These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Meissa Anunthiel for CSM 7 - (longest CSM member to date, for a reason)

First post
Author
Alexis Zyl
Sigma Central Administration
#81 - 2012-02-22 08:51:50 UTC
I have admired some of the things that RnK has done.

Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
What I'm doing is looking if a way can be found to address the issues that exist without negatively impacting the current playstyle. ... if a way can be found, good, if one can't, then the current situation is better than a botched change.


This is an astute observation that bears repeating because it is commonly overlooked. Not just pertinent to the subject that this quote was originally about, but all aspects of EVE (and you could even go as far as to say life in general, really).
Snowflake Tem
The Order of Symbolic Measures
#82 - 2012-02-22 15:49:35 UTC

R&K vids are an eduction, your enabling style is practical and your holistic approach is probably appropriate - but -
unless you select a cause to champion, how do you expect to rally new support?

I want to throw my vote your way, but I'm just not compelled to.
Naunet
Diamond Sisters
#83 - 2012-02-22 19:00:53 UTC
+1 from me too. Big smile
Foxtrot Zulu
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#84 - 2012-02-23 00:52:15 UTC
+1
vesla
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#85 - 2012-02-23 06:35:42 UTC
You have my vote!
Courthouse
Perkone
Caldari State
#86 - 2012-02-23 08:45:33 UTC
It's probably time for you to take a break from the whole CSM thing. Your 3+ years in the counsel really didn't accomplish anything of note and your entire platform has been "I've been here forever, vote for me (again)".

I say you haven't accomplished much of note because from CSM 2 through 5, about the only thing of note that got accomplished was skill queues. You completely screwed up jump bridges by advocating for something you had no knowledge or experience with. Luckily for nullsec alliances CCP added their own flavor of stupid and mistakenly sort of made them easier to manage.

In CSM 6 you spent your time berating all of the candidates except for Mittani, because you knew you didn't have the political tact to make an opponent of him and acted like a French jackass otherwise. Most of the major accomplishments would have occurred without your voice, certainly without your input since none of the ideas were specifically yours and I honestly can't find a reason that people should continue to vote for a lame duck incumbent when there are exciting prospects like Hans who can bring some fresh perspective to the table.
Esrevid Nekkeg
Justified and Ancient
#87 - 2012-02-23 15:07:29 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
N'hésitez pas à me contacter pour plus d'information.
Contactame para obtener más información.
Bitte kontaktieren Sie mich für weitere Informationen.
Dan ben je Belg en dan niet eens in het Vlaams? Zei de suffe Hollander....Blink

But anyway, yes, you have my vote. You are one of the very few people that have voiced intelligent (and well written) view points on a very broad spectrum of this game.
At least with you on the CSM it will not only be about 'Me, myself and I', about glorified self interest.
It will be about the game as a whole.

Good luck.

Here I used to have a sig of our old Camper in space. Now it is disregarded as being the wrong format. Looking out the window I see one thing: Nothing wrong with the format of our Camper! Silly CCP......

Talr Shiar
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#88 - 2012-02-23 18:38:03 UTC
You have all my votes as always m8,

Rooks and Kings!
Luceiia MNM
Perkone
Caldari State
#89 - 2012-02-23 18:42:46 UTC
I like your points about industry, for to long its been neglected +1 from me
Xali Ying
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#90 - 2012-02-23 18:47:56 UTC
The current system of POS research labs managemnet is flawed.

You ether have full access or you don't, the pos' have a public option but it doesn't work. How would you improve the R&D at pos' if you were eleted to CSM 7.

Jaded Pestilence
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#91 - 2012-02-23 18:52:51 UTC
You have my vote, but i would like to know how you would improve capital warfare. For example when you cyno in massive fleets everyone bumps off and flys everywhere if jumping to the same cyno.
Koemghen
Blue Lagoon Appreciation Society
#92 - 2012-02-24 17:08:54 UTC
You can count on my vote dude!

Definitely the best candidate and the most helpful person I know in EvE universe.

Oh and he's also belgian, what indicates that he has Beer Appreciation skill lvl V Cool
Deka Daence
Nihilistic Techologies
#93 - 2012-02-25 12:52:42 UTC
you can count on me and mine for votes!

what is your stance on introducing additional alliance-level income source? as it stands right now, highend moon minerals are the only commodity in the game qualified for that criteria. more resource to fight over means more fight, and that's generally good for business.
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#94 - 2012-02-25 16:43:22 UTC
Kirrella wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
As far as R64 moons are concerned, I strongly favour a rebalancing of "alliance earning" mechanics. As it is, alliance income comes from such resources as R64s, while personal income derives from activities such as ratting, plexing and, for the 3 people who do it, PI. I have been working with CCP to try and make alliance income more aligned with personal income. At the same time, R64 serve currently as focus points where conflict happens (and that's much needed, PvP is the fuel needed for industry to be meaningful, it's also very fun). So, these are the paths I would pursue rather than placing hard limits on number of R64s held by a single entity.


Agreed, if you reduce the value, then no one cares about the moons anymore and a decision point is eliminated.
Do you have a specific proposal for how to deal with this problem?



Oh, I do believe the value should end up being reduced, the question is how much, and how. There are several alternatives to that problem. Bring in those T2 moon mining mods, add more alchemy options, tweak the T2 blueprints (not a big fan of this option), add more sources of minerals (comets were once mentionned) or totally revamp the moon mining mechanics.

One of the ways I would prefer would be to make moons function a bit like PI without the clicking every single minute. Members install extractors on moons, moons get mined, corp can set a tax whereby anything members collect something, the corp takes a part of (or all of it if they so choose). This idea has several drawbacks, but the major advantage is that member revenue leads to corp revenue, and it's easier to tweak than the binary way in which moonmining currently happens.


Plex4Free wrote:
What do you think of the recent changes to Super capitals and what other changes would you like to see done in the future?


Super capitals have been nerfed somewhat reasonably. I would have preferred a change of role rather than a change of stats, but their efficiency has been a bit decreased. This combined with the logoffski fixes I had been requesting combine into a situation where supers die. Yet they don't die enough. It takes a bit of time to see the impact of changes that have been made so at this stage I wouldn't change the supers for a bit.

A change that I would like to see as far as capitals are concerned is a titan tracking nerf, and I'm still waiting to get the full picture on dreadnought usage after the changes, this may require more adjustent as well.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#95 - 2012-02-25 17:05:32 UTC
Courthouse wrote:
It's probably time for you to take a break from the whole CSM thing. Your 3+ years in the counsel really didn't accomplish anything of note and your entire platform has been "I've been here forever, vote for me (again)".

I say you haven't accomplished much of note because from CSM 2 through 5, about the only thing of note that got accomplished was skill queues. You completely screwed up jump bridges by advocating for something you had no knowledge or experience with. Luckily for nullsec alliances CCP added their own flavor of stupid and mistakenly sort of made them easier to manage.

In CSM 6 you spent your time berating all of the candidates except for Mittani, because you knew you didn't have the political tact to make an opponent of him and acted like a French jackass otherwise. Most of the major accomplishments would have occurred without your voice, certainly without your input since none of the ideas were specifically yours and I honestly can't find a reason that people should continue to vote for a lame duck incumbent when there are exciting prospects like Hans who can bring some fresh perspective to the table.


I never claim credit for individual features by the way, so while I did emphasize the need for a skill queue and many other things, the accomplishments I could boast of are more of the nature "make CCP create team BFF", "emphasize the need for UI revamps", "get CCP to assign someone to permanent rebalancing", etc.

Ideas are dime a dozen, and most of the good ones can be found here on the forums, or by talking to people, which I do. If you think the purpose of a CSM member is to come up with ideas nobody else thought of before, you are very mistaken. The purpose of a CSM member is to know these ideas that exist, how they would integrate with the game, see their impact on different areas of the game, make the differecnce between the good ones and bad ones, being able to adequately portray their importance to CCP and be able to engage in dialog about those ideas (this last part is mostly because the ideas found here and elsewhere can rarely be implemented as such but require adjustments). The CSM is not a think tank, it's a channel and feedback group.

You say the major accomplishments (which you claimed didn't exist the paragraph above) would have happened without my voice. That may or may not be true, I can't glimpse into parallel universes and see (you'll have to tell me how you do it). One thing is certain however, you have no idea how the defense/promotion of ideas went or goes, and you'll find in this thread and elsewhere a number of former or current CSM members with whom I worked who will say otherwise, and this whether they were "aligned" with me or not.

I don't say "vote for me" because I've been around forever, and I certainly don't like to bask in the glory, I say vote for me because I know to be a better candidate that most others, and demonstrably so. Every term I see that 3 to 5 of the elected members don't show up, don't work, don't talk during meetings, neglect parts of the eve population or don't know what they are talking about. Things have been getting better every year, to an extent, but it's still nowhere near it should be. This is why you should vote for me.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#96 - 2012-02-25 17:34:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel
Esrevid Nekkeg wrote:
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
N'hésitez pas à me contacter pour plus d'information.
Contactame para obtener más información.
Bitte kontaktieren Sie mich für weitere Informationen.
Dan ben je Belg en dan niet eens in het Vlaams? Zei de suffe Hollander....Blink

But anyway, yes, you have my vote. You are one of the very few people that have voiced intelligent (and well written) view points on a very broad spectrum of this game.
At least with you on the CSM it will not only be about 'Me, myself and I', about glorified self interest.
It will be about the game as a whole.

Good luck.


Ik bekrijp Nederlands, maar ik kan niet goed spreken. Het zou belledigend zijn om iets anders te impliceren. Dat is de reden dat ik heb het niet gezeged. ;-)

And thank you, much appreciated.

Xali Ying wrote:
The current system of POS research labs managemnet is flawed.

You ether have full access or you don't, the pos' have a public option but it doesn't work. How would you improve the R&D at pos' if you were eleted to CSM 7.


I was actually talking about this very topic with a developper last week. We were exchanging notes on invention and manufacture tools and I was mentioning to him this proposal I had made to fix part of the lab/manufacture tools at a POS (darn bbcode won't parse, it's here: http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Manufacturing_and_Invention_at_POSes_(CSM) ). The jist of it is first to implement resource pooling so one doesn't have to do micromanagement of multiple labs/Equipment assembly arrays (and other AAs) which can grow very very tedious when you are semi-serious with industry, and makes you scream at the skies and want to kick someone hard if you're serious about it.

The public option and renting don't work, when we were discussing this in CSM 3 it became painfully obvious that for this to work it would take some major code refactoring with POSes, and that's not something devs look forward to (it's very tricky and time consuming). So the way I'd deal with it is by not dealing with it. Now that resources exist again, CSM 6 has been pushing for "new and improved" POSes (the dead horse proposals) and I'd push for those modular POSes instead, the kind that takes the needs we have always expressed into consideration. This, I believe, would be a better way to spend resources than adding public/renting options.

Jaded Pestilence wrote:
You have my vote, but i would like to know how you would improve capital warfare. For example when you cyno in massive fleets everyone bumps off and flys everywhere if jumping to the same cyno.

In order to change the bumping, people would have to cyno in at larger distances from the cyno. At least capitals. incresaing the jump in radius for caps by 50% (to 6 instead of 4km) would increase the "no-bumpage" cyno capacity by 1.5³ = 3.375. Which would be a good step. Increasing the distance more than that would start creating issues as far as distance between ships is concerned (some ships fit cap modules than are unbonused as far as distance factor is concerned, and could easily find themselves unable to effect adequately their peers). Other than that maybe multiple cynos are not a bad fact of life, they create redundancy and eliminate the single point of failure.

As far as improvements are concerned, the first thing would be a limitation of titan damaging capabilities on non-capital ships (how is the tricky bit, and I'm not sure which of the available options is the best). After that I'd steer clear from supercapitals with combat capabilities. To be honest, I'm still watching the impact of the changes to dreads and supercarriers, and when it comes to rebalancing/additions/improvements, I think it's more time to look at the other end of the spectrum first (AFs have been handled, EAFs & T1 cruisers still need to be looked at).

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#97 - 2012-02-25 17:45:15 UTC
Deka Daence wrote:
you can count on me and mine for votes!

what is your stance on introducing additional alliance-level income source? as it stands right now, highend moon minerals are the only commodity in the game qualified for that criteria. more resource to fight over means more fight, and that's generally good for business.

Additional alliance level sources of income, yes, but I'd rather those be sources that generate revenue for both the base and the alliance itself, unlike previously. So if they were to introduce, say, comets, I'd like the reprocessing of comet-goo to go through an outpost (or POS) based module that allows taxation of that resource by the corporation, to make sure members don't end up fighting wars for goo they know to be important, but doesn't affect them personally.

Koemghen wrote:
You can count on my vote dude!

Definitely the best candidate and the most helpful person I know in EvE universe.

Oh and he's also belgian, what indicates that he has Beer Appreciation skill lvl V Cool


And alcohol resistance IV after downing half a dozen Chimay Bleue like I did yesterday. At least I wasn't hungry after that (those who know the beer will understand)

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7

Theyu Civaro
Sanctum Scala Caeli
Deus Malus
#98 - 2012-02-25 22:30:40 UTC
You have all my votes as always.
Keep up the good work Big smile
Gomtuu
Pool of Radiance
#99 - 2012-02-26 20:45:42 UTC
I likeAttention
Isa Rin
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#100 - 2012-02-27 21:26:54 UTC
What is your personal stance regarding the massive amount of ISK readily available in EVE?
I am not talking about additional means of making money, but the huge possible income being generated in certain environments.