These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Xenuria: CSM 11

First post First post
Author
Xenuria
#1 - 2015-03-23 20:20:07 UTC
~CSM 11 Official Platform~

-API-

The API needs work especially in terms of what the player has access too. Many of the changes I propose are under the category “Quality of Life”. EvE is about the player sculpting their experience and that of others by means of information and stimuli. Modern Day corporations use massive databanks of common search terms and phrases to gauge the interests and desires of their target markets. EvE should be no different.

--Changes--

The API should include (optionally) more information about a player/corp/alliance. Information like Losses to NPCs, Kills in a given area over a given time span, how many times a player/corp/alliance has changed a standing given a time period, etc. The more data that CCP can reasonably and fairly provide players through the API without being unbalanced the better.

-UI-

The current UI is a marvel of innovation due in no small part to the diligence of people like CCP Karkur and other members of CCP who are constantly trying to find a “Better Way”. The UI has come a very long way since the early days of EvE, let’s see if it can come farther.

--Changes--

The Corp UI needs attention, it’s a train wreck of dividers and columns that presents in an unintuitive and often confusing way. It needs a full work over the results of which players should be allowed to optionally opt in and out of at will.
The People and Places window could benefit from more filtration options like “most conversations with” or “most often online”, little changes like this make the social aspects of EvE easier to manage.

-Vanity & Ego-

CCP has already expressed an intent to bring ships skins and other vanity items to eve that are representative of different factions and entities. Why should a player with 9.0 standing with Interbus pay the same amount for an interbus skin or vanity item as a player with -9.0 standing? They shouldn’t. My changes would rework the way standings affect game-play specific in the context of vanity items and ship variations.

--Changes--

A player with perfect standing with a faction (10.0) should never have to pay for the use of a skin or vanity item of that faction.
If a player has terrible standing with a faction and wants to purchase a skin or vanity item for that faction, this low standing should negatively impact the affordability and/or practicality of buying that skin from the vendor.
A corp or alliance with a desire to put it’s logo on a ship should have no cost associated with doing so if the corp/alliance standing with the faction of that ship is high enough.



-More TBA-
Xenuria
#2 - 2015-03-23 20:21:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenuria
Reserved

Source
Shoes and other vanity based art assets should be re-worked to fit inline with the current standards of mainstream art assets.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#3 - 2015-03-23 21:44:14 UTC
Easily your least terrible OP yet. Good to see you're taking feedback on board I guess.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#4 - 2015-03-23 22:27:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
Xenuria wrote:
~CSM 11 Official Platform~

-API-

The API needs work especially in terms of what the player has access too. Many of the changes I propose are under the category “Quality of Life”. EvE is about the player sculpting their experience and that of others by means of information and stimuli. Modern Day corporations use massive databanks of common search terms and phrases to gauge the interests and desires of their target markets. EvE should be no different.

--Changes--

The API should include (optionally) more information about a player/corp/alliance. Information like Losses to NPCs, Kills in a given area over a given time span, how many times a player/corp/alliance has changed a standing given a time period, etc. The more data that CCP can reasonably and fairly provide players through the API without being unbalanced the better.

-UI-

The current UI is a marvel of innovation due in no small part to the diligence of people like CCP Karkur and other members of CCP who are constantly trying to find a “Better Way”. The UI has come a very long way since the early days of EvE, let’s see if it can come farther.

--Changes--

The Corp UI needs attention, it’s a train wreck of dividers and columns that presents in an unintuitive and often confusing way. It needs a full work over the results of which players should be allowed to optionally opt in and out of at will.
The People and Places window could benefit from more filtration options like “most conversations with” or “most often online”, little changes like this make the social aspects of EvE easier to manage.

-Vanity & Ego-

CCP has already expressed an intent to bring ships skins and other vanity items to eve that are representative of different factions and entities. Why should a player with 9.0 standing with Interbus pay the same amount for an interbus skin or vanity item as a player with -9.0 standing? They shouldn’t. My changes would rework the way standings affect game-play specific in the context of vanity items and ship variations.

--Changes--

A player with perfect standing with a faction (10.0) should never have to pay for the use of a skin or vanity item of that faction.
If a player has terrible standing with a faction and wants to purchase a skin or vanity item for that faction, this low standing should negatively impact the affordability and/or practicality of buying that skin from the vendor.
A corp or alliance with a desire to put it’s logo on a ship should have no cost associated with doing so if the corp/alliance standing with the faction of that ship is high enough.



-More TBA-



Just quoting for future reference. (Specifically to do with already announced changes. I'd expect someone on the CSM to keep up with the changes for the game. It's kinda important.)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Diemos Hiaraki
Septentrion
#5 - 2015-03-24 00:25:01 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
~CSM 11 Official Platform~


I'm extremely cautious about voting for anyone who appears to have an agenda for the CSM. Every player I know has ideas about EvE all the time, but if I was running for CSM I'd be keeping my ideas to the F&I board where they belong. I suppose you could say Corbexx had an agenda during CSM9 to get some of the wormholes buffed, but he obviously put the work into getting enough evidence to prove his thinking was along the right lines. Given you have over a year before CSM11 I'd consider getting the evidence to prove your ideas are valuable otherwise you will just get put on the "ideas candidate" ignore list with the dozens of other "ideas" candidates who don't get voted in.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#6 - 2015-03-24 03:51:43 UTC
Diemos Hiaraki wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
~CSM 11 Official Platform~


I'm extremely cautious about voting for anyone who appears to have an agenda for the CSM. Every player I know has ideas about EvE all the time, but if I was running for CSM I'd be keeping my ideas to the F&I board where they belong. I suppose you could say Corbexx had an agenda during CSM9 to get some of the wormholes buffed, but he obviously put the work into getting enough evidence to prove his thinking was along the right lines. Given you have over a year before CSM11 I'd consider getting the evidence to prove your ideas are valuable otherwise you will just get put on the "ideas candidate" ignore list with the dozens of other "ideas" candidates who don't get voted in.

quit trolling with loaded questions.

(im sorry ISD, i HAD to)

more on topic, OP/Xenuria, these ideas are relatively vague, pitching an idea and letting CCP work out the details is nice and all, but at least put links to corresponding F&I threads where you elaborate more specifically on where your stated goal for these changes would be and why.

aswell as justification for some of the "proposals", for instance, why should skins CCP charge money for, be cheaper for people who grind away in highsec getting standings through missions, than for people who arguably supply more content in low/null by focusing on player interaction? on that note, what justification do you propose to ANYONE getting a discount on cash-shop items, ESPECIALLY ones that can be resold on the market, as this opens to market exploitation, and shutting out people based solely on where in the game they play, this is incredibly bad for any game mechanic that relies on real life cash.
Dradis Aulmais
Serious Non-stop Espionage and Kidnapping
#7 - 2015-03-26 01:43:03 UTC
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.

Dradis Aulmais, Federal Attorney Number 54896

Free The Scope Three

Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#8 - 2015-03-26 07:43:32 UTC
I like how, out of 3 issues you want to pitch, 2 are utterly uncontroversial (And just test it for relevancy with the reversal: Who would pitch a worse API or UI?), one might be out of the ordinary but is such a small issue it's irrelevant, and all three are things that CSM can hardly change. Adding to this, it seems like three insignificant issues insofar that you can find a plethora of CSM candidates who will promote these and a hoard of other issues, if you really do want to vote for an 'issues' candidate.
But this is not all. This is something like your 5th failed candidacy, and the last onestill had questions unanswered.

Questions central to your (then?) oh-so-important platform of 'CSM reform' (Which you first tried to write off as removal of voting, then rejected that it should be CCP appointed, leaving it an open question what should happen...), where you "identified" a few "issues". I quote here the "issues" and restate the questions I had to them and the rest of your platform.
Alphea Abbra wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
There are no rules or policies against buying votes with isk or other in-game items and services.
There are no rules or policies against coercing people to vote by ganking or camping.
There are no rules or policies against the wholesale purchase of eve accounts for the sole purpose of using them for vote padding.

How and why could you see anyone committing any of the above acts? How would you see yourself doing it, practically, and purely hypothetical? What practical gain can you see by removing them?

What source do you have that ~90% of your voters are female?

Have the CFC (Or any null-sec bloc) ever placed you on their endorsed ballot? Please do show it.

How does STV function in broad strokes?

Can it ever hurt your chances to be placed on an endorsed ballot, even if lowest, compared to not being on it?
So, have you learnt something from the failed candidacy?
Is the subject of "CSM reform" as important to you as it were in the CSM 10 campaign?
Malcanis wrote:
Easily your least terrible OP yet. Good to see you're taking feedback on board I guess.
+1 for this, compared to earlier campaigns, this is merely misunderstanding and bland, not insane and offputting.
Hooray for progress?

Nariya Kentaya wrote:
quit trolling with loaded questions.

(im sorry ISD, i HAD to)

(...)these ideas are relatively vague, pitching an idea and letting CCP work out the details is nice and all(...)
Makes it all the easier to ask loaded questions. It's a gate so wide, you can load anything into those terms. Somewhat like "occupancy SOV", they can catch 'em all.
Xenuria
#9 - 2015-03-26 22:13:52 UTC
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#10 - 2015-03-26 23:11:01 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.

but why should ingame effort have an effect on people's ability to spend real life cash into the game?

should we also give subscription discounts to people who pvp alot? since they are "playing it right" and "giving content"?

no, because that would be unfair.

If these were ISK based items, it would be a non-arguement. But they arent. they are CASH items.

So why, if I am in nullsec pvp'ing all day, and johnny McNotBot is farming lvl 4 caldari missions all day and doing nothing else, should he only spend 7 USD on ship skins, while Im forced to pay say 10 USD?

Imbalances should never exist in real cash exchanges for video games. because wht your proposing is the ISK market for these items should be solely dominated in supply by people who only grind PvE, due to the fact theyll have a magnitude more cash efficiency in purchasing these items due to an arbitrary INGAME mechanic giving their OUT OF GAME cash more value than my out of game cash.

In short, No, its a terrible idea.

On that note, start up these ideas in F&I so we can discuss them there, picking apart your "proposals" in this thread, and theyre details, is detracting from the discussion of your candidacy.

Look at your ideas, expand on them, and write a detailed proposition for how and why they would/should work, with realistic placeholder values for numbers based on where you think it should work, and then link them here, so we can discuss the ideas THERE, with detail, and focus on your candidacy here.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#11 - 2015-03-26 23:16:24 UTC
2015 is the Year of the Sheep. 2016 will be the Year of the Xenuria.
Lauresh Thellere
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#12 - 2015-03-27 14:24:56 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.


There are already a multitude of benefits for someone with good standings and putting a barrier between people and the payment method is an extremely poor business decision. If someone wants to give CCP money then CCP should (and will) always allow it.

While I respect your right to run for CSM year after year it might be best to take some time off from campaigning to reacquaint yourself with the game and the community, whether it be your fault or external factors causing it you don't exactly have the best reputation in EVE and it would serve you better to network with players and establish new friendships and partnerships before running again.
Xenuria
#13 - 2015-03-28 00:18:09 UTC
Lauresh Thellere wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.


There are already a multitude of benefits for someone with good standings and putting a barrier between people and the payment method is an extremely poor business decision. If someone wants to give CCP money then CCP should (and will) always allow it.

While I respect your right to run for CSM year after year it might be best to take some time off from campaigning to reacquaint yourself with the game and the community, whether it be your fault or external factors causing it you don't exactly have the best reputation in EVE and it would serve you better to network with players and establish new friendships and partnerships before running again.



Nobody here is talking about barriers.
I am saying that standings should make it easier not be the only way. Please read the OP.
Nariya Kentaya
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2015-03-28 01:33:19 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Lauresh Thellere wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.


There are already a multitude of benefits for someone with good standings and putting a barrier between people and the payment method is an extremely poor business decision. If someone wants to give CCP money then CCP should (and will) always allow it.

While I respect your right to run for CSM year after year it might be best to take some time off from campaigning to reacquaint yourself with the game and the community, whether it be your fault or external factors causing it you don't exactly have the best reputation in EVE and it would serve you better to network with players and establish new friendships and partnerships before running again.



Nobody here is talking about barriers.
I am saying that standings should make it easier not be the only way. Please read the OP.

and were saying ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases

what if people with the top 10 PVP kills every month received a 30% discount on PLEX? it would be a bad idea.
Xenuria
#15 - 2015-03-28 03:10:15 UTC
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Lauresh Thellere wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Dradis Aulmais wrote:
On your vanity and ego section

My question is : why should standings matter if I'm purchasing AUR with real world cash, to get this item? If I was purchasing this with isk then standing should matter.


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.


There are already a multitude of benefits for someone with good standings and putting a barrier between people and the payment method is an extremely poor business decision. If someone wants to give CCP money then CCP should (and will) always allow it.

While I respect your right to run for CSM year after year it might be best to take some time off from campaigning to reacquaint yourself with the game and the community, whether it be your fault or external factors causing it you don't exactly have the best reputation in EVE and it would serve you better to network with players and establish new friendships and partnerships before running again.



Nobody here is talking about barriers.
I am saying that standings should make it easier not be the only way. Please read the OP.

and were saying ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases

what if people with the top 10 PVP kills every month received a 30% discount on PLEX? it would be a bad idea.

Please try your best to stay on topic.
Lauresh Thellere
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#16 - 2015-03-28 03:17:32 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Nariya Kentaya wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Lauresh Thellere wrote:
Xenuria wrote:


By not giving some benefit to people with good standings you devalue the effort they have already put in.


There are already a multitude of benefits for someone with good standings and putting a barrier between people and the payment method is an extremely poor business decision. If someone wants to give CCP money then CCP should (and will) always allow it.

While I respect your right to run for CSM year after year it might be best to take some time off from campaigning to reacquaint yourself with the game and the community, whether it be your fault or external factors causing it you don't exactly have the best reputation in EVE and it would serve you better to network with players and establish new friendships and partnerships before running again.



Nobody here is talking about barriers.
I am saying that standings should make it easier not be the only way. Please read the OP.

and were saying ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases

what if people with the top 10 PVP kills every month received a 30% discount on PLEX? it would be a bad idea.

Please try your best to stay on topic.


That is on topic, it's a pretty logical evolution. You're asking for an in game mechanic that has nothing to do with anything out of game to give discounts and effectively screwing all of nullsec and all those who don't want to grind standings.
Xenuria
#17 - 2015-04-09 16:55:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Xenuria
Your argument is that standings should not affect ship skins because
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases



Please show me where in this thread I said that.
Ship skins are for your in-game assets, it's not like buying a ship skin causes a shirt or a coffee mug to come flying out of your computer screen upon purchase. Your entire argument like those in my CSM 10 thread is based on conflation.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#18 - 2015-04-09 17:25:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
Xenuria wrote:
Your argument is that standings should not affect ship skins because
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases



Please show me where in this thread I said that.
Ship skins are for your in-game assets, it's not like buying a ship skin causes a shirt or a coffee mug to come flying out of your computer screen upon purchase. Your entire argument like those in my CSM 10 thread is based on conflation.


This is what you said:

Xenuria wrote:
A player with perfect standing with a faction (10.0) should never have to pay for the use of a skin or vanity item of that faction.
If a player has terrible standing with a faction and wants to purchase a skin or vanity item for that faction, this low standing should negatively impact the affordability and/or practicality of buying that skin from the vendor.
A corp or alliance with a desire to put it’s logo on a ship should have no cost associated with doing so if the corp/alliance standing with the faction of that ship is high enough.


Currently, we pay for the use of skins and vanity items with AUR (which can be purchased with ISK or real-world money), or with ISK from someone who bought it with AUR. There are apparently plans to put skins in LP stores, but those aren't shipping right now. Not everyone is aware of that.

The root of the problem is that your OP is ambiguous, which is why telling people to go read it is unhelpful. If I understand you correctly, you're referring to something like scaling the LP+ISK cost of a vanity item in a corporation's LP store to the buyer's standing with that corporation. If so, all you have to do is say, "I was referring to the LP and ISK cost from a loyalty point store, not the AUR cost from the NES," and all the ambiguity goes away.

On that subject, CCP has also floated the possibility of pitching the standings system in favor of something else. That doesn't invalidate your idea, but it means that implementation might have to wait for, and be modified to conform to, a new system.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Lauresh Thellere
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2015-04-10 17:42:36 UTC
Xenuria wrote:
Your argument is that standings should not affect ship skins because
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases



Please show me where in this thread I said that.
Ship skins are for your in-game assets, it's not like buying a ship skin causes a shirt or a coffee mug to come flying out of your computer screen upon purchase. Your entire argument like those in my CSM 10 thread is based on conflation.


An in game asset that you're buying with real life money hence "out of game purchases".

Letting someone buy something cheaper based on in game standings is the same as putting a barrier between people and their money, your penalising someone for not playing one specific aspect of the game, CCP will never do it and for good reason as it's an absurd idea for a business to entertain.
Xenuria
#20 - 2015-04-10 18:23:13 UTC
Lauresh Thellere wrote:
Xenuria wrote:
Your argument is that standings should not affect ship skins because
Nariya Kentaya wrote:

ingame activities/stats should never effect the cost of out of game purchases



Please show me where in this thread I said that.
Ship skins are for your in-game assets, it's not like buying a ship skin causes a shirt or a coffee mug to come flying out of your computer screen upon purchase. Your entire argument like those in my CSM 10 thread is based on conflation.


An in game asset that you're buying with real life money hence "out of game purchases".

Letting someone buy something cheaper based on in game standings is the same as putting a barrier between people and their money, your penalising someone for not playing one specific aspect of the game, CCP will never do it and for good reason as it's an absurd idea for a business to entertain.


By that logic PLEX should cost a flat amount because at present an unfair advantage is giving to people who wish to purchase PLEX with isk instead of real life money.

Ship skins are not planned to be an out of game purchase as far as I know, they can be bought with aurum or isk, both of which are ingame commodities. Buying isk for IRL cash is illegal and considered RMT, so I don't think your argument holds any water.
123Next page