These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

The Office of the Chairman: A ~chill place~ for constituent issues

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#101 - 2011-11-07 02:31:46 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
This thread is to provide a consolidated place for my constituents to ask questions and receive personal responses from me.

In the midst of Goonswarm's campaign against the mining bots cluttering up empire, there has been a tremendous amount of noise and distortion about my opinions and positions as Chairman of the CSM, which have nothing to do with my perfectly honorable and reasonable desire to drop Brutixes on Exhumers.

While I do not promise to suffer fools or kiss babies, I'm happy to clarify my positions on the issues of the day if you're wondering what I think about... whatever, be it the hybrid changes, whether there should be insurance payouts for CONCORD killmails, or lunatic conspiracy theories about how I hate wormholes.

I'm going to toss a link to this thread into my sig and just turn it into a general Chairman's FAQ as it progresses.



So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#102 - 2011-11-07 04:06:49 UTC
Takara Mora wrote:

So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)


I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC.

Mining is awful. Don't do it.

~hi~
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2011-11-07 04:34:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
Why is Goonswarm Federation listed as a FACTION on EVE Gate and not as an alliance?

What is the difference between Goonswarm Federation and GoonSwarm (the Alliance)? (I'd link Goonswarm Federation, but factions don't get their own EVE Gate page, so they are not linkable.)
Takara Mora
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#104 - 2011-11-07 04:56:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Takara Mora
The Mittani wrote:
Takara Mora wrote:

So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)


I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC.

Mining is awful. Don't do it.



Yeah, you're right ... I actually DON'T believe you :)

But that's what bad guys are for ....
Tasiv Deka
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#105 - 2011-11-07 06:50:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Tasiv Deka
First off I don't care what people think about me for saying this but, I find Combat PVP to be truly boring of course while i have only gone on a few low/null runs (roughly 20 ventures lasting anywhere from 1 to 3 hours) there never seems to be anyone to fight (and no i am not saying this because i have only ever died i did find my fights entertaining when i could manage to find them) and the idea of attacking a mining/industrial that's just going to sit there like a moron doesn't seem interesting (i am an adrenaline junky after all) so my question (ignoring the significant sized build up) is do you consider lack of small scale PvP opportunities to be a "Gaping Chest Wound" as i believe you called it, and if not do you consider it a problem at all?

Also I do have to agree with you that the idea of being able to raze systems would be entertaining just to hear about if nothing else.

oh yes before i forget you say in most of your posts that mining is terrible yet i believe it was in an earlier one in this thread that you stated that 0.0 mining had become worthless is this why you have your views on mining? and if so how is the CSM expressing to CCP that mining needs to be changed apart from the botters because unfortunately that is part of MMO life.

Edit: My apologies the post i was talking about is on the first page of "How can we as players help fix the sandbox that is EVE"
and goes as follows

Gank miners in empire to make nullsec mining worthwhile again.

sorry for not quoting it but posting from my phone is already an enormous chore

Oh, Do go on... no seriously ive got nothing better to do then listen to all the petty arguments and feeble trolling attempts... 

The sad thing is i'm not sure if i'm telling the truth.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#106 - 2011-11-07 06:52:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mike Azariah
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
The Mittani wrote:
Maybe you could go roleplay some on Mike Azariah's blog?
Answer thy good gentleman's query, scoundrel! A pox upon your protestant soul!


Guys, he did answer that early on in this thread. Do try to keep up. He does NOT represent everybody nor does he care to. Tell the truth I totally agree with him on this one. There are a lot of folks who prove that they need less representation and more medication.

As to whether the CSM as a whole represents the player base . . . I doubt you could form a committee of 9 that DID.

Each election we get what organization and apathy and stone cold ignorance conspires to give us.

This year we Got Mittens and crew.

Speakin of which, yer lordship, sir . . .

I understand your separation of player (ganking ice miners) and CSM chair. Please do me the same courtesy of keeping my fictional blog separate from questions or opinions expressed here. Others seem to have managed to make that distinction.

Is the CSM in the loop for Dust 514 or is that
a) NDA covered
b) Not Eve therefore not your baliwick

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#107 - 2011-11-07 07:44:10 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
Takara Mora wrote:

So, are there really no mining bots in Goon space? :)


I know that it's ~completely mindblowing~ for a hiseccer, but most nullsec alliances don't mine. Except IRC.

Mining is awful. Don't do it.


You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2011-11-07 07:49:44 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected?

I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat?

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Redklaw
Edge Of Infinity
True Reign
#109 - 2011-11-07 10:13:50 UTC
Mittani,

I'm a member of a small alliance in null and am anxious as to what forseeable solutions there are to existing problems with sovereignty mechanics.

I feel that this among the top things holding back small groups from actually making an impact on the enviroment of nullsec. The vast majority of claimable null is unoccupied with sov held by mega alliances or their pets, this space would be better utilized and would bring health back to null if smaller alliances were fighting for this territory.

It feels game killing to be in a small alliance that can keep a ton of it's members nearly 23/7 in claimed area only to have it taken at leisure by a mega alliance that only even visits the system to re-enforce or protect a structure.

I believe that Mega alliances should truly be juggernauts when it comes to SOV and tracts of held space, but there should be a mechanism for alliances of all sizes to hold space if they show the dedication to do so.

I'm wondering if there is a proposal to somehow change sov mechanics to be based on actual occupancy and activity within an area, or at least make it feasible for a small alliance to hold sov at all.

And if there isn't, would you be willing to plead the case for one?
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#110 - 2011-11-07 10:16:15 UTC
Lord Zim wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected?

I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat?


Actually I haven't. Should I?

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Max Flipper
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#111 - 2011-11-07 10:25:23 UTC
Kaver Linkovir wrote:

A wall of fame and shame
Player benchmarks on display. Right now you have to leaf through all manner of logs in the client or through piles of information offered up by secondary outlets to see your own greatness. Do you feel player benchmarks such as first hull, first pod, first gcc, biggest fight partaken in, biggest loss suffered, npc corporate standing and other logged happenings should be on display for the player? Corpmates? Alliancemates? Everyone? In CQ? On player lookup?


You want Achievements? In my EvE?
Its more like then not to be implemented in a ******** way.
With a Sandboxgame like EvE most "notable" Achievments are hard to measure in a predictable way. How do you detect if someone has successfully infiltraded a Corp, made someone Ragequiet and so on.
So please don't Shocked
Lord Zim
Gallente Federation
#112 - 2011-11-07 10:46:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Lord Zim wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You made (what I assume was) a complimentary response to my hi-sec manifesto. Obviously CSM6 has it's hands full with getting CCP to deal with the 0.0 issues we're all so familiar with, but is there a chance you'd press CCP to give some thought as to how hi-sec should work if you're re-elected?

I assume you've had a chat with Vile Rat?


Actually I haven't. Should I?

I think so: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=22653&find=unread

Cyno's lit, bridge is up, but one pilot won't be jumping home.

RIP Vile Rat
Zyrbalax III
Goldcrest Enterprises
#113 - 2011-11-07 11:34:42 UTC
This thread has allayed a lot of my concerns about CSM and also about your chairmanship of it. This is the kind of communication I would hope to see from a CSM chairman. Thank you for taking the time to create it and respond to so many posts.
Arkanon Nerevar
UK Corp
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2011-11-07 11:37:30 UTC
I have a few questions mostly directed towards your position as the null-sec representative, there fairly interlinked questions so feel free to structure the answers as you see fit.

Q:do you think the coming supercapital changes are going to shift null battles away from super cap pilots being the most desired by the alliances

Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"

Q:do you think the coming gallente changes are enough to make their ships viable across the board for null-sec life/battles

Q:some players (myself) have a strong inclination to want to fly just one factions ships, generally because of a combination of looks/mechanics/feel, do you think this kind of thought is applicable/viable in null-sec in general

Trust Not in God, but Have Faith in Antimatter
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#115 - 2011-11-07 14:05:13 UTC
Arkanon Nerevar wrote:

Q:sub cap fleets today have mostly moved to just BCs (whelpcanes, drake) do you think null batttles will now shift back to the tactical BS fights of yore, which we quite frankly call "the good old days"


~Citation Needed~

I'm still seeing BS as the go-to subcap fleet ship for large fights. Drakearmy has had it's heyday and been in decline since PL rolled out their Hellcat doctrine (and since Team Gridlock did their excellent thing and pushed the lagbar so much higher).

What we don't see any more are the old-school long-range BS, due to the extreme efficiency of on-grid probing.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Quebber
State War Academy
Caldari State
#116 - 2011-11-07 17:00:21 UTC
You have been quite vocal when it comes to the RMT and Botting that it is up to CCP to police there own game how exactly does that reconcile in your own and the CSM's role of "policing" ccp, bringing players together to fight any changes in eve that are seen as wrong or impact the game as a whole.

How can you justify sitting on the fence and saying it is not ours or a players problem, I agree ccp needs to put more effort into dealing with these problems but as my local police man told me "we can not be everywhere, we need your help and comunity support to deal with these issues" If we do not take a stand if leaders do not help set a standard nothing that ccp does will solve this.

This may be their world but it is our home. I have actually left alliances and lost "friends" because I did what I believe was right in standing up to RMT and botters.
The Mittani
State War Academy
Caldari State
#117 - 2011-11-07 17:51:44 UTC
Solo Player wrote:
Since I believe you did not exude enough dismissive contempt in your last post on the subject:

The argument could be made that a space setting requires a strong sense of vast distances, and thus, in EVE, distances should matter a lot. Now, some would feel that this illusion is negatively impacted on by JBs (as well as by jump drives, jump clones and, not least, warp to zero). Due to these conveniences, treks from the fringe to jita are felt to have turned into trips, and power is much too easily projected across swathes of space.

I gather you do not share these feelings. What disadvantage do you feel has been removed by this development, aside from inconvenience? Wouldn't you say that locality and strategy have suffered from it?


This is one of the inexperience-fueled delusions that beguiled CSM5. Having never run a war before, they didn't understand that sov war is based on staging systems, alliance contracts, and forward deployments. One moves into a staging area and sets up shop for ops; one doesn't bounce between the front and your homeland. Fleet combat alts stay at the front, isk-making alts remain home or in hisec. Ignorant cries of 'but but, homeland defense' are met with a smirk and a remark about jump clones.

Removing jump bridges would only impact the lives of people inhabiting a region, and not change one's ability to wage distant war. Goonswarm is at war in Delve right now on a lark, half a galaxy away from Deklein. Our pilots are not trekking 7+ regions up and down the map each op.

So no: locality and strategy have nothing to do with it. There needs to be an incentive to bother building up a civilization in nullsec, since god knows after the Anomaly nerf there's not much point to holding and upgrading sov. You don't need sov to make moon income, after all.

Quote:
Edit: thanks for your frank answers to my other post. Therein, it seems you use a limited view of your constituency as your null-sec voters. I think in other instances, you regard the whole of (at least the fundamentally sane) Eve playerdom as your constituents. What'll it be?


My voters are my constituents, but I do try to unfuck the game as a whole.

~hi~
Che Biko
Alexylva Paradox
#118 - 2011-11-07 18:42:05 UTC
The Mittani wrote:
You have a preconceived notion about the nature of the CSM and will twist anything I say to try to support that notion.

I won't play ball with your tinfoil.

You seem to have a preconceived notion about me.

I'll asume that you think my notion is "the CSM does not represent all players, but it should". I hope you'll agree that you haven't written anything (to me, anyway) that indicates the contrary, even when I ask you to clarify your statements. Quite the opposite, you avoid giving me clear answers, leaving me thinking you don't want to give clear answers.

You could have answered my question either a simple "yes" or "no" but instead you decided to post this (which is, as far as I can tell, supposed to be the answer to my question):
The Mittani wrote:
The CSM, like all democratic bodies, represents those interests which care enough about their issues to get off their asses and vote in an organized way. This means that the unorganized and unmotivated are completely unrepresented, just like in the real world.

Because this does not give me a clear answer, you leave it to me to interpret it. And when I then ask if a certain interpretation is the correct one, you refuse to answer, and seemingly try to discredit me to justify your actions.

I have been, and still am, more respectful to you than you have been to me. I therefor find it ironic that you are done playing ball with me.

Coordination Channel for Consolidated Space Rescue Cooperation

Open Letter to the Aidonis Foundation Directorate
Venus Vermillion
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#119 - 2011-11-07 20:31:26 UTC
Oh great and powerful King of Space,

I have but a few small questions for you that I hope you will bless with answers.

1 - How does it feel to be so incredibly ~spacefamous~ that your name causes people to go on spy hunts? (The Mittani sends his regards.)

2 - You miss Prencleeve, right? I mean seriously.

3 - As your sponsoree, have I done you proud?

4 - Is it true that I'm actually your alt? Riverini seems to indicate that I am and I can't disprove it.
Solo Player
#120 - 2011-11-07 21:35:56 UTC
Last one, I promise:

The Mittani wrote:
sov war is based on staging systems, alliance contracts, and forward deployments. One moves into a staging area and sets up shop for ops; one doesn't bounce between the front and your homeland. Fleet combat alts stay at the front, isk-making alts remain home or in hisec. Ignorant cries of 'but but, homeland defense' are met with a smirk and a remark about jump clones.


This makes sense to me, even if it does not quite cover the (un-?)importance of supply lines in such a conflict. But then, I'm not an armchair general but an armchair armchair general, and I look at such things from a purely academic perspective as opposed to your practical one.
Still, from what I understand, jump clones are the key to projecting power as a null point null entity. Do you think it is to the broader game's best interest that they can do that so effectively no matter the distance, or would you prefer alliances to suffer drawbacks the further they deploy from home? If it is the latter, would you like CCP to have a close look at jump clones, big wrench in hand?