CSM Campaigns

Greetings everyone -

I come to you today, on my second anniversary in Eve, to formally announce my candidacy for CSM9.

In game, my passion is PvP.

I started fleet commanding while still very new to the game, not for any major alliances or coalitions, but with the various open communities that taught me not only how to play the game but how to enjoy it. The people from Bombers Bar and RvB Ganked taught me about the universe, and lead me to create and run "Spectre Fleet" - the most active and rapidly growing open PvP community in New Eden.

Beyond my love for everything PvP, I am a self proclaimed theorycrafter - an "EFT Warrior" if you prefer. The complexities and endless challenges of Eve intrigue and motivate me to learn everything about the universe. Hours of preparation being reduced to split second decisions makes preparing and manoeuvring a successful fleet the most rewarding experience of any game I've ever played. With two years of dedication to this game I still have much to learn, not just in terms of PvP mechanics, but in all the facets of this game.

If elected to the CSM, how will I attempt to improve the game?

I understand that the CSM is a player representative group, and promising specific nerfs to the players or demanding specific changes from the developers is not the purpose of the council. While I may not be a game developer by training, my experience and understanding of certain aspects in the game means that I can and will provide feedback or input for future expansions to Eve, to benefit any pilot who chooses to undock and enjoy the game.

Even without being a member of the CSM I've been attempting to do this already, informing not only the developers but the players about how future expansions will affect them. Examples of this come from my articles that have been published to TheMittani.com, where I use my experience as a trained engineer to analyze current and future updates.

This is most easily demonstrated by my analysis of the then-unreleased RHMLs, which was read and commented on by CCP Rise, before the final iteration was announced.

Beyond helping with mechanics of future updates and current designs, I am a firm supporter of and believer in the communities of Eve. In game and out, these various entities make this game unique and exciting, helping newbies and veterans alike to better themselves within the game. The learning curve or Eve, as with the entire new player experience, is notoriously challenging and is no harder than when attempted alone. The communities of Eve are the driving force behind new players, ensuring their development into long term prospering capsuleers.

Eve is over ten years old, and I have only been playing for a fraction of that time. Had I not found the community within Bombers Bar I would have quit the game a long time ago. I have met many others on the verge of quitting, who would have done so had they not found groups such as Eve University, RvB or Brave Newbies. From highsec industrialists and incursion runners, to lowsec pirates and nullsec residents, Eve is strongest when there is a passionate and involved community - a community that I would be proud to represent on CSM 9.

There are so many to choose from, and I've been very pleased with the vast majority of balance changes being made. Although not particularly recent, the overall update to T1 cruisers, beams, artillery, and rails did wonders to make fleet combat much more effective and accessible for lower skilled pilots. Demonstrated to be effective by groups like European Goonion and most recently BNI with their Thorax “Pocket Rocket” doctrine – which I designed – T1 cruiser usage has spread to most groups, proving that you can make a cheap doctrine effective in medium size fleet warfare in lowsec and nullsec.

The full list of changes can be found here, here, here, and here.

The following quote from CCP Fozzie is a perfect example of what this update accomplished and why it was good for the game as a whole: "... we've done our job right then when a newer player shows up to your Armour HAC fleet saying "I've got an Augoror how can I help?" the FC will respond with "xxxxx is our logistics channel, the guys in there will get you set up with the cap chain and anchor", rather than "LOLN00B come back with a real ship"."

Of course, the warp speed changes and interceptor balancing was a big hit with everyone, and for good reason. However, I think that the cruiser changes are the unsung heroes of Rubicon, and until people realize that a hoard of interceptors (murderfleet) is not an unkillable doctrine, I'll be content rocking around with new players in cruisers.


This is a tough one, but after thinking about it I had to go with the Electronic Attack Ships.

My reasoning is simple - I still don't see them being utilized in fleet combat at any scale, small gang, medium gang, or large fleet fights. If I do, they are instantly going to be primary due to the combination of fragility and force multiplication. The high training time into a dead end skill and the comparable utility and power of the T1 disruption frigates, at a fraction of the cost does nothing to justify their use.

For example, the Vigil has a slightly lower bonus to target painters than the Hyena, at 7.5% and 10% respectively. However, the Hyena has one less midslot than the Vigil, yet bonused to webs in addition to target painters. How is this ship intended to fulfill a more meaningful role than the T1 version? It's hard to justify.

Sandwiched between the staying power of recons, and the surprisingly effective T1 disruption frigates, it seems like they've been struggling to find their niche in the current meta of Eve. It’s quite sad for such beautiful ships with awesome bonuses to be so unloved and unused.


Omnidirectional Tracking Links

No question in my mind about this one. I never realized just how broken they were until I analyzed the use of sentry drones on HACs and Battleships. This problem was exacerbated by the failure for them to stack with drone scope rigs (optimal range) producing absolutely insane numbers when used on ships like the Ishtar.

Bringing them more inline with the tracking computers is a great move, and the subtle change allowing for overheating and scripting naturally tends towards an active gameplay rather than the AFK nature that drone assist has become known for. Overheating when it's really needed has always been the pinnacle of edge-of-your-seat gameplay and I'm glad to see it come to drones.


Another easy one: Drone Assist Limitation

I understand that CCP is trying to reduce the usage of sentry drones in nullsec warfare, but this does nothing to stop small gang usage in lowsec, or ignoring scan resolution in order to attack a target. It feels like a poorly thought out band-aid for a problem with much deeper problems than just "now you have to assist drones to your squad commander instead of fleet commander."

It's also a completely arbitrary limitation. I hate arbitrary mechanics and restrictions.

There are so many possibilities to change the way these fleets operate, while maintaining the reason this mechanics exists in the first place, such as lightening the load on the already hectic role logi pilots fulfill. Instead of a meaningful change, CCP elected to go for a mechanic that simply made the current iteration of a broken functionality slightly less convenient to use, and even then only on a large scale. I won't say I'm not pleased a change was made, but I am certainly disappointed it wasn't more creative or meaningful.

I have nothing but praise for the Incursion mechanic, and I'm certainly not angry about how much ISK they make or anything like that. I'm delighted to see the numerous communities that have formed and operate in such unique ways. Even hearing about the infighting and politics between the communities when one breaks stride to destroy the mothership early.... wait, what?

Yeah, I always thought that was odd. Incursion runners and their communities have incursions down to a science, not just how to run sites, but how to extend the invasion long enough to maximize profit for everyone and with the least risk possible. Disrupt this calm with a site contest or heaven forbid pop the mothership early and suddenly you have drama, and politics.

The problem here is that highsec incursions are being treated as end game content. In no PvP situation would you see such blinged out ships, and fleet commanders targeting ships before they even spawn. Incursions are wonderful to the point that they bringing people together, but even that is severely limited, as operating in highsec prevents the formation of a true incursion corporation or alliance for extremely obvious reasons.

So there people are, sitting in a solo corp with 0% tax, running incursions to make more money than they know what to do with, all with no aspiration or motivation to do anything else in the game. Risk is not a thing to these people, whelping a fleet is unheard of, and both these things are central to PvP fleet combat.

So what changes would you suggest? As I mentioned earlier, I'm not a game designer, and try to refrain from suggesting specific changes to mechanics. But the sentiment I would express to the developers would be simply this:

Bridge the gap. You're so close to having a seamless transition between PvE and PvP. Encourage people to take risks in the pursuit of greater rewards, both ISK rewards and the rewards of accomplishing something difficult. Let these people create corporations and alliances instead of existing in a perverted state of mutual distrust solely in the pursuit of ISK.


I haven't been around for many – only 3 that I paid attention too – but my favorite is by far Rubcion.

This could be recency bias, but I doubt it. The balancing of so many different aspects of Eve, not just ships, has kept the theorycrater in me busy and excited about every single change that has been announced. With the mobile structures promising to alter the meta of warfare in Eve forever, I couldn't be more excited.


Retribution, hands down. Crimewatch was neat and all, but I still don't anyone fulfilling the true bounty hunter role... and locator agents? Why is that STILL the only way to find your targets? It just seems half cooked if not overlooked entirely.

I was disappointed at the time and still am. Seriously. Also, coming from a guy who loves his Widow to death, the trailer was silly, and represents wardecs more than actual bounty hunting. rabble rabble rabble.


Yes. Although I'm military and can be pulled away from the game at short notice, during regular work cycles I easily put in 20 hours a week. This is most easily demonstrated by Jayne's eveboard, where I took this screenshot. Yeah, haha, that shows that since this account was created it has been online an average of 5 hours per day, everyday. Admittedly that is a consequence of AFK cloaking, and having it on in the background while I do real work, I'm almost always plugged in and multi-tasking.


There's no way to sugar coat this - you have to play the game.

Communities aren't going to come to you; you have to go to them. Find the secret club house that they've built in the tiniest niche imaginable and let you show them what they've created. It's a simple task of getting out there and talking to them, whether it's the teamspeak of an incursion community, brave newbies public channel, guest FC'ing for RvB Ganked, or pre-arranged fights with E-UNI.

I don't blog about this game, I'm not as active on twitter (@BomberJayne) as I would like, and I'm certainly not as e-famous as the rest of you white-tag people in this thread, but I do enjoy talking to people and letting them show me what they do in this game, and why they enjoy it.


I deal with that almost everyday!

I'm a true neutral, as I like to call it, having never been involved with any of the nullsec politics despite being intensely fascinated by them. It's not that I don't want to, but after taking the writer position at TMC I saw how people were forced into that mold and I enjoy my neutrality and being able to avoid most of the stereotyping that comes with a never ending war of words and propaganda.

Anyway, the most relevant example I can think of to answer your original questions comes after I published my immensely popular article regarding an officer fit Bomber that was lost in lowsec. I was really proud of this article, and still am.

4) So hard to keep this part brief, but I'll cut it down to just three points:

• Encourage PvP for reasons outside of the joy of PvP itself and griefing, bounty hunting should be separate from piracy.
• Change the bounty office and locator agents to actual enable dedicated and devoted bounty hunters a way of hunting.
• Change the bounty system to be more personal, profitable, and meaningful. Bounty payouts shouldn't be an afterthought.

(Bounty types, maybe? Such as a person placing a bounty specifies, highsec only, in a battleship, etc.)

5) Hard to demonstrate quantitatively, however the bounties on the top ten most wanted total 354B in bounties. That's just individual players, not to mention the corporations and alliance that have bounties.

The following steps, 6-8 would come after, and would rely heavily on both players input and developer input.


I guess I just need better phrasing. I love tinkering with mechanics, am obsessed with trying to find the best way to accomplish things, and in doing so have developed some very entrenched opinions about how the game should work. I've expressed these opinions, too, from the rapid launchers review I did to my more recent and controversial work on sentry drones. I'm not afraid of sharing my opinion, but when it comes to CSM I feel like a different approach is required.

When I say I don't like playing game designer, I mean that I don't like to operate under the pretense that if I'm elected to CSM I'll waltz into the CCP main office, kick a programmer out of his chair and code in specific features personally. This is not a solo job. There are people out there who know more about this game than I do, and (I assume) there are many people like that in CCP. I view CSM as not a one way street, where I read CCP the riot act, why they're stupid and wrong, and what exactly to do in order to fix it. God no.

I view the CSM-CCP relationship (and I could be wrong, I'm an outsider) as a team working together trying to find the best solution to a problem. Although I've made it sound like my intent is to say "this is broken, fix it, I'm not going to tell you how" my intent is to say "this is broken because of this, I think the final product should accomplish this, I have some ideas for what can be done but what can we do to get there?"

This is to say I value the input of others, and don't claim to know everything. I'm an open minded individual who will change his mind if you show me why I'm wrong.

Hope that clarifies things.


I have many opinions on the matter, in fact too many to share at once simply due to your question being so broad.

My main sentiment towards sov mechanics is shaped by the vast majority of space nearly completely empty, which is a direct consequence of the Dominion sov system since owners don't actually have to live in their "homes" to protect it or benefit from it. This leads to the vast majority of space being boring and devoid of content (read: player interaction) with only few hotspots in the entire universe enjoying PvP, but even then only on a scale inaccessible to those not involved with major coalitions.

I am a supporter of the "farms and fields" sovereignty model for Eve.

Further reading can be found here and here.


If you haven't read it yet, I just released an article covering the use of carriers and supercarries in nullsec warfare. Although it is focused on the Archon and the Aeon specifically due to the political debates that have been swirling, I touch on other topics as well. I bring this up, because after discussing the topic with Grath Telkin of Pandemic Legion, this same topic that you ask now was raised.

"Any [power projection] nerf must ensure it isn't just a new mechanic that restricts players arbitrarily. Making this game more frustrating and painful to do the same things we could yesterday is not the right way to start balancing. Beyond that, I am in total agreement. When you're able to teleport thousands of battleships wherever you wish, that's the only way that battles are going to be fought. Can you blame them? It just makes sense."

This is to say that I believe a power projection nerf, or alteration, would be a good for the game. However, I am in no way of supporting a change that imposes arbitrary restrictions on players; a better path would be to encourage the use of fast warping or more manoeuvrable ships, to pick two examples from many. However, to change this would require a complete overhaul of the sov system, which some argue is already overdue.

Some people see the ability to move entire fleet of capitals across the universe as a problem. I see it as a symptom of a much greater problem, and that problem comes in the form of sovereignty mechanics. So to answer your question if I agree with any of the proposed fixes, the answer is no, I do not.

That's fine - I know that the killboard on Jayne looks weak. That's due in no small part to this character being exclusively used for black ops and bomber engagements. With no cruiser or battlecruiser skills, I use my other characters to FC from, most commonly I've used "Aristo Moon" and have been doing so ever since I purchased the character specifically for this reason. My favorite size of gang to FC, and those that I run most often, are in the 20-40 man range.

Yes, it appears that the only thing that I do is black ops and bomber engagements.
That's because on this character, it's the truth.

As for ammo switching, IIRC my analysis came before CCP Rise actually assigned the massive reload to the launchers themselves. Being able to comfortably switch and select ammo types in battle is a huge asset, and something that any missile-spewing frigate pilot is intimately familiar with. That said, frigate pilots will also know how scary front loaded DPS really is, regardless of damage type.

You said: ... you could fit triple sensor boosters to your Manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement ...

This is a great point, and something I repeat on a regular basis to all of my pilots. For example, those who have flown with me know that I hate using Falcons in my fleets, simply because it encourages complacency and removes any necessity for pilot skill in piloting or fitting. Too often I've heard "if only that jam had landed...!" as justification for a loss of ships or entire fleets. Using ships like the Rapier or the creative application of sensor dampeners can be just as effective if not more, and still teach your pilots about damage mitigation and application instead of "LOL jammed". Same thing with blob warfare, your mistakes and your inadequacies can be hidden by the sheer numbers surrounding you. I don't find that type of PvP enjoyable.

Ironically, my current obsession in Eve is actually trying to fight severely outnumbered. This little goal of mine started when I forced myself to learn Solo PvP - look up any Stabber, Moa, or Vexor, loss on Aristo Moon. I knew I would encounter gate camps or small gangs, and I had to be able to hit well above my weight class if I wanted to survive, or at least succeed ISK efficient. Thankfully, that wasn't too hard, given how brazen interdictor and interceptor pilots are these days.

This is to say I know where you're coming from, and I understand that EFT doesn't have all the answers.

... but I have more experience in space than you give me credit for.



The post you're referencing can be found here.

This was, admittedly, a mistake on my part.
Thankfully, I never deleted it, and you can view my glorious failure in full above.

However, the "rudimentary fact checking" wasn't something I could personally verify, although I regret not being more prudent before calling foul. At the time, my information came from a published article that contained the same claim, which was also later revised to reflect the truth. In my defense, up to that point Ripard Teg had never mentioned that members of his corporation had received the IScorps, nor had he denied ever receiving one personally. That was suspicious and screamed of conflict of interest to me, something that I wanted to share with others. I have nothing against Ripard, but in this case I could not have disagreed with his position more.

So despite your question being rather abrasive, I understand where you're coming from. I had the best of intentions with sharing what I thought was a very relevant piece of information in a raging debate, and the "cherry picking" of quotes that I was accused of was an unintentional side-effect of trying to share only the relevant portions of two long posts from two different sources. It was poorly received, and for good reason.

So finally.... What major positive aspect have you got that will outweigh your huge negative

I'll reiterate that I never intentionally spread or post lies to the player base. Even ignoring everything else I've posted in this entire thread, I don't have to look very far for a positive that would outweigh what you consider as a huge negative. Quite simply, the post is still there - I didn't delete it, or hide from it. As with any subject on any aspect on this game, I will always admit when I am wrong.

1. As for strategic cruisers, CCP has thankfully stated exactly what their intentions and goals are here. This response comes from players being angry that the ship rebalance chart looked like this instead of this. Although I in no way agree with a loss of SP being a legitament balancing tool or mechanic in anyway, I do agree with the stated intent for strategic cruisers:

"Tech3 vessels were initially meant to be extremely flexible with adaptable roles due to sub-system configurations. In practice, they currently overlap in stats with other, more specialized ship classes, which create problems."

The ability to change a T3's subsystem while in wormhole space or using a mobile depot was a great step in making this goal a reality, and something that should have been implemented long ago. There are some great examples of T3's using their unique ablities in the current meta, such as the use of slippery petes, which is a delightful example of creative fleet combat. However, the combination of low mass, low sig, and high resists that have made the classic Proteus-Loki-Guardian combo so powerful is not something I agree with. T3's should not be the foundation for an end-game fleet doctrine, as far as subcapitals are concerned, while their are other T2 ships that are specifically meant to fulfill those roles and are being overshadowed.

2. The UI is certainly the aspect of NPE and QoL that would have the biggest impact on not just new players but veterans - and thankfully their already working on this very concept. Although I wasn't able to find the link for you, I remember seeing concept art for some new versions of the overview and various infotab setups in space. The challenge here is giving the player all the relevant information they need to play the game, while making it look as beautiful as it does when you press ctrl+f9.

The ISIS and mastery systems are great steps in the right direction, and I can't wait to see what they have in store next.

3. A sandbox can never really be "feature complete," but if you're asking me whether we need more shinies or further iterating passes on existing mechanics, I'd have to lean towards the later. There are aspects in the game which would make all facets more enjoyable if they were altered, such as wardecs, bounty hunting, and sov. Vertical expansion is nice, but a good foundation is always a pre-req. The ship rebalancing has been huge for the game, and from the player responses to all aspects, I don't think they would object to further refinement on an incredibly complex universe.


Hmmm, it seemed to have been rather well received by most, including Grath himself. Everything in that article was either sourced, or demonstrated to be accurate through various methods. Just because the results don't align with your beliefs or training plan doesn't mean that it's a show of incompetence or inherently untrue. Although feel free to actually critique my analysis with specific points and counter arguments - I'll explain and defend my rationale to anyone who asks.


If it hasn’t benefited me directly, then it has certainly done so indirectly from those who I have flown with and learnt from. Dealing with people in a public setting when feelings get hurt or things go wrong is never fun, but somebody has to do the dirty work to keep things running. In terms of being useful to my CSM run, the easiest take away I have from flying previously with Bombers Bar and now with Spectre Fleet is that I've found my passion and what I enjoy in the game. There are many others who enjoy this game much in the same way, whether their choice of activity is incursions, griefing, or open fleets. That's a part of the game I think I can provide valuable insight on, beyond my understanding of PvP mechanics.

... and that's it!

Updates will be placed in post #2, so check there for updates. Otherwise, I'm ready to field your questions!

Carrying this over from the other thread.

Didn't CCP fly CSM out there during the issue (of Monoclegate), and as such CSM was (in part) the reason why/how CCP responded to the playerbase?

In part, yes. However, you'll recall that aside from one member of the CSM actually getting in the thread on the first page that was started by CCP, no other member of the CSM was willing to get involved until it was clear there was enough outrage, and that it would be a hot button topic for the next CSM election (in indeed it was).

Note: I just went through the old forums threadnaught, and after five pages I did not see a "CSM" tag on any portrait. So unless my memory isn't serving me properly and the old forums--which were switched around the time this happened--didn't save for posterity sake the CSM at the time then there were no CSM posts with-in the first five pages.