These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harreeb Alls
God of Terrorr
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#101 - 2014-03-14 18:16:09 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
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.


Logi makes it very hard to outplay an opponent. The only way to beat a bunch of logi (whether it's t1 or t2) is basically to out-blob them with a larger logi based armor gang. I don't like sitting at 0 pressing f1 until one group out blobs the other.

It really kills kiting and trying to pick off lemmings in an enemy fleet because the logi range is so high. They screw up horribly, get baited off the fleet, but still can't be punished. I'd just like there to be better ways to deal with logi, ewar isn't very effective for the previously stated reasons and the rep range makes kiting worthless.

It would open up a lot more interesting game play if logi had more limitations on it. I like the ammo idea for rep modules, this is the kind of limitation needed. Or reducing the rep range but adding modules that increase it, so at least the logi pilots have to make some decisions in fitting.
Lanctharus Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-03-14 20:40:49 UTC
Hello Gorski Car,

I am one of the co-hosts of the Cap Stable Podcast. www.capstable.net

We would like to invite you to be on the show to be part of our CSM9 coverage.

Prospective CSM candidate who are interested in setting up a 30 minute interview, please use any of the methods detailed below to contact us. Interviews will be posted unedited, save clearing up any technical difficulties and they will be granted on a first confirmed, first served basis. Each CSM candidate will be paired with one of our hosts for an one-on-one interview. We will make ourselves available as possible, but we would prefer to record evenings US time, about 2:00-5:00 EVE time most days.

Email: podcast [at] capstable.net

Please remember to provide us with a contact e-mail and your Skype ID.

We hope to hear from you soon and thank you for participating in the Council of Stellar Management elections.

Sincerely,


Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer, The Cap Stable Podcast

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus
Gorski Car
#103 - 2014-03-15 06:04:30 UTC
Lanctharus Onzo wrote:
Hello Gorski Car,

I am one of the co-hosts of the Cap Stable Podcast. www.capstable.net

We would like to invite you to be on the show to be part of our CSM9 coverage.

Prospective CSM candidate who are interested in setting up a 30 minute interview, please use any of the methods detailed below to contact us. Interviews will be posted unedited, save clearing up any technical difficulties and they will be granted on a first confirmed, first served basis. Each CSM candidate will be paired with one of our hosts for an one-on-one interview. We will make ourselves available as possible, but we would prefer to record evenings US time, about 2:00-5:00 EVE time most days.

Email: podcast [at] capstable.net

Please remember to provide us with a contact e-mail and your Skype ID.

We hope to hear from you soon and thank you for participating in the Council of Stellar Management elections.

Sincerely,


Lanctharus Onzo
Co-host & Writer, The Cap Stable Podcast


While I would love to be on your podcast and I am happy for the invitation I might get a bit of a problem with your time. 2:00-5:00 EVE time is 03:00 - 06:00 in Sweden and well I am not really awake at that time. I will mail you with my contact email and my Skype id anyway and maybe we can make something work.

Hope to hear from you again.

Collect this post
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#104 - 2014-03-19 03:04:07 UTC
also gorski, For FW missions we all know that they stay up for 12 hours after you pop them and there is no incentive to stopping your enemy from running missions except by sitting in the mission for 12 hours. That is ridiculous.

Can we suggest that their not only be 1 objective for a mission but lets say, that the enemy can also "deny" the mission by completing different enemy objective? There would be no reward for the enemy to completely the mission the only thing i can think of that wouldnt be farming abusive is that the mission collector doesn't get the rewards for the mission and is not penalized.

this would significantly cut down farming.

For a legitimate example.(going to use amarr/minmatar front for this) Take Cost of hubris. An amarr pilot warps in and his main objective is to kill the minmatar fleet commander. (most missions take 1-3 minutes to complete anyways) say there is also an amarr Fleet commander, and killing the amarr fleet commander would be a minmatars objective. If the minmatar completed their objective the amarr pilot wouldnt get LP and wouldnt be penalized via standing.

Much better than camping the mission for 12 hours on end.

thoughts on this?

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#105 - 2014-03-19 08:25:11 UTC
Flyinghotpocket wrote:
also gorski, For FW missions we all know that they stay up for 12 hours after you pop them and there is no incentive to stopping your enemy from running missions except by sitting in the mission for 12 hours. That is ridiculous.

Can we suggest that their not only be 1 objective for a mission but lets say, that the enemy can also "deny" the mission by completing different enemy objective? There would be no reward for the enemy to completely the mission the only thing i can think of that wouldnt be farming abusive is that the mission collector doesn't get the rewards for the mission and is not penalized.

this would significantly cut down farming.

For a legitimate example.(going to use amarr/minmatar front for this) Take Cost of hubris. An amarr pilot warps in and his main objective is to kill the minmatar fleet commander. (most missions take 1-3 minutes to complete anyways) say there is also an amarr Fleet commander, and killing the amarr fleet commander would be a minmatars objective. If the minmatar completed their objective the amarr pilot wouldnt get LP and wouldnt be penalized via standing.

Much better than camping the mission for 12 hours on end.

thoughts on this?


Did I just like a pockets post??
Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#106 - 2014-03-19 17:22:07 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:
On FW missions:

I support fw missions and think it is great that they are in the game. You can't force everyone to join fw simply for pvp and people need to have a way to fund all their ships. I think it is bad that the gal fw missions have so much ewar that they are undoable in a bomber or not effectively run. All fw missions should be able to be run by a bomber but in some cases its more effective to run them in a ishtar for example.

People might think that a bomber is way to hard to catch and generate way to much isk/risk in lowsec but I disagree. I have personally run warp speed rigged crows in FW space and warped to beacons as soon as they pop on the overview. It is possible to catch a surprising amount of bombers this way.


While I agree that the EWAR in GalMIl FW missions is a bit over the top (cough cough) I'd argue that being able to do L4 missions in bombers solo might be part of the problem when it comes to farmers.

For plex farmers, as a faction hits higher tiers the number of systems available for offensive plexing decreases, which naturally limits income to some degree. However, mission difficulty never changes.

Instead of making Gallente and Amarr missions easier, why not make Caldari and Minmatar missions harder?

GalMil missions are hard not only because of the ECM, but also because the missile spewing rats can hit out farther than you can - cruiser / BS rats with 200km+ range are common. This means that your fragile stealth bomber isn't survivable, even if you're patient enough to deal with the ECM.

Adding something to the Caldari and Minmatar missions to mimic that same impact to survivability would be a good way to balance them and reduce farming to a large extent. L4 missions are supposed to be difficult, and require some investment in a ship to complete effectively. You don't see folks in High Sec running them in stealth bombers - the mission rats make that absolutely infeasible.

Increasing the speed of at least some mission frigates - even if it's only a few - would shut down the stealth bomber option for pretty much every faction. Two fast moving elite frigates in each L4 mission would be enough to force an adaptation, especially if they have webs.

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."
Wild Things
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#107 - 2014-03-19 21:34:01 UTC
Harreeb Alls wrote:


Logi makes it very hard to outplay an opponent. The only way to beat a bunch of logi (whether it's t1 or t2) is basically to out-blob them with a larger logi based armor gang. I don't like sitting at 0 pressing f1 until one group out blobs the other.

It would open up a lot more interesting game play if logi had more limitations on it. I like the ammo idea for rep modules, this is the kind of limitation needed. Or reducing the rep range but adding modules that increase it, so at least the logi pilots have to make some decisions in fitting.


You can outplay logi by switching targets and hoping to nuke them before reps land. It is less of a piloting outplay than a shotcalling outplay, but it is possible. Obviously this is easier against armor comps than shield, but you can't say that there is no potential to outplay a gang's logi.

Reducing rep range across the board sounds good to me. If they're part of the fleet they should be on top of the fleet, not 75km off ready to get safe at a moments notice.


xxBasedGorskixx has my full support.

In this moment, I am euphoric.
Gorski Car
#108 - 2014-03-19 23:40:52 UTC
Flyinghotpocket wrote:
also gorski, For FW missions we all know that they stay up for 12 hours after you pop them and there is no incentive to stopping your enemy from running missions except by sitting in the mission for 12 hours. That is ridiculous.

Can we suggest that their not only be 1 objective for a mission but lets say, that the enemy can also "deny" the mission by completing different enemy objective? There would be no reward for the enemy to completely the mission the only thing i can think of that wouldnt be farming abusive is that the mission collector doesn't get the rewards for the mission and is not penalized.

this would significantly cut down farming.

For a legitimate example.(going to use amarr/minmatar front for this) Take Cost of hubris. An amarr pilot warps in and his main objective is to kill the minmatar fleet commander. (most missions take 1-3 minutes to complete anyways) say there is also an amarr Fleet commander, and killing the amarr fleet commander would be a minmatars objective. If the minmatar completed their objective the amarr pilot wouldnt get LP and wouldnt be penalized via standing.

Much better than camping the mission for 12 hours on end.

thoughts on this?


I fully support the idea that the Faction Warfare missions should expire faster. I know from personal experience that some systems down around the sahtogas area in min/mar FW space sometimes has like 20 unfinished missions open. Being able to chase someone away from the mission then coming back yourself in a bomber to counter mission it for a reduced LP reward would be really cool. I think the idea of not penalizing standings would also be a great idea.

I would personally be happy if FW missions were designed a bit like the pirate epic arc missions where the intended ships for doing them is assault frigs/interceptors. I think this better reflects the ships that are used the most in FW space at the moment and they can actually somewhat fight back. Just some thoughts on FW missions. I do not really think they are in that bad of a spot at the moment. There are things that needs more looking into.

Collect this post
Flyinghotpocket
Small Focused Memes
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#109 - 2014-03-20 00:12:29 UTC
Gorski Car wrote:

I would personally be happy if FW missions were designed a bit like the pirate epic arc missions where the intended ships for doing them is assault frigs/interceptors. I think this better reflects the ships that are used the most in FW space at the moment and they can actually somewhat fight back. Just some thoughts on FW missions. I do not really think they are in that bad of a spot at the moment. There are things that needs more looking into.


Just because right now assualt ships and intys are the most popular in FW doesnt mean they always were. the missions tbh should remain as is. some of these missions are tough. and require big ships. and frankly there isnt enough reasons to undock big ships in FW with the exception of these missions and hub bashing.

Simpling having the opposing militia being able to reduce your LP per mission would do much for the warzone. and for farming.

Amarr Militia Representative - A jar of nitro
Hendrick Tallardar
Doomheim
#110 - 2014-03-20 20:08:40 UTC
How do you stop the chaffing from your goggles?

If elected, will Mandozer become your Secretary of Public Relations?
Liam Inkuras
Furnace
Meta Reloaded
#111 - 2014-03-21 02:52:27 UTC
Hendrick Tallardar wrote:
How do you stop the chaffing from your goggles?

If elected, will Mandozer become your Secretary of Public Relations?

The tears of carebears work as a nice lubricant that can reduce rashes.

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#112 - 2014-03-21 15:24:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Baron' Soontir Fel
Do you think missiles are in a good place right now? Do you advocate changing missile mechanics?

HAMs/HMLs?

Do you believe sig radius should completely shut down missile systems with no input from the missile user?
Gorski Car
#113 - 2014-03-21 20:17:38 UTC
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:
Do you think missiles are in a good place right now? Do you advocate changing missile mechanics?

HAMs/HMLs?

Do you believe sig radius should completely shut down missile systems with no input from the missile user?


Rockets: I think rockets are in a ok spot at the moment and they have a good spot in frig pvp brawling.

Light missiles: These are semi overpowered mostly because there is no other good choice for consistent damage. These will apply kinda good damage to everything regardless of links, sig radius etc. Heretics are really good gang ships at the moment and they function kinda like the old rlml Caracal with similar dps.

Rapid Light Missiles: People used to whine and whine about these being far to strong because a caracal owned their assault frigate without them being able to do anything. I really thought RLMLS were in a good spot. They did about 200 dps. That is not a high number at all. The reason people flew rlml caracal/cerbs instead of hmls for kiteing is because CCP decided to nerf them into the ground and make them unable to apply damage to anything bc and below.

Currently we have the 35sec reload rlmls and they are even better then the old rlmls at killing lone assault frigates so I wonder if their cries really helped. The reload time is a really big problem though as it pretty much disables you from doing ammo switching on the fly depending on the target you faced. The other problem is that you will run out of ammo vs any cruiser before you have to reload, making them into a primary anti frig weapon. But with the inability to kill more then 2 frigs.

Heavy missile launcher: These are probably the worst weapon system in the game after capital missiles. CCP nerfed them down pretty hard by lowering damage application and damage. While at the same time buffing every single other long range weapon, making the HMLS fall behind. The final nail in the coffin was when CCP buffed cruisers and frigs to make them faster and stronger. HMLS can barely apply dps to even battlecruisers today and they still overall deal lower damage then a LML Heretic for example. The only scenario I feel these really shine is when you got enough people to alpha people with heavy missiles.

Heavy Assault missile launcher: I actually think these are pretty ok. They do high damage and can actually apply this damage as HAMs are a brawling weapon system and can take advantage of webs. The ham Cerberus/Caracal and even drake are really good strong solo pvp ships that can take people by surprise.

Rapid heavy missile launcher: I don't even know where to start. These suffer from all the problems the heavy missiles have while also having all the problems rapid lights have. They don't even get the Typhoons damage application bonus that could somewhat save them. Another problem is the fact that at cruiser level (what I think is their intended target) they don't even have enough charges to kill a single tanked cruiser before reload.

Cruise Missiles: Cruises are also kinda meh. They do good EFT damage but can rarely apply anything of that. The obvious exception here is the Typhoon that I think is really good with cruises. Making good use of that damage application bonus makes them somewhat usable. It is not something that I would ever fly solo since the risk of running into the multiple ships that you cant apply any damage at all to is pretty big. But they are able to dish out a whole lot of pain in a small Typhoon gang with Rapier/Huginn support.

Torpedoes: These have almost no range on any hull. Poor damage application vs Battlecruisers and below and still do almost the same EFT dps as Cruises. I think these fell behind a bit when CCP buffed cruises hard. Why would I fit Torpedoes that do a tiny bit more dps then cruises but lack the 100km+ range?

Here is a really good post on missile damage application and the math behind it by DefMatrix
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/games/88359-eve-corporation?page=1521#30415

Collect this post
Mario Putzo
#114 - 2014-03-24 18:33:14 UTC
what is your opinion on flipping moon and planet materials between lowsec and nullsec?
Gorski Car
#115 - 2014-03-29 14:02:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Gorski Car
Mario Putzo wrote:
what is your opinion on flipping moon and planet materials between lowsec and nullsec?


I'm sorry but I have to admit that industry and moon mining is not exactly my strongest point and I don't feel experienced enough to have a opinion about this. Maybe if you could specify the question a bit more I might be able to answer more fully. Don't lowsec already have all types of moons and more were recently added?

Collect this post
Petya Gladiator
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#116 - 2014-03-31 19:12:58 UTC
Gorski stream is always entertaining, he comes up with some great fits. Sometime goes afk on stream without docking. But always fun to watch...
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#117 - 2014-04-03 00:12:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed a rule breaking post and those quoting it. Please keep it civil people!

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.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
JAF Anders
Adenosine Inhibition
The Chicken Coop
#118 - 2014-04-03 00:45:02 UTC
I think there is a better solution to warfare link timers than what's been discussed so far. The idea that booster characters should be shot and unable to dock for the duration of the boost is rather lopsided, as it completely eliminates the viability of links in the relatively target-starved systems of high-security space. Incursion groups rely heavily on the existence and availability of warfare links at no detriment to other players. Adding a weapons timer and a suspect timer to warfare links would also push the Orca completely out of an intended role.

The flag-everything solution only works for low-sec. Even though I like low-sec, I don't want to see solutions implemented that only help us. Your thoughts?

The pursuit of excellence and stabbed plexing alts.
Ssabat Thraxx
DUST Expeditionary Team
Good Sax
#119 - 2014-04-03 13:27:39 UTC
Gorski,

As someone who likes to solo PVP and who wants to get better at it (lol,) I'm very happy to see a candidate who represents this playstyle.

That said, my main issue this year is this: Do you believe the TOS and EULA extend outside of the game and cover things said and done in a private environment?

Thanks for you answer, and Bring Solo Back! Pirate

\m/ O.o \m/

"You're a freak ..." - Solecist Project
Elmnt80
Life. Universe. Everything.
#120 - 2014-04-04 02:32:18 UTC
Hello.

Currently the Serpentis are the only pirate faction in the game that don't have a rated 6/10 and 9/10 DED complex available to be run. These sites have been on the "coming soon" list for quite a few years, but no further news or information has been released. Would you be willing to request that CCP introduce these sites to the game so that areas like syndicate that rely on running sites as the main form of income can continue to grow and prosper?