These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Trebor Daehdoow for CSM8 - The Proven Performer - http://bit.ly/vote-trebor

First post
Author
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#141 - 2013-03-01 23:46:03 UTC
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The issue I have with CCP having a hand in choosing the CSM's is at that point, CSM's are no longer player elected, but hand picked by CCP.

It used to be that 90% of what CSM did happened during summits. Now its 10% or less. Also, non-present members can videoconference in. The advantage of going to a summit in person is the F2F stuff you get to do outside of the conference room. I personally want to see more CSM delegates have the opportunity to do that (I think it's good for them, and good for CCP), which is one reason why I support 2+5. Balancing the equities, I think it's an improvement.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Frying Doom
#142 - 2013-03-02 03:46:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Frying Doom
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Mallak Azaria wrote:
The issue I have with CCP having a hand in choosing the CSM's is at that point, CSM's are no longer player elected, but hand picked by CCP.

It used to be that 90% of what CSM did happened during summits. Now its 10% or less. Also, non-present members can videoconference in. The advantage of going to a summit in person is the F2F stuff you get to do outside of the conference room. I personally want to see more CSM delegates have the opportunity to do that (I think it's good for them, and good for CCP), which is one reason why I support 2+5. Balancing the equities, I think it's an improvement.

Except that the CSM summit is the major documents produced by the CSM and those at the summit are the major contributors to that document.

Also if it only accounted for 10% as you have suggested, CCP would have no need to select who goes to Iceland as it would not matter, the fact that they have put this into their rules says exactly the opposite.

Also how many times over the years have we heard the delegates say the the majority of the work done at the conferences is done at night while drinking? This is very obvious as you notice the different stances to ideas from day to day.

Oh and its not called "Balancing the equities", its called destroying the concept of a player representative body.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#143 - 2013-03-03 07:18:29 UTC  |  Edited by: rodyas
Frying Doom wrote:
rodyas wrote:

I mean I always liked CCP since, It seemed they tried hard to keep things fair, or kept that as a priority, but sometimes it looks like. Some things are big enough for them, they get tempted to not keep things fair, and go ahead and do them anyways. I think I just got too depressed at a recent Dev's comments towards people being hurt by a change, and the dev said, there is no way to help them out, so CCP will just go ahead and do what they want to anyhow and not worry about them.

Funny CCP just remind me of a pile of guys who get drunk and then decide, yeah lets do that.

And no matter how silly, expensive or just plain wrong the idea is they just do it any way, and then if anyone complains they just act again like drunks and say, hell this is the way it is, suck it up princess.


Yeah, sometimes it does seem that way too. Was in a sober mood, so forgot about that.

But anyhow, they do get drunk a lot, and it is hard to defeat them at it, as you say as well.

Its too bad you care about the player representative aspect so much. I mean if you didn't care so much, you could be like me. I don't have anything on the line, if anything goes wrong or too annoying. Its only the CSM candidates who win, who get wrung out by it. They would be the only guinea pigs, in the whole thing, if you could just only sit back and relax.

Its the drunk way of handling things. Can't beat them, join them.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Prince Kobol
#144 - 2013-03-03 09:13:37 UTC
A question for Trebor regarding Moon Goo.

It is more or less universally accepted that Moon Goo is broken.

Many people have come up with many different ideas over the last 18 months on how this should be changed.

My own personal opinion is that Moon Goo should be incorporated into PI.

Think about for a moment.

Custom Offices require a much smaller force to destroy then PoS's

Small gangs can actually effect the distribution of moon goo, camping custom offices (no shields to protect ships)

Flow of isk becomes a pyramid.. bottom level is the alliance grunts to the top which is the alliance hold corp.

I would also have moon goo behave exactly like PI.. i.e it depletes over time according to how many people are extracting.

On top of this, looking into the future CCP would be able to incorporate PI facilities into DUST.

Ring Mining whilst sounds great to me is just another fantasy which will never see the light of day where as incorporating Moon Goo into PI I would hope should be a lot easier as it already exists.

However as I have said that is my own personal view.

I would like to know how you would tackle this issue.


Frying Doom
#145 - 2013-03-03 10:49:52 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:
rodyas wrote:

I mean I always liked CCP since, It seemed they tried hard to keep things fair, or kept that as a priority, but sometimes it looks like. Some things are big enough for them, they get tempted to not keep things fair, and go ahead and do them anyways. I think I just got too depressed at a recent Dev's comments towards people being hurt by a change, and the dev said, there is no way to help them out, so CCP will just go ahead and do what they want to anyhow and not worry about them.

Funny CCP just remind me of a pile of guys who get drunk and then decide, yeah lets do that.

And no matter how silly, expensive or just plain wrong the idea is they just do it any way, and then if anyone complains they just act again like drunks and say, hell this is the way it is, suck it up princess.


Yeah, sometimes it does seem that way too. Was in a sober mood, so forgot about that.

But anyhow, they do get drunk a lot, and it is hard to defeat them at it, as you say as well.

Its too bad you care about the player representative aspect so much. I mean if you didn't care so much, you could be like me. I don't have anything on the line, if anything goes wrong or too annoying. Its only the CSM candidates who win, who get wrung out by it. They would be the only guinea pigs, in the whole thing, if you could just only sit back and relax.

Its the drunk way of handling things. Can't beat them, join them.

I think my biggest problem is the fact that it was the destruction of something unique.

With the CSM as a body elected by the players and those with the most votes going to Iceland it was unique as the players chose who had the greatest interactions.

Under the new system this is dead. CCP chooses most of the people who go to Iceland and subsequently those who appear most often in the official releases and subsequently those most likely to get re-elected. Not to mention the voter unfriendly fish and chip voting system.

The CSM might as well just be called beta testers now. As any company can chose those and it is nothing special.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#146 - 2013-03-03 11:54:10 UTC
Frying Doom wrote:

I think my biggest problem is the fact that it was the destruction of something unique.

With the CSM as a body elected by the players and those with the most votes going to Iceland it was unique as the players chose who had the greatest interactions.

Under the new system this is dead. CCP chooses most of the people who go to Iceland and subsequently those who appear most often in the official releases and subsequently those most likely to get re-elected. Not to mention the voter unfriendly fish and chip voting system.

The CSM might as well just be called beta testers now. As any company can chose those and it is nothing special.

I think you worry too much about people failing at the meta lvl. I don't really worry about that part too much.

Besides so far this election is going a lot better then last year for me so far.

Though, I suppose things could go wrong in the future. Though mostly if the company part of CCP somehow gets involved. I haven't really felt that had happen so far. Or if certain features have to go through. I didn't feel CCP was forced to change the election or wanted to force it in. But who knows, how long our luck will run.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

Frying Doom
#147 - 2013-03-03 12:26:59 UTC
rodyas wrote:
Frying Doom wrote:

I think my biggest problem is the fact that it was the destruction of something unique.

With the CSM as a body elected by the players and those with the most votes going to Iceland it was unique as the players chose who had the greatest interactions.

Under the new system this is dead. CCP chooses most of the people who go to Iceland and subsequently those who appear most often in the official releases and subsequently those most likely to get re-elected. Not to mention the voter unfriendly fish and chip voting system.

The CSM might as well just be called beta testers now. As any company can chose those and it is nothing special.

I think you worry too much about people failing at the meta lvl. I don't really worry about that part too much.

Besides so far this election is going a lot better then last year for me so far.

Though, I suppose things could go wrong in the future. Though mostly if the company part of CCP somehow gets involved. I haven't really felt that had happen so far. Or if certain features have to go through. I didn't feel CCP was forced to change the election or wanted to force it in. But who knows, how long our luck will run.

Well as we are only 1 month today off the main polls opening and so far nothing about the CSM to the general populous has been seen, I will admit I think this election is going to be a flop.

On the other side of that the Test state of the Alliance speech apparently has named only one official TEST candidate, Banlish. On reading that I immediately thought their might be some sun shine at the end of this crap Trebor influenced setup if the Null alliances just stay dumb.

Well that are here is hoping very few candidates get the base 200 pre votes to allow for a more varied field.

But having said that I noticed the old reactivate an old account loop hole was not closed, so I think that pretty much sums it up CCPs bottom line over the players voice.

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#148 - 2013-03-03 14:49:19 UTC
Prince Kobol wrote:
It is more or less universally accepted that Moon Goo is broken.

Many people have come up with many different ideas over the last 18 months on how this should be changed.

My own personal opinion is that Moon Goo should be incorporated into PI.

...

I would like to know how you would tackle this issue.

I agree that shifting to bottom-up income sources (as opposed to moon mining, which is top-down) is a reasonable path. Similarly, I favor active vs. passive income generation, since it provides more opportunities for players to cooperate and compete.

PI is sort of an "actively passive" income source. It can be disrupted, but has a different risk/reward profile than mining (which is not a bad thing). And while I definitely think (a) PI should get some love (both in the UI and in what you can do with it), and (b) PI, if the interface was less painful, could be a good model for how to iterate on manufacturing, it would not be my first preference for a replacement to moon-mining.

Instead, I would favor a replacement mechanic that is bottom-up (aka the fabled "ring mining"), or failing that, altering the current mechanic so that there are bottom-up ways for individuals and smaller groups to actively degrade, disrupt and steal the precious goo.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Prince Kobol
#149 - 2013-03-03 17:00:01 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Prince Kobol wrote:
It is more or less universally accepted that Moon Goo is broken.

Many people have come up with many different ideas over the last 18 months on how this should be changed.

My own personal opinion is that Moon Goo should be incorporated into PI.

...

I would like to know how you would tackle this issue.

I agree that shifting to bottom-up income sources (as opposed to moon mining, which is top-down) is a reasonable path. Similarly, I favor active vs. passive income generation, since it provides more opportunities for players to cooperate and compete.

PI is sort of an "actively passive" income source. It can be disrupted, but has a different risk/reward profile than mining (which is not a bad thing). And while I definitely think (a) PI should get some love (both in the UI and in what you can do with it), and (b) PI, if the interface was less painful, could be a good model for how to iterate on manufacturing, it would not be my first preference for a replacement to moon-mining.

Instead, I would favor a replacement mechanic that is bottom-up (aka the fabled "ring mining"), or failing that, altering the current mechanic so that there are bottom-up ways for individuals and smaller groups to actively degrade, disrupt and steal the precious goo.


The problem is whilst Moon Goo is collected via PoS's it is impossible for smaller groups to disrupt the process, on top of that it will always be controlled by the few.

Yes PI is not perfect and god the UI could do with a overhaul, but at the very least it is an existing mechanic and one would think that it would not take much work to be adapted.

My problem with many idea's with Moon Goo is that all of them require a new mechanic to be put in place and currently it seems that CCP are very reluctant to spend the required man hours to do this.

Vince Snetterton
#150 - 2013-03-03 17:32:11 UTC
Assuming the HBC/CFC voting bloc wants you on the CSM, how do you propose to fight the zealots intent on destroying high sec?

It is a safe bet that at least one fringe candidate, who shall remain nameless, is a lock for the CSM with the new voting system, if the HBC/CFC want him on there. Under a fair voting system, he would be a joke, but with the overwhelming influence null sec will have on this "election", we are going to see a ton of nutbar platforms being considered mainstream.

It appears you may be the only voice of sanity on this CSM which will have a mandate to drive high sec income potential to dust.
How do you plan on fighting that?
mynnna
State War Academy
Caldari State
#151 - 2013-03-03 18:02:09 UTC
Y'know, I'm sure Trebor has his answer (and I suspect that some of what he might say would surprise you), but as one person who you are implicitly lumping into the "nutbar" category: Calling for the complete oblivion of highsec is foolish. The risk/reward and many other issues do need to be addressed and that will almost certainly involve some nerfs, but there's a world of difference between "tune things" and "remove any form of income over 5m/hr".

Member of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal

Varius Xeral
Doomheim
#152 - 2013-03-03 18:12:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Varius Xeral
mynnna wrote:
Y'know, I'm sure Trebor has his answer (and I suspect that some of what he might say would surprise you), but as one person who you are implicitly lumping into the "nutbar" category: Calling for the complete oblivion of highsec is foolish. The risk/reward and many other issues do need to be addressed and that will almost certainly involve some nerfs, but there's a world of difference between "tune things" and "remove any form of income over 5m/hr".


Hell, I don't even care if hisec has its own unique form of gameplay and risk/reward balancing, as long as that gameplay is cooperative and competitive, and is not some baseline of afk/massively single player/multiboxing gameplay that the rest of the game is forced to attune to.

If it ends up more people would rather play with wardecs in hisec than politicking in nullsec because they prefer that gameplay all else being reasonably balanced, then more power to them (though I find that outcome unlikely). What matters is when people are punished by a universal system of basic incentives and forced into gameplay they don't like to stay remotely competitive in the gameplay they do like.

Official Representative of The Nullsec Zealot Cabal

Vince Snetterton
#153 - 2013-03-03 18:51:34 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Y'know, I'm sure Trebor has his answer (and I suspect that some of what he might say would surprise you), but as one person who you are implicitly lumping into the "nutbar" category: Calling for the complete oblivion of highsec is foolish. The risk/reward and many other issues do need to be addressed and that will almost certainly involve some nerfs, but there's a world of difference between "tune things" and "remove any form of income over 5m/hr".


I'm sorry, is your name Trebor?
Your position on the CSM is assured, and you and your kind will never get my vote.

I asking Trebor a question, so mind your own business. If wanted to talk to you I would post in your thread.
When you get in the CSM you can drown him out, but not here.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#154 - 2013-03-03 19:06:05 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Assuming the HBC/CFC voting bloc wants you on the CSM, how do you propose to fight the zealots intent on destroying high sec?

It is a safe bet that at least one fringe candidate, who shall remain nameless, is a lock for the CSM with the new voting system, if the HBC/CFC want him on there. Under a fair voting system, he would be a joke, but with the overwhelming influence null sec will have on this "election", we are going to see a ton of nutbar platforms being considered mainstream.

It appears you may be the only voice of sanity on this CSM which will have a mandate to drive high sec income potential to dust.
How do you plan on fighting that?


Out of interest, would you like to list the candidates who you believe are "intent on destroying high sec"?

(This will help Trebor with his answer)

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Vince Snetterton
#155 - 2013-03-03 19:45:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Vince Snetterton wrote:
Assuming the HBC/CFC voting bloc wants you on the CSM, how do you propose to fight the zealots intent on destroying high sec?

It is a safe bet that at least one fringe candidate, who shall remain nameless, is a lock for the CSM with the new voting system, if the HBC/CFC want him on there. Under a fair voting system, he would be a joke, but with the overwhelming influence null sec will have on this "election", we are going to see a ton of nutbar platforms being considered mainstream.

It appears you may be the only voice of sanity on this CSM which will have a mandate to drive high sec income potential to dust.
How do you plan on fighting that?


Out of interest, would you like to list the candidates who you believe are "intent on destroying high sec"?

(This will help Trebor with his answer)



Once again, I see another CSM candidate trying to attract attention to their cause / deflect attention from another candidate.

If Trebor announces you are his proxy, then I might give your question some consideration.
Until then, I have nothing to say to you.
Frying Doom
#156 - 2013-03-03 20:48:16 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:


Once again, I see another CSM candidate trying to attract attention to their cause / deflect attention from another candidate.


Welcome to politics

But I believe the question needs to be altered to "Who do you believe are the candidates that will alter the game play in Hi-sec in such a manner as to make it so greatly altered as it will be nothing like its current game play?"

Any spelling, grammatical and punctuation errors are because frankly, I don't care!!

Tom JBrokaw
Doomheim
#157 - 2013-03-03 22:30:24 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:

I'm sorry, is your name Trebor?
Your position on the CSM is assured, and you and your kind will never get my vote.

I asking Trebor a question, so mind your own business. If wanted to talk to you I would post in your thread.
When you get in the CSM you can drown him out, but not here.

Vince Snetterton wrote:

Once again, I see another CSM candidate trying to attract attention to their cause / deflect attention from another candidate.

If Trebor announces you are his proxy, then I might give your question some consideration.
Until then, I have nothing to say to you.



*munch*

what? dont mind me, just here with my popcorn for the show. even reporters get offdays.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2013-03-03 22:36:16 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:
It is a safe bet that at least one fringe candidate, who shall remain nameless, is a lock for the CSM with the new voting system, if the HBC/CFC want him on there. Under a fair voting system, he would be a joke, but with the overwhelming influence null sec will have on this "election", we are going to see a ton of nutbar platforms being considered mainstream.

It appears you may be the only voice of sanity on this CSM which will have a mandate to drive high sec income potential to dust.
How do you plan on fighting that?

It is an absolute guarantee that any CSM delegate is going to be serving with other delegates with views that are often very different. This is not a bad thing -- it is actually essential!

I have at times disagreed with many CSM delegates whom I think did an outstanding job. As long as a delegate is willing to stay engaged, advocate his position vigorously but fairly, and do his/her share of the chores, it's not a problem.

People who don't take the job seriously, or don't work with the group, basically edit themselves out of the process.

The worker bees, on the other hand, have influence in direct proportion to the merits of their positions and their skill is arguing them. And there will be times when someone you might consider a "nutbar" will be either correct, or provide a perspective that leads to an unexpected place.

Finally, while I appreciate your passion (make sure you and your friends vote!), I think you're being a little hard on mynnna and Malcanis. My experience has been that Goon CSMs have a track record of being hard-working, effective, and professional. And as for Malcanis, he's a level-headed guy whom I've been trying to sucker into running for years.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#159 - 2013-03-03 22:37:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Trebor Daehdoow
Whoops, tried to edit a post, hit quote instead

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#160 - 2013-03-04 02:07:42 UTC
Vince Snetterton wrote:


It appears you may be the only voice of sanity on this CSM which will have a mandate to drive high sec income potential to dust.
How do you plan on fighting that?


Sorry to not be one of your beloved communicators, but I am curious.

How do you use hi sec at the moment. Or what play style(s) are you afraid the null people will destroy?

Do you like being high SP, and like having a place all to yourself?

Is it the safety?

Just the casual play style it encourages? Or the casual play style it can have til you feel prepared to embark on a different path?

Is it how hi sec has fun activities for people to enjoy, and compared to how hard, dangerous or ****** the activities are in low or null and WH, you want to stay in hi sec and not see much change?

Or are you just a new/young player or just enjoy the new/young corp play style right now?

Or just another reason?

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne