These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Wormholes

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Looking for wormhole related questions you want to ask CSM candidates!

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#1 - 2012-12-15 20:01:49 UTC
Hi everyone.

Every election since the CSM4 elections I've ran CSM Vote Match, a website where you can match your views and opinions about Eve with the views and opinions of the candidates. Since the Vote Match website looks like it is from 1997 I'm currently building version 2.0 from scratch which will offer much greater functionality and more nuanced matching! You can preview the new website here, but keep in mind it's currently still filled with placeholder and mockup content.

But I need your help!

I need statements to present to the candidates (and the voters), and I like them to be as diverse and useful as possible. It's not easy coming up with 40 statements by myself so that is why I am asking you.

I am specifically looking for statements that:

  • Are unambiguous and clear in their meaning
  • Can be answered with "Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "No opinion", "Agree", "Strongly agree"
  • Do not require a full paragraph of text to explain themselves


So a good statement would be:
Quote:
A complete POS overhaul should be a priority for the summer expansion

This statement is clear in it's meaning, can be answered as needed and is fairly succinct.

Additionally, I am also including open questions in Vote Match this year. The open questions will not be used in the matching process but will be visible on each candidate's profile page. So I also need suggestions questions you would like all candidates to answer.

Please help, because the questionnaire will only be as good as the statements we can come up with!

TL;DR
I need you to give me statements that can answered with "Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "No opinion", "Agree", "Strongly agree" for use in CSM Vote Match. Also I am looking for open questions to ask the candidates.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
Rhavas
Noble Sentiments
Second Empire.
#2 - 2012-12-15 23:14:02 UTC
"As part of a POS revamp plan, I believe you should/should not have "inside" docking." - in other words, should docking games come to wspace.

Also "As part of a POS revamp plan, I think POS placement should/should not be decoupled from moons."

I think you will get very different opinions on these.

Author of Interstellar Privateer Shattered Planets, Wormholes and Game Commentary
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#3 - 2012-12-16 01:32:01 UTC
Rhavas wrote:
"As part of a POS revamp plan, I believe you should not have "inside" docking."


^this is by far the most important one IMO.
absolutely do not want any form of docking in POSs.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Derath Ellecon
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#4 - 2012-12-16 02:47:13 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
Rhavas wrote:
"As part of a POS revamp plan, I believe you should not have "inside" docking."


^this is by far the most important one IMO.
absolutely do not want any form of docking in POSs.



Unfortunately I don't see it happening any other way...
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#5 - 2012-12-16 03:10:36 UTC
Yeah, unfortunately youre probably right. Still needs to be said.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
Messoroz
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#6 - 2012-12-16 07:09:52 UTC
We could just permacamp AHARM poses and keep podding TwoStep until he realizes how dumb the idea is.
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
#7 - 2012-12-16 08:25:44 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
We could just permacamp AHARM poses and keep podding TwoStep until he realizes how dumb the idea is.


By the time we can do that, it'll be too late to change it.
Janus Nanzikambe
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#8 - 2012-12-16 09:04:48 UTC
I realise it's partially the same point Rhavas made, but I would prefer the wording be less ambigous and perhaps split into two points, something like:

"Regardless of any plans to re-vamp Player Owned Starbases, online players must remain externally visible."

and:

"If a re-vamp of Player Owned Starbases includes removing the forcefield then effort must be made to preserve the defending players immunity to targetted modules within a certain range of the POS."

I think responses to those two will address the CSM candidates exact stance on two of the most prevalent concerns regarding the POS revamp.

Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about the station games aspect seeing as someone wanting to do that would have to bring sufficient force to incapacitate the POS defenses in which case they have de-facto control of the grid the POS is on , if they wish to camp it - they've earned that right imo.
Ossirrus
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-12-16 10:46:48 UTC
Janus Nanzikambe wrote:


"Regardless of any plans to re-vamp Player Owned Starbases, online players must remain externally visible."

and:

"If a re-vamp of Player Owned Starbases includes removing the forcefield then effort must be made to preserve the defending players immunity to targetted modules within a certain range of the POS."




If anybody disagrees with these 2 statements not only would i question their CSM aspirations i would question if they played the same game as i do
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-12-16 10:46:58 UTC
Messoroz wrote:
We could just permacamp AHARM poses and keep podding TwoStep until he realizes how dumb the idea is.


It really isnt TwoStep's call...
be my guest tho ;)

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout
chris elliot
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#11 - 2012-12-16 12:25:03 UTC
I remember during ATX someone saying he started playing in wormholes and realized how utterly terrible the current pos mechanics are for the wormhole community.

Hopefully that person is someone of influence in the conversion process and CCP does not go full jackas.s on the revamp on us.

That or with any luck Fozzie will manage to get involved, he seems to have done a standout job so far on the ship balancing. I wouldn't put it past him to do the same standout job on not ruining pos's.
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#12 - 2012-12-16 22:53:36 UTC
Here's a statement:

"C4's should get a transient connection to k-space. You know, to help the kids in the ghetto."

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Wolvun
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#13 - 2012-12-16 22:57:02 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
Here's a statement:

"C4's should get a dual connection to wh-space. You know, to help the kids in the ghetto."


I fixed that one for you.
MadbaM
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#14 - 2012-12-17 00:14:51 UTC
chris elliot wrote:
I remember during ATX someone saying he started playing in wormholes and realized how utterly terrible the current pos mechanics are for the wormhole community.

Hopefully that person is someone of influence in the conversion process and CCP does not go full jackas.s on the revamp on us.

That or with any luck Fozzie will manage to get involved, he seems to have done a standout job so far on the ship balancing. I wouldn't put it past him to do the same standout job on not ruining pos's.


It was sound wave that made the statement during ATX, but i think he was referring to the BM system at the time? but he will have rather a large degree of input into the new system.

And I'm not sure if Fozzie has had any time in WH's or not but i expect any input he will be giving is from the view of Null sec, and the two environments i think would want different things. Don't forget they want a unified system for all of space and as WH dwellers are in the minority our requests will probably be put aside for the sake of Null sec.

The question i would ask in this instance is during the creation of the new outposts will there by any system put in place in the coding to allow for variations in the functionality of them.

EG: In a worm hole system undocking from a outpost has the same rules as jumping WH's once you have undocked your hull polarizes preventing you from docking again until timer is up.

(just want to point out this isn't a suggestion was just trying to think of an example of how there could be differences between W and K space)

On a related note i would love for us to have more W-Space dwelling CSM members i don't feel one truly represents us on the CSM we need more voices!
QT McWhiskers
EdgeGamers
#15 - 2012-12-17 02:51:00 UTC
I think the most important question... Will we have wis in our wormhole posses, and it so, will we be able to all sit in our main pos and play poker? Can see it now. "we have a carrier tackled at the sun..." A few seconds of silence go by. "but I have 4 aces."
Tas Nok
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#16 - 2012-12-17 06:30:21 UTC
QT McWhiskers wrote:
I think the most important question... Will we have wis in our wormhole posses, and it so, will we be able to all sit in our main pos and play poker? Can see it now. "we have a carrier tackled at the sun..." A few seconds of silence go by. "but I have 4 aces."


Been out of WH for a little while but this is part of the question stated earlier, if you can have WIS and play poker, then you get a smaller version of an outpost not our current 'stick in space' with the FF and various mods scattered about and all the station games included.

Getting back to the OP request here are questions I'd want asked:

--Would you favor making Rorquals able to use their clone bays to jump into/out of WH space?

--As part of the POS revamp will a module be allowed in WH space to allow clone jumping?

--Would you support WH iteration in the next 12 months (perhaps sleepers return, T3 frigs/BS, new WHs?)


just my 2 bits, if the banking and medical clone systems work out in WH space why can't the rorq? and why can't we have mini-outposts with a clone bay? I suspect iteration is alot further than 12mo away and will occur when CCP is ready for another series of T3 madness. For the POS revamp I actually hope they keep the FF, but just make the POS and its mods more central and connected, but UN-dockable. That FF is a key piece of real-estate both offensively and defensively for the POS, if there is no room to maneuver then the idead is DOA.

ma perke
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#17 - 2012-12-17 11:41:58 UTC
intro:
WH has too much advantage over k-space and too low risk to live in. Lets say your corp lives in a class 5 wh, where only the loot from a rat BS is 50Misk. You do all the anomallies which are active and instead of waiting for another spawn next day you just scan for the wh in your own system. If it is again class 5 you go and do the anomalies there. If by some chance it leads to undesirable space - like goon space for instance - you jump a carrier through in and out and close the WH. There is imediately another one spawning leading to some other place. There is no need for system upgrades, no need for soverenity warfare nothing. 20man corp can make tons of money and avoid all undesirable fights. Hence WH should be nerfed - TOO MUCH ISK for too small risk involved!

Here are the statements:

- The number of WH connecting K-space should be increased in order to increase pvp.
- Player induced closing of a WH should be nerfed.
- WH should be more accessible.
- POS mechanics in WH should be changed, so that it can be killed in a single day as long as a WH lasts.
Server Marcune
Gunslingers inc.
#18 - 2012-12-17 11:44:28 UTC
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Hi everyone.

Every election since the CSM4 elections I've ran CSM Vote Match, a website where you can match your views and opinions about Eve with the views and opinions of the candidates. Since the Vote Match website looks like it is from 1997 I'm currently building version 2.0 from scratch which will offer much greater functionality and more nuanced matching! You can preview the new website here, but keep in mind it's currently still filled with placeholder and mockup content.

But I need your help!

I need statements to present to the candidates (and the voters), and I like them to be as diverse and useful as possible. It's not easy coming up with 40 statements by myself so that is why I am asking you.

I]...]


I just want to say one thing;


I think creating new topic over old topics is not going to help a change, but create more confusion

First of all there are alot of "opnions" here in the forum dating back since the new forum got up.
Those were never answered or are closed due inactivity.

While i do have to say that creating a pol is an excellent idea I do hope that the people who posted there ideas wont get ignored.
Wolvun
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-12-17 11:57:48 UTC
ma perke wrote:
intro:
WH has too much advantage over k-space and too low risk to live in. Lets say your corp lives in a class 5 wh, where only the loot from a rat BS is 50Misk. You do all the anomallies which are active and instead of waiting for another spawn next day you just scan for the wh in your own system. If it is again class 5 you go and do the anomalies there. If by some chance it leads to undesirable space - like goon space for instance - you jump a carrier through in and out and close the WH. There is imediately another one spawning leading to some other place. There is no need for system upgrades, no need for soverenity warfare nothing. 20man corp can make tons of money and avoid all undesirable fights. Hence WH should be nerfed - TOO MUCH ISK for too small risk involved!

Here are the statements:

- The number of WH connecting K-space should be increased in order to increase pvp.
- Player induced closing of a WH should be nerfed.
- WH should be more accessible.
- POS mechanics in WH should be changed, so that it can be killed in a single day as long as a WH lasts.


So WH's should make so little isk that large groups can't sustain themselves?
They should have no defence apart from having a large fleet ready to go at all times of the day?
They should have no way to close a WH to look for PVP? Ohh wait we close them to avoid it, right.......

Stay in null or lay off the drugs.
Dierdra Vaal
Interstellar Stargate Syndicate
#20 - 2012-12-17 12:38:47 UTC
Server Marcune wrote:
Dierdra Vaal wrote:
Hi everyone.

Every election since the CSM4 elections I've ran CSM Vote Match, a website where you can match your views and opinions about Eve with the views and opinions of the candidates. Since the Vote Match website looks like it is from 1997 I'm currently building version 2.0 from scratch which will offer much greater functionality and more nuanced matching! You can preview the new website here, but keep in mind it's currently still filled with placeholder and mockup content.

But I need your help!

I need statements to present to the candidates (and the voters), and I like them to be as diverse and useful as possible. It's not easy coming up with 40 statements by myself so that is why I am asking you.

I]...]


I just want to say one thing;


I think creating new topic over old topics is not going to help a change, but create more confusion

First of all there are alot of "opnions" here in the forum dating back since the new forum got up.
Those were never answered or are closed due inactivity.

While i do have to say that creating a pol is an excellent idea I do hope that the people who posted there ideas wont get ignored.



I think you might be misunderstanding what this is for. I'm gathering questions with which I will build candidate profiles when the CSM elections roll around (february/march). Based on those profiles I can then provide users with an automated system to match them to the candidate who most closely shares their views.

This is not somehow gathering WH related topics to present to the CSM, or to CCP, as action items.

Veto #205

Director Emeritus at EVE University

CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman

Evesterdam organiser and CSM Vote Match founder

Co-Author of the Galactic Party Planning Guide
123Next pageLast page