the anonymity of players. Only CCP should know the players' names behind the accounts, all alts from various accounts of the same player being linked.

version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#58 - 2015-02-24 09:42:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Participate to the new upcoming sovereignty changes to give a chance to smaller groups to truly own something without having to rent It.


Sovereignty is this year the elephant in the room that everyone and their mother have talked about. This is the flag players plant on the new Eden null-sec map for all to see.

Currently sov revolves around a mix of power projection strength , players's negotiated agreements or alliances, and of course identifying and protecting the most lucrative corners of null space to solidly control their income. Much of the space under sov remains empty except for strategically placed systems serving as bases in the various regions.

Anyone that has been in an alliance knows the meaning of the word CTA, where the leaders and FCs bangs up the drums to bring more bodies than the expected opposing fleet, their easily infiltrated alts keeping them updated on the current count in the opposing fleets, the location of those pilots that matter most (cyno, scouts, mostly all alts of highly ranked and trusted pilots to avoid treachery...).
The regular joes gather, fleets get ready-ish and leave Xish hours after being called, players wait for a while at a titan to be bridged to an undisclosed system, and most of the time nothing happens except for shooting at immobile structures, and doing it all over again with the next timer, and the next....
If things heats up, escalation is usually pretty steep if the timer is important, in which case TiDi kicks in, slowing every action to a snail pace, and if the spy reports indicates possible odds turns bad, contact is broken to avoid losses that would look real bad on the killboards.
In short the current regular player experience around sovereignty sucks most of the time, while the experience of the leaders is full of constant adrenaline rushes... and the efforts involved to support all the infrastructures by the pilots making it happen behind the scenes, logistics and all, is pretty staggering..

It must be said that when the fights happen and are not too lopsided, they recharge spirits of anyone involved, especially the winners, to accept more tediousness for weeks to come. gud winning fights is an incredible morale boost.

Fortunately, CCP has recognized the issue a while ago already and has been actively working on it, with the CSM IX members input. There is no announcement on what is coming when, except for the already released first piece, jump fatigue, to control power projection. But it is unlikely that CSM X will have much, if any, to contribute on what must currently be development well in progress and plans already set to fix the sovereignty issues.

A lot of voices support activity based sovereignty, which I also strongly support. Spreading players across the various systems makes for more interesting smaller fights all the time.

What CSM X will be most likely called to do is to cover the releases of the new sov system, more than influence it.

Still if there is any chance to influence anything that is to come in that area, my main focus would be to ensure that some kind of sov can be established by the smaller groups, even if this sov is more limited than what a group of players can achieve.

A solo player claiming sov on a asteroid belt for example, or a small corporation claiming sov on one of the moons, or a planet's PI, or a larger group claiming sov on the system itself, and an alliance on a group of systems in a region and so forth... This would be where the combination of players interaction to defend a corner of space where each hold a sov adapted to their scope would create de-facto alliances, each layers benefiting from the activity of the lower layers.

Also, the experience around fleet fights to control sovereignty should be better spread across all players, to avoid seeing 95% of the fun parts of a fleet op handled by 5% of the pilots. I do not have any magical solution to this, but it is a problem worth discussing for the sake of the game.

Lastly, establishing sovereignty should not be tedious, but fun and active across multiple timezone, and triggering engagements scaled to the level of sov being challenged, with multiple point of contact grids rather than a large battle in a single place.

These are just pie in the sky thoughts of course, and as I do not believe we are at the early stage of sov redesign, CSM X will have to work with what has already been decided on those topics. On thing for sure, it is something big that will change the game, and this new CSM will be right in the middle of it, liking the changes or not...


version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#59 - 2015-02-24 10:31:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
This post focuses on digging more into one of my program points, and summarize my thoughts or what I said about it in various medias.

Develop the new player resources and first experiences in a more integrated way within the game.

CCP has recently communicated on new efforts to improve the new player experience.

This read is excellent, and the thing I like the most about it is that at last new players will start a spaceship themed game in a spaceship!
Also, being directly driven to an anomaly in the starting system is great too, ratting and mining as the first two things to do, then learning about the rest warping, docking, undocking... finding new stuff to do..
all that in a format that is not as linear and text heavy as the current tutorial.
That looks really good!

I just hope that no griefer can probe this starting anomaly or the player in it, and fleet invite and other tricks of that nature will be disabled until the players warps out of after having learned the basics, including not shooting in high sec at someone that is simply targeting you...

There is something else that is dear to me that I would push if elected:
A ship simulator within a spaceship game Lol

In short the ability to sample every ship from your station in your starter system, through a simulator that will take you in a instance only anomaly (nobody else can get in as after all you will not be in real space) for a mission specially designed for the ship's role.

This simulator would give you access to the skills at level 5 and to your choice of any of the module to fit, and teach you the hard way when your fit is poor. The mission could be run multiple times until it is completed after you find by yourself the optimal way to fit the ship, and experience the consequences of a non-optimal fit, without losing anything yourself.

The access to ships class could be granted by steps, unlocked by completion of related simulations as well as real skill trainings, without being too linear, and would cover all the ships including capitals, so the training sim could be visited anytime by all pilots as they evolve and get closer to actually be able to fly said ship.

Learning process in Eve is a constant thing. Learning the roles and how to fit ships is something that even expereinced players can benefit from, even more if they can be exposed without risk of losing stuff to the consequences of poor fit in a training simulator, before being blown up for good in space.
Not having to install a second client for that purpose, and having a tailored mission for the ship's role, would be neat.


version française

Candidate for CSM XII

Borat Guereen
ARRAKIS Ltd.
#60 - 2015-02-24 18:05:36 UTC
I will be on the town hall panel of the Declaration of Wars podcast on 3/1 at 21:00

Mark this thread for more details about their other panels for CSM X

Candidate for CSM XII