These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Nathan Jameson for CSM8 - Communication, Diversity, and Wormholes

First post
Author
unimatrix0030
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#61 - 2013-03-21 13:49:23 UTC
I think it is important that everyone only set wormhole candidates on the list and no other CSM candidate.
If there is a case where votes are close the other choices you would put on the list gets an extra boost.
Wich could cut of on of our reps... .

No local in null sec would fix everything!

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#62 - 2013-03-21 13:52:39 UTC
unimatrix0030 wrote:
I think it is important that everyone only set wormhole candidates on the list and no other CSM candidate.
If there is a case where votes are close the other choices you would put on the list gets an extra boost.
Wich could cut of on of our reps... .


Only if you put a non-WH candidate before a WH candidate. The STV system attempts to elect your top choices first, and removes candidates only one at-a-time.

Also, there is the fact that you will likely HAVE to pick 14 candidates.

http://www.wormholes.info

Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#63 - 2013-03-22 12:58:40 UTC
You can pick your CSM Candidates but you can't pick your nose.

Or something.

No one will elect Nathan Jameson. he's in AU TZ and will be asleep when everyone else is bitching on the forums and tryig to convo him about "zomg POS's are broken" or "wormhole stabilisers, do it nau, farghot."
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#64 - 2013-03-22 13:25:55 UTC
Trinkets friend wrote:
No one will elect Nathan Jameson. he's in AU TZ and will be asleep when everyone else is bitching on the forums and tryig to convo him about "zomg POS's are broken" or "wormhole stabilisers, do it nau, farghot."


Sounds like a bonus to me.

Actually, I've been in contact with the current CSM and have double-checked that their regular meeting times are during my awake hours. So I'm good there.

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#65 - 2013-03-23 07:41:55 UTC
Rhavas had some interesting things to say in a recent address to wormhole voters:

http://themittani.com/features/csm-pre-election-unaffiliated-wormhole-votes

http://www.wormholes.info

Arianazz
Perkone
Caldari State
#66 - 2013-03-23 15:09:08 UTC
You will have my vote.
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#67 - 2013-03-26 14:14:57 UTC
At present, there are five candidates who have put their names forward for representing wormhole space on the CSM. They are (alphabetically):

Ayeson
Cipreh
Chitsa Jason
James Arget
Nathan Jameson

James Arget recently posted the following on his CSM blog:

Quote:
I had a fun chat with the other wormhole candidates this weekend. The Pre-Election has been delayed, and as a result we had a bit more time to do some collaboration. I kicked things off, and after a few evemails we all spat in our hands and shook on an agreement. Each candidate only needs 200 votes in the pre-election. Any votes above and beyond this are just cake, but if you’re short those 200, you may fail to be listed on the final ballot. There will be no public count as the votes come in, but we were told that Xhagen would let us know when we passed the threshold.

Therefore, as soon as I hit 200, I’ll be calling for anyone who was goign to give me their pre-election vote to pass it on to another WH candidate. In particular, Ayeson and I have mutually endorsed each other. After that, Chitsa, Cipreh, and Nathan round out the Wormhole 5. This may skew the “front-runner” count when the pre-election results are posted, but it’s more important to keep all our cards in play. The wormhole candidate field is very strong this year, and I think it speaks volumes that we’ll happily kill each other in game, but we’re all in agreement that when it comes to the CSM we need to work together to get the best odds of winning a seat for wormhole space.

The Pre-Election should be going live any hour now on the CSM website, so go out and get your vote in!


I am re-posting it here to confirm that I will be supporting the “Wormhole 5,” and that I will be sending out a public announcement if and when I have reached the 200 votes needed for the final election. Players are encouraged to send their votes towards the other candidates should this occur.

Up with wormhole space!

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#68 - 2013-03-26 15:17:01 UTC
And the pre-election voting is live!

Click here to endorse me as your CSM 8 candidate!

http://www.wormholes.info

Xen Solarus
Furious Destruction and Salvage
#69 - 2013-03-28 02:21:51 UTC
First off, you've got my vote. I already planned to arrange the wormhole candidates at the top of my voting list, and have advised my corp to do the same! Whether or not they will though, is up to them! You're posts seem the most thorough of the wormhole candidates, and your views are the most direct and clear. Not to mention my deep respect, and dare i say fear, of the mighty Talocan United.

One thing i wanted calification on, was your view towards smaller corporations living in wh-space. Corporations such as mine who have carved out a home for themselves, whilst more than willing to fight and die to protect their space, rely heavily on the home-field advantage that the lower classes bring. In a typical higher class 5 or 6, a small group such as ourselves would be quickly steamrolled by larger alliances. Whereas i see the lower classes of wormhole space being the last, true, bastion for small corporations, many feel that these wormholes are too difficult to invade. What are your thoughts, specifically, regarding smaller corporations in wh-space? Do you agree with other peoples suggestions regarding this, such as the reduction of ECM effectiveness, or the quite mad idea of tower-size limitations?

The closest i could find to these opinions was in the article Shaking up the Snowglobe, you hinted at possible effects of changes to smaller corporations. Whilst i'm not against the prevention of self-destruction within a force-field, as the spoils of war should be the right of any successful attack, you did raise a good point regarding the potential stratification of wormhole space. Of all my many concerns, my primary is that wormhole space is the only place in all of new eden where a single corporation can effectively "claim space", and imo anything that ultimately seeks to allow wh-space to be completely dominated by larger alliances would kill one of the best aspects of EvE.

Your campaign statement stated: "We are all players, and we all deserve a voice." I look forward to you representing the interests of the wormhole community, both large and small, and continuing to make wormhole space the best part of EvE! Cool

Post with your main, like a BOSS!

And no, i don't live in highsec.  As if that would make your opinion any less wrong.  

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#70 - 2013-03-28 04:24:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nathan Jameson
Xen Solarus wrote:
Whereas i see the lower classes of wormhole space being the last, true, bastion for small corporations, many feel that these wormholes are too difficult to invade. What are your thoughts, specifically, regarding smaller corporations in wh-space? Do you agree with other peoples suggestions regarding this, such as the reduction of ECM effectiveness, or the quite mad idea of tower-size limitations?

The closest i could find to these opinions was in the article Shaking up the Snowglobe, you hinted at possible effects of changes to smaller corporations. Whilst i'm not against the prevention of self-destruction within a force-field, as the spoils of war should be the right of any successful attack, you did raise a good point regarding the potential stratification of wormhole space. Of all my many concerns, my primary is that wormhole space is the only place in all of new eden where a single corporation can effectively "claim space", and imo anything that ultimately seeks to allow wh-space to be completely dominated by larger alliances would kill one of the best aspects of EvE.


Although I personally would love to see reasons again for alliance like my own to start invading others (we stopped doing this months ago because it simply wasn't worth it), I mentioned in the article that a CSM candidate should look at both sides of the issue. If you hand one side a better weapon (or a reason to use it), then you'd better give the other side something to compensate. I am strongly against nerfing ECM on POS's, as deterrent is the best defense against invasion in C1-C4s. Same with limiting POS sizes; complete no-go for me. In fact, I'd like to see code written that speeds up the process of placing defensive batteries on new POS's, to help fledgling corps through one of the most annoying parts of claiming their new homes. An "auto-place" option, and ways to get in more defenses more quickly, instead of 4-6 batteries a trip.

I also wouldn't mind seeing the ECM bonus on the Caldari Tower changed from a time cycle bonus to a lowered CPU/PG need specifically for ECM batteries. There is really no good way to fit a Caldari tower for anything useful in WH space...either it's all ECM and no guts, or all industry and no defense.

I hope this helps address your questions. Please reply if you have any more!

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#71 - 2013-03-28 12:31:33 UTC
Quote:
Greetings,

You have met the 200 vote endorsement thresh-hold in the CSM8 pre-election. You will be included in the full election ballot.

Best Regards,

CCP Dolan


Loving my inbox lately. Cool

http://www.wormholes.info

Meytal
Doomheim
#72 - 2013-03-28 14:55:50 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
I am strongly against nerfing ECM on POS's, as deterrent is the best defense against invasion in C1-C4s.

Do you think that even the off-racial jamming strength is satisfactory/acceptable? In other words, is the ability for a Grav ECM battery to easily jam an Amarr ship is the way things should work and should not be modified?

Nathan Jameson wrote:
I also wouldn't mind seeing the ECM bonus on the Caldari Tower changed from a time cycle bonus to a lowered CPU/PG need specifically for ECM batteries. There is really no good way to fit a Caldari tower for anything useful in WH space...either it's all ECM and no guts, or all industry and no defense.

Different tools have different purposes. A Caldari tower has high CPU for the CPU-heavy industry. The current ECM bonus makes up for this as you're more likely to be jammed due to the faster cycle time. You also don't need to run three polymer chains just because you can :)
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#73 - 2013-03-28 15:27:55 UTC
Meytal wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
I am strongly against nerfing ECM on POS's, as deterrent is the best defense against invasion in C1-C4s.

Do you think that even the off-racial jamming strength is satisfactory/acceptable? In other words, is the ability for a Grav ECM battery to easily jam an Amarr ship is the way things should work and should not be modified?


The jamming strength IS different if it's off-race. ECM mods shouldn't be AS effective, but they shouldn't be a complete wash-out against an attacking force that fits against them. Most small corps either will not have the people online to man their weapons or will not have enough online with Anchoring V + POS Defense (a tough train) to make them really count. Groups like mine know how to take advantage of it.

My alliance has taken down dickstars in C2s before with sub-caps. It took a week to take down 8 towers and was hardly easy. However, it was for settling a deep score we had with the defenders, and I don't see a reason to make invading C2s any easier.

Meytal wrote:
Nathan Jameson wrote:
I also wouldn't mind seeing the ECM bonus on the Caldari Tower changed from a time cycle bonus to a lowered CPU/PG need specifically for ECM batteries. There is really no good way to fit a Caldari tower for anything useful in WH space...either it's all ECM and no guts, or all industry and no defense.

Different tools have different purposes. A Caldari tower has high CPU for the CPU-heavy industry. The current ECM bonus makes up for this as you're more likely to be jammed due to the faster cycle time. You also don't need to run three polymer chains just because you can :)


Faster jam cycles only matter if the POS mods cycle through targets more quickly, which they won't. Remember, fledgling corps either won't be online or won't be able to man their defenses. Which means they'll be relying on the automated POS defenses. I'd rather give automated Caldari towers more ECM mods to play with than change target cycling time for ALL towers. Smaller overall change for the same effect.

http://www.wormholes.info

Meytal
Doomheim
#74 - 2013-03-28 19:24:47 UTC
Nathan Jameson wrote:
The jamming strength IS different if it's off-race. ECM mods shouldn't be AS effective, but they shouldn't be a complete wash-out against an attacking force that fits against them. Most small corps either will not have the people online to man their weapons or will not have enough online with Anchoring V + POS Defense (a tough train) to make them really count. Groups like mine know how to take advantage of it.

My point was that even off-racial jammers are strong enough that unless you're not worried about guns or defenders, you bring far more Guardians than the number of Radar jammers, up to and even surpassing the total number of ECM mods regardless of race. They're that effective. Naturally, few or no guns mean you can roll with drone boats, etc, but let's assume some sort of competence in POS setup.

I was just asking whether you thought the off-racial strength was too strong, and it sounds like you do not thank so :)

Meytal wrote:
Faster jam cycles only matter if the POS mods cycle through targets more quickly, which they won't. Remember, fledgling corps either won't be online or won't be able to man their defenses. Which means they'll be relying on the automated POS defenses. I'd rather give automated Caldari towers more ECM mods to play with than change target cycling time for ALL towers. Smaller overall change for the same effect.

If a corp does not have the manpower to defend their POS against a fleet large enough to counter a dickstar, a few more ECM mods won't help. If they do, the extra ECM would make them near-inpenetrable. Simply throwing more ECM isn't a good idea, because while it can benefit the smaller corps, the benefit scales much higher for larger corps and alliances, especially considering the strength of off-racial jams.

Stront-checking a small or medium that looks juicy and has far too few defenses is one thing and takes no time at all, but few people want to slog through even a lightly-defended large Caldari in C1-C4 just because of the sheer boredom and the increased danger of waving your exposed butts in space for such a long period of time. More ECM makes it less enjoyable, but there isn't much enjoyment in it already. Do it for fun or to stront-check, no. Do it for a reason, yes.

It does sound like, though, that the POS mods on Caldari towers need to have the potential to cycle targets faster to keep up with the ECM bonus. That sounds like a small change worth supporting on the way to incrementally improving the situation, rather than throwing one bonus away for something new. Caldari towers need to keep the risk: you're getting improved industry capacity, but you can't fit the defenses that you could in a Minmatar tower.

I am responsible for a (large) Caldari tower, and I'd love to run three+ polymer chains and research and manufacturing together with a full suite of defenses, but I know that's not balanced. So I make trade-offs to achieve some sort of acceptable equilibrium.
Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#75 - 2013-03-29 04:37:40 UTC
Meytal wrote:
It does sound like, though, that the POS mods on Caldari towers need to have the potential to cycle targets faster to keep up with the ECM bonus. That sounds like a small change worth supporting on the way to incrementally improving the situation, rather than throwing one bonus away for something new. Caldari towers need to keep the risk: you're getting improved industry capacity, but you can't fit the defenses that you could in a Minmatar tower.

I am responsible for a (large) Caldari tower, and I'd love to run three+ polymer chains and research and manufacturing together with a full suite of defenses, but I know that's not balanced. So I make trade-offs to achieve some sort of acceptable equilibrium.


If that can be coded easily, then yes, that is a preferred way to go. I suggested the bonus mostly because I suspected that would fool with the POS code less.

Just as an aside, if a group is large enough to defend a dickstar with a substantial fleet on the side, they usually find C1-C4 too confining and move up to a C5-C6, where dreads care not one wit about ECM.

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#76 - 2013-03-30 08:00:46 UTC
Update on the pre-elections and the "Wormhole 5."

tl;dr: It's a good time to be a wormholer. Blink

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#77 - 2013-04-01 11:38:29 UTC
I've been given good recommendations by some of the best-known EVE blogs out there!

Jester's Trek

EVEoganda

Interstellar Privateer

Confessions of a Starship Politician

Check out what they have to say about me. Cool

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#78 - 2013-04-02 15:56:07 UTC
CCP Fozzie's just published a very exciting devblog about POS improvements in the upcoming Odyssey expansion, all of which have their eye on the wormhole dweller!

Click here to read my initial reactions!

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#79 - 2013-04-02 16:53:45 UTC
James Arget just put together this great poster, advertising the "Wormhole 5"!

Vote for the Wormhole 5!

http://www.wormholes.info

Nathan Jameson
Grumpy Bastards
#80 - 2013-04-03 15:23:11 UTC
My personal recommendations for the CSM 8 ballot have been published.


Also, I've received a few more recommendations from the following blogs:

Mangala at RvBganked

Unforgiven Storm at thelazypilot

http://www.wormholes.info