These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sogor for CSM XI

Author
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#1 - 2016-01-20 04:17:58 UTC
Hello, I’m Sogor and I’m announcing my intention to run for CSM XI.

I have been playing Eve for the better part of a decade, and in that time I have attempted to experience most of of what New Eden has to offer. I have tinkered with every aspect of industry, from T2/T3 production to Planetary Interaction. I’ve lived and operated in every category of space; highsec, lowsec, j-space, NPC null, sov null, I’ve been through it all. I also participate in PVP daily, typically in small-fleet engagements but occasionally in larger fights as well. My varied experience in Eve combined with my neutral stance and personal background would all make me an ideal CSM candidate.

Who are you?

In-game, I’m currently a member of aWayWard Inc., a smaller corporation currently focused on small-gang combat and nullsec operations. I joined with these guys about a month ago to fly with some old friends that I had met several years ago. Before I joined them, I was a member of the Independent Operators Consortium alliance and the Mildly Intoxicated alliance before that, formerly affiliated with the Red Menace Coalition and N3 Coalition respectively. In addition to alliance and coalition affiliations, I try to stay active in the Broadcast 4 Reps group and our little Eve LGBT community. I think that groups like these that tie together people from every walk of Eve are excellent, and (for B4R in particular) that they seem rather unique to Eve itself.

Out-of-game I am a graduate student. I studying exploration geophysics with an emphasis on electromagnetic and potential field methods with application to mining and metals exploration. I’ve had experience working with geological and environmental chemistry companies in the past, as well as on secured national nuclear sites, and I feel that the organizational and deductive skills I’ve acquired over my academic career would be useful in the CSM setting. Additionally, one core tenant of science, though not always followed, is a sense of non-bias, which I also feel is important.

Why do I want to join the CSM?

Eve Online is the one game that I have consistently returned to over the years, a game that has managed to capture my attention enough that I can’t imagine myself not playing it. The lore, gameplay, player interaction, and complexity are all facets of Eve that I don’t believe any other game has truly been able to replicate (and I’ve tried looking, believe me). For me Eve is a game that I try to get all of my friends to at give a shot, because I think that what this game offers is utterly unique. Because of my interest in the game, and my desire to ensure that it continues being a quality experience for both new players and veterans alike. Joining the CSM and providing feedback on upcoming changes to CCP developers seems like an excellent way to do this.

So, what have you done in Eve exactly?

As I mentioned before, I have experience in almost every aspect of Eve. For the curious, here is a full list of things I’ve done:

Highsec mining/industry/missions/exploration
Lowsec hunting/exploration
Planetary interaction, from basic materials up to P4
Corporation leadership in highsec and j-space
T1/T2 production in highsec and null
T3 production in j-space
Nullsec industry/production
Black Ops hunting/dropping, small-gang to fleet PVP in null and low
Null logistics, including jump freightering and market stocking
POS management/logistics/reactions
Small-gang FC

Why would you be qualified to be on the CSM?

Though recently my corporation joined TEST alliance in the past I have been heavily involved with much smaller operations. Even now, my corporation is fairly small in scope, though we have a high percentage of veteran players. My familiarity with smaller entities in Eve gives me a perspective that CSM candidates that have pasts cemented as part of the large power blocs in Eve may lack. Additionally, my wide variety of experience in Eve allows me to form an opinion on a wide variety of topics, though I’m not unafraid to say whether or not I am informed enough about a particular topic to give a well developed response. This means that I will be able to look at suggestions to many different aspects of the game and be able to give meaningful input on most of them.

My position as a scientist outside of Eve should be indicative of my ability to provide a critical analyses and to effectively solve problems. The combination of my past and present experience in Eve Online, along with the skills that I’ve acquired in my career and education, would make me an effective CSM candidate able to sort through a variety of suggestions, ideas, and possible changes to determine which would be the most likely to change the game in a positive direction for the players.

What ideas do you have?

As a long time player there are a variety of areas in Eve that I feel could use improvement, from potentially major game changes to a variety of smaller, quality of life improvements that could be applied to speed along different aspects of the game. Some of the potential ideas I have include the following:

PI interface: The interface for PI seems overly complex, and I think something like a “route
all” function would drastically decrease the amount of work it takes to set up some of the more complex setups, particularly where factory planets are involved. This would mean that there would be a button that would make factories connected to storage facilities and launchpads attempt to automatically intake the materials they need from storage to produce items.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#2 - 2016-01-20 04:18:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Sogor
Cloaky camping: Having spent my fair share of time in nullsec, I’d say that there should be
some sort of change to how easy it is to essentially shut down a system. It discourages active gameplay, from both the campers and the campee, as there is no effective way to remove a camper from space, nor is there a good way to continue activity in camped space. My initial thoughts would be to put a non-repeating cycle time on cloaks (to the tune of 30 minutes to an hour), or to create a way to track down cloaked vessels (though I hear this may be possible with citadels).

Group industry: Right now it is difficult to organize large scale industrial projects. While the
new industry interface is really great compared to the original one, it could use something in the way of project management. I believe CCP is already considering something like this, if the survey I took a while back was any indication. An interface that would allow groups to fill “construction orders” or something similar to this would help industrial organization, similar to filling buy orders in market places. For example, if building a carrier was split between different people, orders for different parts could be accepted by different corporation or alliance members, enabling larger amounts of organization.

Sovereignty value: As it stands, owning sovereignty in space gives a variety of strategic
bonuses, but lends little to the value of the space. This is particularly true in areas with higher true security status, as even with infrastructure upgrades the space is lackluster. While there is a definite need for lower quality space to offer lower quality resources, it feels like activities, namely high-sec incursions, have the capability to generate much more ISK for players than most, if not all, areas of nullsec. Since null security space is the least crowded and is where the player narrative really shines, I think that more emphasis should be placed on rewarding alliances that take and hold their own sovereignty, which would further encourage players to migrate from high security space to the more dangerous sectors.

Highsec wardecs: One large problem with highsec wardecs is that there is a decided lack
of participation in the wars by the defending party. Instead of a mechanic that generates highsec PVP, instead it turns into a way for corporations to farm low risk kills from other players. One way to make this a more active mechanic is to change the bounty system to further incentivize hired defending corporations to participate in battles. This could be an increase on bounty rewards for wanted corporations and individuals, but this would have to be carefully adjusted to prevent wide scale fraud using alt characters. Alternately, wardec costs could increase over time, instead of keeping the same flat rate week by week, and a ‘truce period’ could be added to surrendering, setting a time period where a war cannot be redeclared by the aggressor for a time agreed on by both parties.

Another potential addition that may change the aspect of high security wardecs could be the addition of logistics ships on killmails. This is a change that many logistics pilots have been pushing for, and would change highsec wars because neutral logistics ships will be more easily identified. This change would allow corporations to better prepare for a fight; if neutral logistics pilots are accounted for beforehand then the playing field could be considered more “level”.

Off-grid links replacement: With changes to off-grid links coming down the line, it is
important to both reduce their efficacy in every situation and take care not to nerf them too hard. In order to do this, links shouldn’t be set to be effective on grids considering the new grid sizes. Though the links ship would still be visible to hostile fleets, and therefore easily probed down, it would still largely be removed from combat. Smaller fleets would still have trouble dealing with opposing links, and may just turn fights into chasing links around a battlefield. Instead, I would suggest an AoE effect, with a skill or module that increases the range of the effect. This would require links ships to be on grid, and would likely phase out the dedicated links ships for those that are fit both for combat and boosting. A dedicated combat / boosting ship in a fleet would add an almost flagship like element to fleets using boosts.

---

I would note that a caveat to my suggestions is that I am neither a developer nor a programmer. I don’t know what is conceivable to put into the game, but I do have a sense on what areas could be improved, and some ways that could improve them.

Conclusion

My experience in Eve as well as my scientific background outside of the game give me attributes that make me qualified to sit on the CSM. As I have exposure to such a wide array of topics within the game, I have the ability to review and suggest meaningful changes in a variety of areas, for example on mechanics such as cloaky camping and the planetary interaction interface. Additionally, my past in smaller alliances and corporations gives me an extra perspective adds another point of consideration to my thoughts and decisions. If anyone has any questions feel free to contact me here, in-game, or on Reddit at /u/sogorthefox. Additionally, my primary non-professional email is sogortheogre@gmail.com if anyone would like to contact me there as well. Thanks for reading!
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#3 - 2016-01-20 04:18:52 UTC
reserved
#4 - 2016-01-20 21:34:43 UTC
Sogor wrote:
Cloaky camping: Having spent my fair share of time in nullsec, I’d say that there should be
some sort of change to how easy it is to essentially shut down a system. It discourages active gameplay, from both the campers and the campee, as there is no effective way to remove a camper from space, nor is there a good way to continue activity in camped space. My initial thoughts would be to put a non-repeating cycle time on cloaks (to the tune of 30 minutes to an hour), or to create a way to track down cloaked vessels (though I hear this may be possible with citadels).


See, this one I really, really disagree with. I want to agree with it, as cloaky camping its terrible game play, but there's literally no way to actually harass people in null sec without cloaky camping them. Nullsec is absurdly safe thanks to local, intel channels, derivative tools that use local and intel channels, distance, fewer wormholes to null, territory far away from were antagonists can resupply or escalate, and the ability for the defender to escalate infinitely. Until there is a way to add some risk back to it, cloaky camping is really the only way to effectively antagonize sov residents; ESS was a nice concept, but it has largely failed because people either do not use them or have rats to defend them, and the best thing to do when a neutral is either in your system, or a few jumps out is still simply to dock - avoidance. Almost every ratting ship out there is capable of leaving a site and getting safe well before being at risk; 99% of the time it is not the hunter being good that gets someone caught in null, its the ratter being careless. Game play where one side disproportionately holds every advantage possible is quite boring, i.e. there is still no good way for a roaming gang to cause trouble to the point where defending sov space actually matters.

Taking cloaky camping out of null would be like taking catalyst ganking out of High Sec. Both are literally the last tools available to antagonists, where every other outlet has been solved by the players or mitigated entirely by mechanics.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#5 - 2016-01-25 22:07:33 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
Sogor wrote:
Cloaky camping: Having spent my fair share of time in nullsec, I’d say that there should be
some sort of change to how easy it is to essentially shut down a system. It discourages active gameplay, from both the campers and the campee, as there is no effective way to remove a camper from space, nor is there a good way to continue activity in camped space. My initial thoughts would be to put a non-repeating cycle time on cloaks (to the tune of 30 minutes to an hour), or to create a way to track down cloaked vessels (though I hear this may be possible with citadels).


See, this one I really, really disagree with. I want to agree with it, as cloaky camping its terrible game play, but there's literally no way to actually harass people in null sec without cloaky camping them. Nullsec is absurdly safe thanks to local, intel channels, derivative tools that use local and intel channels, distance, fewer wormholes to null, territory far away from were antagonists can resupply or escalate, and the ability for the defender to escalate infinitely. Until there is a way to add some risk back to it, cloaky camping is really the only way to effectively antagonize sov residents; ESS was a nice concept, but it has largely failed because people either do not use them or have rats to defend them, and the best thing to do when a neutral is either in your system, or a few jumps out is still simply to dock - avoidance. Almost every ratting ship out there is capable of leaving a site and getting safe well before being at risk; 99% of the time it is not the hunter being good that gets someone caught in null, its the ratter being careless. Game play where one side disproportionately holds every advantage possible is quite boring, i.e. there is still no good way for a roaming gang to cause trouble to the point where defending sov space actually matters.

Taking cloaky camping out of null would be like taking catalyst ganking out of High Sec. Both are literally the last tools available to antagonists, where every other outlet has been solved by the players or mitigated entirely by mechanics.


I wouldn't say it would take cloaky camping out of the equation - just that whomever is doing it has to be at the keyboard once per hour. This doesn't remove the idea of cloaky camping, it just forces a player who wants to do it to actually be active; a few second window once per hour shouldn't be enough to catch a cloaky scout who is actually watching his screen. I don't think miners should be able to mine constantly without any interaction, why should someone be able to do the same with cloaky camping? I do agree that nullsec is probably a bit too safe, but I don't think that enabling a mechanic where one person can effectively shut down a system by not actually doing anything isn't the correct answer. Even now, if there is a cloaky camper in a system I'll either go to a different area or do something with ships I don't care about... I don't think this is an engaging mechanic on either side of the board.

I do agree that there needs to be more options available to catalyze interactions between different groups, and that current mechanics designed to create content don't appear to be successful (As you mentioned with ESSes, few people seem to use them that I've seen, and those that do hide them in anomalies full of rats). One thing, though not directly related to sov, that may help stir up content are sites similar to the Frostline and Blood Raider sites that were part of holiday events. I saw a lot of fighting in those areas, but clashing groups would likely only meet at the edges of held sov space.

Alternatively, maybe have some sort of resource or objective that spawns at regular intervals in random held systems, or maybe an anchorable structure that disrupts moon mining or ratting bounties, something along those lines that will force players to respond or experience a loss in income in an area (though if we went this route I'd also say we need to nerf some highsec sources of income, otherwise people will just go to highsec instead, namely incursions in this case.)

Sorry for the delayed response, I've been busy the past few days running Pathfinder sessions and pulling assets out of PFR space in Scalding Pass, haha.
Caldari State
#6 - 2016-02-01 06:04:52 UTC
Bump
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#7 - 2016-02-06 02:10:46 UTC
\:3/
Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-02-12 19:03:55 UTC
Here is the CSM Watch interview with Sogor for the CSM 11 election.
Enjoy!
#9 - 2016-03-08 04:28:27 UTC
Nice writeup.

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Forum Jump