These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Gorski Car for CSM 9

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Firefox4312 Yatolila
State War Academy
Caldari State
#81 - 2014-03-06 02:19:54 UTC
Very solid candidate. Very dedicated to the balance of the current game, and wants to see it prosper to live for another 11 years to come. As he is an older player, he knows his stuff about eve, and can be a huge benefit to the eve community, and especially that of the solo pvp community.

I would fully endorse Gorski Car to be on the csm, since he, as I said above, is a very dedicated eve player, and wishes to see the game prosper to be the top MMORPG and the longest living game of all time.
xXxLeaqMLGswagxXx Master Trole2014
Doomheim
#82 - 2014-03-06 09:44:01 UTC  |  Edited by: xXxLeaqMLGswagxXx Master Trole2014
Gorski Car is the best candidate for CSM as he truly understands the mechanics of EVE PvP— whether they be solo/small gang (where he spends most of his time) or big fleet.

Vote Gorski Car, he really cares about solo pvp (and will not imbalance larger scale with his suggestions).
Longdrinks
Zero Fun Allowed
xqtywiznalamywmodxfhhopawzpqyjdwrpeptuaenabjawdzku
#83 - 2014-03-07 21:13:10 UTC
In which direction do you think ccp should take the recons in the next expansion? Just straight up buff the speed and cap on most of them or changing around bonuses to make something new?
Cavalira
Habemus
#84 - 2014-03-07 21:24:11 UTC
Gorski Car is by far one of the more enlightened persons regarding solo/small gang pvp, therefore he has my support for the CSM.

@Rahelis:

Hi,

Jumpfreighters help traders setup markets, and they help people import. Therefore removing Jumpfreighters would make it hard to setup a lowsec market, and preventing people from importing from highsec. This won't actually help the creation of lowsec market, since the vast majority of lowsec players haven't got a JF. The reason behind the lack of lowsec-markets is due to low traffic (because there are no lowsec market hub).
Gorski Car
#85 - 2014-03-07 22:57:21 UTC
Longdrinks wrote:
In which direction do you think CCP should take the recons in the next expansion? Just straight up buff the speed and cap on most of them or changing around bonuses to make something new?


That is a good question. I think that a problem eve have at the moment is the lack of good force multipliers that have some kind of risk involved with using them. It is pretty frustrating to be killed or held down by a 10MN EAF that's 80 km away pressing one button while being at virtually 0 risk.

Just straight up crying nerf/remove ECM/damps will not get you anywhere and I am not a fan of removing features from the game no matter how bad they are. I would rather see some changes.

I think that CCP needs to change a lot with the recons. At the moment they are pretty much all outclassed by the T3 cruisers, trading half the ewar strength for 3 times the tank. I am more of a fan for giving them something new. More and different types of ewar, more combat capability and something that will put them at risk in order to utilize their full strength. A ewar like the stasis fields the arbitrators cast in brood war might be cool where you can't attack for x seconds but can't take damage maybe.

Currently recons are in a spot where they either are useful and get instantly primaried off field because of low hp or where they actually do nothing or even worse they are out at a distance where they are at no risk at all while providing anti fun for the hostiles.

Collect this post
Fayral
Nano Currency
Yeet. Pray. Love.
#86 - 2014-03-08 00:31:28 UTC
Hey Gorski.

What's your take on the recently added ESS. Do you feel it met the design intention of giving small gangs something to "force" carebears to bring a fight and push the attackers off? At the same time being worth it for the carebears to deploy in the first place. If you were on CSM8 what suggestions would you have made for the ESS, if any?
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#87 - 2014-03-08 19:19:41 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

26. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Nashh Kadavr
Hostile.
#88 - 2014-03-08 20:31:08 UTC
You'll have my votes.

Good luck!

#EVE_NT website; www.eve-nt.uk Blog; http://nashh-blog.pvp101.net
Rengas
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#89 - 2014-03-09 01:25:00 UTC
Gorski is most trusted third party in EVE and I would be honored to call him my CSM representative.
Garmon Reloaded
Doomheim
#90 - 2014-03-09 11:03:19 UTC
Gorski has the full force of my unconditional support behind him.

#GORSKI4CSM
roigon
TURN LEFT
#91 - 2014-03-09 12:39:33 UTC
I will probably put gorski on my ballot, ship balancing is important to me and Gorski has the knowledge to give insightful input to CCP about the pro's and con's that changes would have on solo and small gang.

Having said that.

Gorski, how do you feel about the way balancing is now handled in a semi-public fashion, where fozzie or rise will post a topic and we get 30 pages of people reacting to the listed changes, with some good posts and a whole lot of posts of people who with all due respect add nothing to the discussion because they either don't understand the changes, or are overly focused on their own play style.
And how do you think you will fit into this feedback loop if you where on the CSM?
Gorski Car
#92 - 2014-03-09 14:20:07 UTC
roigon wrote:
I will probably put gorski on my ballot, ship balancing is important to me and Gorski has the knowledge to give insightful input to CCP about the pro's and con's that changes would have on solo and small gang.

Having said that.

Gorski, how do you feel about the way balancing is now handled in a semi-public fashion, where fozzie or rise will post a topic and we get 30 pages of people reacting to the listed changes, with some good posts and a whole lot of posts of people who with all due respect add nothing to the discussion because they either don't understand the changes, or are overly focused on their own play style.
And how do you think you will fit into this feedback loop if you where on the CSM?


I am confident that CCP first runs the proposed changes through the CSM and that there are some and will be some good pvpers on the council that will be able to give some good advice.

I agree that the current way of doing it with a thread has a very high signal to noise ratio. There are some people who are good pvpers giving solid feedback that is ignored or just gets drowned out in the masses of bad posts. The problem with eve though is that there is no good ranking system and there is no way of knowing if what one player is saying is good feedback or not.

I think there are things that the feedback threads were really good for like the EAF changes where ccp rise was very good at listening to the feedback and doing good iterations. Michael harari is one of the guys who usually gives the best feedback in those threads and its great to see that ccp reacted so that we didn't get 200km jam kitsunes. (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3715916#post3715916)

There are of course also examples of the opposite, the rlml thread being the most recent one. It quickly went up to 200 pages of complaints that ccp was removing a weapon system and adding a new one. Most of the criticism was ignored such as the huge reload time and problems with swapping damage type.

Collect this post
Dan Carter Murray
#93 - 2014-03-11 04:03:53 UTC
wait so what's wrong with causing suspect timer to trigger for ogb upon activating modules?

http://mfi.re/?j7ldoco 50GB free space @ MediaFire.com
Gorski Car
#94 - 2014-03-13 15:09:06 UTC
Dan Carter Murray wrote:
wait so what's wrong with causing suspect timer to trigger for ogb upon activating modules?


A suspect timer would do nothing to stop a command ship sitting on a station. You need a weapons/aggro timer for that.

Collect this post
Chessur
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#95 - 2014-03-13 20:33:35 UTC
You have my vote sir.

However I. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the idea of links being moved too on grid only? What are your general thoughts regarding this proposal.

Also I am curious how you actually plan on making a very small part of the eve community have a voice. As it stands now, CCP will listen most closely to their largest playerbase, which is null and high sec. Do you have any strategies or statistics that you could use / show CCP that would make them more receptive to low sec playerbase concerns?

Lastly, do you have any ideas about how to increase the importance of small gang / solo to he average player base? As me and you both know- small roaming gangs are usually the genesis to larger fleet and eventual Cap battles. So it makes me sad that it is always pushed too the side lines.

Are you going to fan fest hooker? If so- I will see you there.
Not Orious
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#96 - 2014-03-13 23:36:56 UTC
Gorski Car has my vote and my support. I would trust him with my Leviathan any day.
Harreeb Alls
God of Terrorr
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#97 - 2014-03-14 07:02:51 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
Davion Falcon wrote:
Death to all link alts.


I understand this is a view many people have but there is nothing stopping you from probing them down and killing them. They are pretty easy to probe down now days with the probing modules. There is multiple problems with the current linking system that many people don't like. They kind of provide too much stuff for little risk and that's what I want to change by giving them a aggression timer or something when they activate links so you can prevent station games/gate games with them. The benefits with links is that they allow smaller linked gangs to take on bigger unlinked gangs instead of just ignoring the bigger gang. CCP also receives more money from subscriptions.

Just changing links to be ongrid is not a good solution. People would fit up stuff like 100mn mwd/ab claymores or just keep the links way out or only fight on gates/station where they can dock links if primaried. This would help with faction warfare plexes though.

Another fix that needs more work is to remove mindlinks from the game (unlikely as they just introduced faction mindlinks). Then you make sure battlecruisers and command ships will be able to fit links without gimping their pvp mode. Adding a new t2 destroyer that is able to provide link bonuses would also be cool if CCP decides that links need to be ongrid only.


You got my vote gorski. I don't agree with everything, but as a low sec pvp'r and FW member, I don't feel represented by the current CSM. Nor have I, since I started eve. I love the idea of links causing aggression timers (like logi does). A great fix. Instead of a t2 destroyer, what would you think about a T3 destroyer, with only 2 or 3 subsystems. I agree that putting links on grid will only help blobs.

I have 1 question for you, do you feel logistics is fine in its current state?

I personally feel it's too powerful at almost every level, whether it's t1, t2, or triage. In my opinion it is not balanced when a single ship can counter the damage of 3 or 4 equivalent class ships. In FW space it is very common to see fleets with nearly 40% or more of their fleet in logi, which is very telling of it's balance. Perhaps make TD's work on rep mods, or lower the targetting range and sensor strength of logi ships to allow damps and ecm to be more effective. Maybe slow down the cycle times on the modules. Right now logi just ruins a lot of fights, because it makes so many fleets untouchable.

We run into a gang of 20 guys we have 10, and we can't even kite or try to pick anything off even when they get caught 40km off their fleet because of the rep range of the logi, the rep amounts, they fit eccm so you can't reliable jam enough of them, or we need to have multiple damps just to stop 1 logi ships range, and the fact that 7 of those 20 guys are logi.

What do you think Gorski?
I Was There
Habemus
#98 - 2014-03-14 10:12:01 UTC
If you nerfed logistic ships, they'd become almost worthless in nullsec pvp. Bringing logistics to your lowsec gang, simply results in your own loss of good fights. It's not the game that should be changed in this, it's probably the players' attitude towards 'What winning is'.

Gorski: What do you think about projected effects get on killmails?
Ship A kills Ship B. Ship C is remote repairing/projecting links/Rsebo/whatever on Ship A. Should Ship C be displayed on Ship A's killmail?
Why / Why not?
Gorski Car
#99 - 2014-03-14 12:01:57 UTC
Chessur wrote:
You have my vote sir.

However I. Am curious to hear your thoughts on the idea of links being moved too on grid only? What are your general thoughts regarding this proposal.

Also I am curious how you actually plan on making a very small part of the eve community have a voice. As it stands now, CCP will listen most closely to their largest playerbase, which is null and high sec. Do you have any strategies or statistics that you could use / show CCP that would make them more receptive to low sec playerbase concerns?

Lastly, do you have any ideas about how to increase the importance of small gang / solo to the average player base? As me and you both know- small roaming gangs are usually the genesis to larger fleet and eventual Cap battles. So it makes me sad that it is always pushed too the side lines.

Are you going to fan fest hooker? If so- I will see you there.


I am pretty sure both ccp Rise and ccp Fozzie wants to put links on grid and I do not think they will change their mind. What I am saying is that they should make sure to get proper feedback from both csm and playerbase before rolling out changes that are too drastic. I think that putting links on grid will be a major change and I want it done right not rushed out.

I understand that the FW, Lowsec and especially solo pvpers are a small part of eve and they do not generate as much news as the 4k+ 0.0 battles. But honestly I think there are many players wanting to try out solo/small gang and we have many people making pvp videos inspiring other people. Even ccp hired one of the most well known solo pvpers/video creators. I think it will be doable, if Prometheus Exenthal and Hans Jägerblitzen was able to get on to csm running for the same groups as I will.

Might have to call in sick from work to be able to get to fanfest this year :(

Collect this post
Gorski Car
#100 - 2014-03-14 12:11:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorski Car
Harreeb Alls wrote:
Gorski Car wrote:
Davion Falcon wrote:
...


...


You got my vote gorski. I don't agree with everything, but as a low sec pvp'r and FW member, I don't feel represented by the current CSM. Nor have I, since I started eve. I love the idea of links causing aggression timers (like logi does). A great fix. Instead of a t2 destroyer, what would you think about a T3 destroyer, with only 2 or 3 subsystems. I agree that putting links on grid will only help blobs.

I have 1 question for you, do you feel logistics is fine in its current state?

I personally feel it's too powerful at almost every level, whether it's t1, t2, or triage. In my opinion it is not balanced when a single ship can counter the damage of 3 or 4 equivalent class ships. In FW space it is very common to see fleets with nearly 40% or more of their fleet in logi, which is very telling of it's balance. Perhaps make TD's work on rep mods, or lower the targetting range and sensor strength of logi ships to allow damps and ecm to be more effective. Maybe slow down the cycle times on the modules. Right now logi just ruins a lot of fights, because it makes so many fleets untouchable.

We run into a gang of 20 guys we have 10, and we can't even kite or try to pick anything off even when they get caught 40km off their fleet because of the rep range of the logi, the rep amounts, they fit eccm so you can't reliable jam enough of them, or we need to have multiple damps just to stop 1 logi ships range, and the fact that 7 of those 20 guys are logi.

What do you think Gorski?


On t3 destroyers instead of t2:

I am not a big fan of t3 ships and I feel a do-it-all type of ship is not really needed in the destroyer class. I think a specialized t2 destroyer would be a better choice for a ongrid link ship. t3s ships currently have multiple problems with them and they pretty much outshine t2 ships in most areas.

On Logi proliferation:

I agree that the easy to access t1 logi cruisers might be a bit of a problem at the moment and it's not uncommon to see as you say 50-50 logi/dps gangs. What I always wondered is who actually fights those gangs and do they really get good fights. I obviously is not a big fan of logistics at the moment as it is a hard thing to deal with solo. But I think it is a good thing that this game has force multipliers and sometimes you have to accept that you shouldn't be able to kill a 50 man maller, augoror fleet with 10 caracals even though you can perfectly control the range of the engagement.

Something I think would be really cool with logistics and logi modules is giving them ammo like the ancillary shield booster or rapid launchers. Then you could have the reps be really strong and deliver exciting front loaded reps and then having a reload time where you can't rep at all. Then you can make a choice with your logis if you want to rep in shifts providing a constant rep rate or if it is needed have them all burst rep. Just a thought.

I Was There wrote:
If you nerfed logistic ships, they'd become almost worthless in nullsec pvp. Bringing logistics to your lowsec gang, simply results in your own loss of good fights. It's not the game that should be changed in this, it's probably the players' attitude towards 'What winning is'.

Gorski: What do you think about projected effects get on killmails?
Ship A kills Ship B. Ship C is remote repairing/projecting links/Rsebo/whatever on Ship A. Should Ship C be displayed on Ship A's killmail?
Why / Why not?


Logistics already currently are kind of worthless in the huge fights. Both sides can field enough alpha that ships have no real chance of catching reps. A exception to this is of course slowcats. As for changing the eve playerbase attitude. That's a hard problem since most people don't actually want a good fight. They just want easy killmails.

I think that anything helping such as logistics, links and remote modules should be on the killmail. It would let all those logistics finally show that they actually did something apart from just seeing the damage taken number of the ship be really high. If you assist with dps such as drones you show up on the killmail and anything else helping should as well. I think killmails should tell a bigger picture/more complete picture of what really happend when the ship died.

Collect this post