These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

DJ FunkyBacon for CSM9

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#81 - 2014-03-19 07:58:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Kaarous Aldurald
IbanezLaney wrote:

But he lost every single vote from my corp and 2 other Caldari groups on that statement alone.

Funky would need to drop any 'links on grid' agenda for us to support him for CSM9.

However:
If he pushed for 100% removal of links from the game with full SP/isk reimbursement for effected ships/modules and 100% removal of implants like snakes, slaves and crystals etc then I can support this idea.
(Otherwise it makes eve more 'pay to win' than people claim links make it as only very rich players will have the ability to compete by affording expensive implant sets)

It is a slippery slope that will just move onto the next item people think is 'unfair' after links.

Links are a valid game mechanic available to all players just like all other options in eve.
Someone choice not to use them is their own problem/barrier just like ECM or Damps etc etc.


The difference is that ECM, Damps, Logi, or anything else you can think of all have one thing in common that links do not.

For their measurable, mechanical benefit, you have to risk them on grid to get it. Why should links be any different? (by the way, I suspect you're going to tell me something like "you don't understand" or whatever to derail the discussion, since it's entirely understandable for you to try and protect your golden goose)

Yes, they are a valid game mechanic. But they shouldn't get to be the special snowflake.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Pinky Feldman
Amarrian Vengeance
Ragequit Cancel Sub
#82 - 2014-03-20 23:01:08 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
IbanezLaney wrote:

But he lost every single vote from my corp and 2 other Caldari groups on that statement alone.

Funky would need to drop any 'links on grid' agenda for us to support him for CSM9.

However:
If he pushed for 100% removal of links from the game with full SP/isk reimbursement for effected ships/modules and 100% removal of implants like snakes, slaves and crystals etc then I can support this idea.
(Otherwise it makes eve more 'pay to win' than people claim links make it as only very rich players will have the ability to compete by affording expensive implant sets)

It is a slippery slope that will just move onto the next item people think is 'unfair' after links.

Links are a valid game mechanic available to all players just like all other options in eve.
Someone choice not to use them is their own problem/barrier just like ECM or Damps etc etc.


At this point they typically also require someone paying for a 2nd account, since they don't require an active pilot to fly them, just a 2nd window, so it's a bit more complicated than simply not deciding to bring ECM or logi, as those actually require a "pilot" to fly the ship, target and activate the mods. The advantages supplied to a fleet by a booster are extreme, and the lack of risk involved, especially in lowsec, in providing those advantages at this point is disagreeable to virtually everyone that doesn't rely on them, which is a majority of the lowsec population.

I'm not against boosts, I'm against a risk free application of them.

It is unfortunate that this stance offends your group's sensibilities, and I fully understand how important your off grid links are since I'm fighting against you and your links on a daily basis right now. You've also probably figured out that we're using off grid links to fight you as well at times, and this change would affect us as much as it does you.


Funky pls

Boosts in their current state, post-POS boosting, are hardly risk free, especially in lowsec. Boosters in safespots are easily probed down and boosters sitting on stations, poses, or lowsec gates are easily killed with proper fleet warps, before their owner can get them to safety. So many people think them to be "risk-free" including yourself, which makes them easy to kill because people figure themselves to be safe and don't pay the attention to them that they should.

Are they a guaranteed easy kill? No, but something taking a little bit of effort to kill hardly qualifies it as being risk-free. In my experience, whenever a scout calls out that they have a booster probed down or a warpin, I get giddy with anticipation because more often than not, the booster dies.

That being said, I really don't care one way or another what CCP does with boosters.

The moar you cry the less you pee
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#83 - 2014-03-21 00:31:38 UTC
Pinky Feldman wrote:

Funky pls

Boosts in their current state, post-POS boosting, are hardly risk free, especially in lowsec. Boosters in safespots are easily probed down and boosters sitting on stations, poses, or lowsec gates are easily killed with proper fleet warps, before their owner can get them to safety. So many people think them to be "risk-free" including yourself, which makes them easy to kill because people figure themselves to be safe and don't pay the attention to them that they should.

Are they a guaranteed easy kill? No, but something taking a little bit of effort to kill hardly qualifies it as being risk-free. In my experience, whenever a scout calls out that they have a booster probed down or a warpin, I get giddy with anticipation because more often than not, the booster dies.

That being said, I really don't care one way or another what CCP does with boosters.


I see your point Pinky, my group actually lost one last night traversing a gate thanks to some bad luck, so it does happen... and a small group in ships dedicated to Alpha them can sometimes get a nice kill on account that the person running them is usually dual boxing and may not be paying full attention.

However, when compared to other types of fleet support, the survival rate of a fleet booster is far in excess to every other type of fleet support which must be on grid and actively piloted in order to function. And we're not talking about insanely expensive ships here either, 300-400 million maybe? Command ships have some of the best tanks in the game as well, and with logi support should be fine except perhaps in large nullsec fights where things are alphaed off field by hundreds of ships at a time. Carriers and super carriers are able to run gang links if you need something bigger though.

I'm a fairly active PVPer, and I've lost 2 pods in the last year personally. We've also lost 2 boosters as an ALLIANCE in that same time (neither was podded either). It's not a very risky business, and given the power of boosts, yes, they should be fit properly, and on grid. That may not be possible for quite some time, likely several CSMs away from us, so in the interim, I'd certainly settle for an aggression timer.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
Baron' Soontir Fel
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#84 - 2014-03-21 18:41:00 UTC
How do you feel about changing station standings based on who controls the system in FW?

For example, the state protectorate station in Nenn should be converted to a GalFed station with the standing perks that come with living in your own station. (Reprocessing and things like that)
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#85 - 2014-03-21 19:02:23 UTC
Baron' Soontir Fel wrote:
How do you feel about changing station standings based on who controls the system in FW?

For example, the state protectorate station in Nenn should be converted to a GalFed station with the standing perks that come with living in your own station. (Reprocessing and things like that)


I would love to see stations that belong to the FW corporation (Fed Def Union, State Prot etc) change hands to the other faction when a system is taken over. It's not like the other side can use the agents and such in them while its occupied anyway, might as well give them some use.

I don't see this as something that's likely to happen, but if given the chance, I'd back it.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
Elijah Ghost
Running with Dogs
Northern Coalition.
#86 - 2014-03-22 13:59:00 UTC
IbanezLaney wrote:
It is a slippery slope that will just move onto the next item people think is 'unfair' after links.

Links are a valid game mechanic available to all players just like all other options in eve.
Someone choice not to use them is their own problem/barrier just like ECM or Damps etc etc.


I find it hilariously interesting that you say this now, after spending most of 2013 smacking me in local for using my snakes and loki booster while flying solo* against you and your fleets.

Anyway...

With regards to FactionWar, how do you intend to further the Dust involvement? We still have a wide range of systems (including some major home systems) in F/W that have no planets with districts. I would like to see this pushed to an every system situation.

For a start, it would create more player maps available on Dust itself, as well as giving us a reason to hire mercs/play ourselves to gain the dust advantage over highly contested systems.

Innia in a week would have been a lot different** if we'd been able to get a Dust advantage.

*I say solo, because it was my self and my booster, no other actual pilots.

**It would have been the same outcome because I drunk FC'd the enemy and whelped them against my friendlies and still got called a spy.....
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#87 - 2014-03-22 18:36:25 UTC
Elijah Ghost wrote:


With regards to FactionWar, how do you intend to further the Dust involvement? We still have a wide range of systems (including some major home systems) in F/W that have no planets with districts. I would like to see this pushed to an every system situation.

For a start, it would create more player maps available on Dust itself, as well as giving us a reason to hire mercs/play ourselves to gain the dust advantage over highly contested systems.

Innia in a week would have been a lot different** if we'd been able to get a Dust advantage.

*I say solo, because it was my self and my booster, no other actual pilots.

**It would have been the same outcome because I drunk FC'd the enemy and whelped them against my friendlies and still got called a spy.....


For starters, I'd like to see an easier way for FW pilots to link up with Dust players running battles. I think the vast majority of FW dust battles go unsupported by eve-pilots because the only way we have of knowing that there's even a battle on is if a dust player TELLS us it's happening. We have a few channels set up by players, but they're sparsely populated, and not widely known.

I see a couple possibilities, one being having the beacon show in system whenever a battle pops at a district, regardless if there is a ship in orbit to shoot at. That would allow OB support pilots to trawl systems looking for battles to support. Another option would be to have officially sactioned Eve/Dust FW support channels, one for each faction, and easy to find. Of course that would lead to a lot of spies, and people looking for easy OB ship kills, but it might be a good place for Dust and Eve players to make friends, and set up more secure calls for assistance than in an open channel. Finally, down the road, perhaps an up to date tool showing pilots nearby dust battles happening that can be listed by jumps from present location.

As for systems with no dust influence, it is my understanding that CCP is working on more maps, as well as adding other planet types to the Dust scene, so what you asked for may already be a work in progress, though not anytime soon(tm).

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#88 - 2014-03-23 14:24:01 UTC
http://funkybacon.blogspot.com/2014/03/csm9-platform-why-no-one-mines-in-lowsec.html

Part of my CSM9 platform is bring more people to PVE in lowsec. Today I took a look at why no one mines here and a couple possible solutions to the problem. I'm open to further suggestions as well.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
Viceorvirtue
The Hatchery
SL0W CHILDREN AT PLAY
#89 - 2014-03-23 17:51:27 UTC
On the topic of mining, why mining specifically? Why not something that's already more lowsec specific such as gas harvesting? Mining is already low income even in nullsec compared to what else you can do in the area even as a low skiled player. If peope do not want to live in lowsec already, its because they generally don't want to risk losing their ship and they've no real guard asgainst that in lowsec, in hisec you can use a procurer and be fine, in null you've got intel channels and in wh you have dscan/sig counts to lock down your wh. Putting in mechanics to make ppl want to mine would likely be synonymous with making lowsec safer and I do not see that as being a good thing for lowsec.

What are your opinions on the income disparity between faction war and non faction war lowsec? Do you see it as a problem and if so what would be the best way to try and balance it out?

Have you considered changing warfare links so they both give you a weapons timer like bastion and also large sig bloat like mwd? It would prevent people from using them on stations or gates and just leaving and would allow even low skilled players to probe them down quickly. Right now you can just use the probing enhancement modues and be able to probe linkboats but most people don't fit those for whatever reason that I've noticed.
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#90 - 2014-03-23 18:23:20 UTC
Viceorvirtue wrote:
On the topic of mining, why mining specifically? Why not something that's already more lowsec specific such as gas harvesting? Mining is already low income even in nullsec compared to what else you can do in the area even as a low skiled player. If peope do not want to live in lowsec already, its because they generally don't want to risk losing their ship and they've no real guard asgainst that in lowsec, in hisec you can use a procurer and be fine, in null you've got intel channels and in wh you have dscan/sig counts to lock down your wh. Putting in mechanics to make ppl want to mine would likely be synonymous with making lowsec safer and I do not see that as being a good thing for lowsec.

What are your opinions on the income disparity between faction war and non faction war lowsec? Do you see it as a problem and if so what would be the best way to try and balance it out?

Have you considered changing warfare links so they both give you a weapons timer like bastion and also large sig bloat like mwd? It would prevent people from using them on stations or gates and just leaving and would allow even low skilled players to probe them down quickly. Right now you can just use the probing enhancement modues and be able to probe linkboats but most people don't fit those for whatever reason that I've noticed.


Wow, that's a lot of stuff to answer there.

I'm starting with mining as a lowsec PVE activity. I'm also looking at exploration, and I'll touch on mission running at some point before I'm done. You can look at my blog post on mining in lowsec to be the 1st of a series, not the be all/end all of my opinions on the state of PVE there.

One reason people don't live in lowsec is fear of loss, and you are right. It'll be extremely hard to get those people to come and visit us. I also believe there are some people who wouldn't mind a little risk/excitement if we could provide ample reward for it. 10-15% extra reward in the face of so much additional risk is not going to cut it.

In the posting regarding my blog on facebook, someone made mention that mining itself my also be the problem, and I can't say I disagree. I personally stopped mining almost 10 years ago because I found it to be sleep inducing... I almost called it gameplay, but I can't really call it that. CCP has said for some time that they have industrial changes coming down the line that they can't talk about, and I think the CSMs are going to get a chance to play a role in figuring out how those changes happen.

As for income disparity between FW lowsec and the rest of lowsec, there is some issue there, however people doing FW are also quite accident prone and burn through a lot of ships. When losing a frigate costs 5-10 mil, dessies in the 10-15 mil range, and cruisers up in the 35-40 range, you need a pretty steady income to be able to afford to play like that, and there is also some significant trickle down. Black Frog for instance I'm sure makes a fairly good profit supplying FW players out in lowsec, and there are times when even the jita market has groaned and shuddered when we're in the process of fitting up thousands of ships to take a system from the other faction.

The income in FW comes through LP, and the exchange of it is actually an ISK sink for the game, which is something CCP is quite keen on from my understanding. I think that given the risks involved in FW, it needs to be a very high income source, otherwise you'd see our people having to leave FW to go make money in between offensive pushes. That is not to say that every other activity should only net players 5% of what someone can make in fac war. In the case of mining, your goal is not to die in a fire, but to mine your resources and GTFO before someone catches you. FW PvPers it is often fight, win, or die trying... and there is quite a bit of "die trying" involved in that.

I think that FW farming in cloaked and stabbed frigates is definitely in need of some curbing. I see a very rewarding activity there without the extra risk involved to others using the mechanics as intended. These players also benefit greatly from the main militia members donating very large amounts of LP to upgrade systems, while contributing very little.

On to warfare links. I have actually said somewhere here on the forums that as an interim measure until the off grid/on grid issue can be sorted out (which is a huge programming issue right now, and not easily solved) I am fully on board with giving link activations an aggression timer. The sig bloom is also not a bad idea. It doesn't stop people from skirting a POS shield, but would certainly add more risk to those sitting on station undocks, stargates, and sitting in safes.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
Mario Putzo
#91 - 2014-03-24 18:32:15 UTC
what is your opinion on swapping moon and planet materials between lowsec and nullsec?
Lanctharus Onzo
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#92 - 2014-03-25 01:02:51 UTC
CSM9 Candidate Interview: DJ FunkyBacon
http://capstable.net/2014/03/09/csm9djfunkybacon

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#93 - 2014-03-26 01:05:46 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
what is your opinion on swapping moon and planet materials between lowsec and nullsec?


Ideally, I'd like to see lowsec separated from being considered nullsec lite, or as inferior space to nullsec. Part of that is to provide more rewarding PVE opportunities, but I don't think swapping moon materials is going to be the answer. Having more valuable moons might be nice, but I don't see the majority of lowsec residents benefiting to greatly from that

We got a taste of how things can be made different with Tags4sec, which is something unique and valuable to lowsec. The stuff I outlined in my blog post about mining in lowsec gives an indication of where I'd like to go with that. Much like WH's have their own unique things they add to the game which are very valuable, what I'd really like to see past the mining bit is more things unique to low sec that can't be found in nullsec, whether that's tied in through exploration, special lowsec only PI goods, something to do with moon mining, DRUGS, whatever.

So yes, let's try to break away from lowsec being this place that has all the same stuff as highsec and nullsec (just a little more valuable than high, and a LOT less valuable than null) and give it some more unique opportunities exclusive to this area of space. Most of the mechanics can probably stay the same, but the gains from those activities should be more unique. Stuff that will have a high value if few people are producing it, and high content if lots of people are competing for it.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
Mario Putzo
#94 - 2014-03-26 01:21:31 UTC
Thanks for your reply!
Brusanan
Free State Project
#95 - 2014-03-29 15:47:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Brusanan
I am an Erotica 1 escrow agent, and I'd like to thank you for being one of the few CSM candidates who spoke out against CCP's unfair treatment of Erotica 1. The others are all too afraid to oppose the lynch mob. You also are the only one who seems to understand the seriousness of the precedent CCP is setting here.

Eve vets should be outraged, but the forums are full of people who just seem to not care at all that a CSM member blackmailed CCP with the threat of bad press in order to wage a personal vendetta against a fellow Eve player. This cannot be tolerated.

You are a true champion of the sandbox, and you have my vote.
DJ FunkyBacon
Rabid Ninja Space Monkey Inc.
Monkeys with Guns.
#96 - 2014-03-30 02:41:29 UTC  |  Edited by: DJ FunkyBacon
Thanks for your support Brusanan.

I want to make plain for those who may not be aware of everything that my stance is not in support of any one person, but the assertion that CCP has no business regulating player interactions outside of Eve on non-CCP sponsored 3rd party services.

Things like Teamspeak Voice comms, and outside forums, regardless of how public they are, (or how public they are made through recordings, images, and posts put up elsewhere) while related to Eve, are not Eve and in game. There are no CCP logs to back up accusations, and the potential for abuse within the meta game is extreme.

When one looks at CCPs consistent inaction (despite full knowledge of what was going on with the players in question for months prior) until a member of the CSM incited a threadnought populated by less than 400 angry characters, a person like me gets concerned for the future. Mob rule should NEVER be a reason for a shift in policy enforcement, and should not be a determining factor in doling out punishments.

Above all, if CCP does decide on changing where and when they are going to enforce policy, clear and concise lines need to be drawn to avoid confusion, so that players can clearly know where they stand, what is/is not acceptable. Ambiguous forum statements that can be interpreted multiple ways do not help the situation.

Radio Host, Blogger, Lowsec Resident, PvP Afficionado.

funkybacon.com - Blog

FunkyBacon on Twitter
Salpun
Global Telstar Federation Offices
Masters of Flying Objects
#97 - 2014-03-30 03:01:56 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
Thanks for your support Brusanan.

I want to make plain for those who may not be aware of everything that my stance is not in support of any one person, but the assertion that CCP has no business regulating player interactions outside of Eve on non-CCP sponsored 3rd party services.

Things like Teamspeak Voice comms, and outside forums, regardless of how public they are, (or how public they are made through recordings, images, and posts put up elsewhere) while related to Eve, are not Eve and in game. There are no CCP logs to back up accusations, and the potential for abuse within the meta game is extreme.

When one looks at CCPs consistent inaction (despite full knowledge of what was going on with the players in question for months prior) until a member of the CSM incited a threadnought populated by less than 400 angry characters, a person like me gets concerned for the future. Mob rule should NEVER be a reason for a shift in policy enforcement, and should not be a determining factor in doling out punishments.

Above all, if CCP does decide on changing where and when they are going to enforce policy, clear and concise lines need to be drawn to avoid confusion, so that players can clearly know where they stand, what is/is not acceptable. Ambiguous forum statements that can be interpreted multiple ways do not help the situation.

This stance is what will make or break your run. I think it will get you elected because most will not know or care about your stance but i will be watching your opinions once on the council with interest.



If i dont know something about EVE. I check https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/ISK_The_Guide

See you around the universe.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#98 - 2014-03-30 04:01:36 UTC
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
I want to make plain for those who may not be aware of everything that my stance is not in support of any one person, but the assertion that CCP has no business regulating player interactions outside of Eve on non-CCP sponsored 3rd party services.


Consider a hypothetical situation in which CCP knows that a certain player is recruiting other players in-game to participate in an unethical and potentially harmful, if perhaps not illegal in the relevant jurisdiction(s), activity. The player in question has repeatedly acknowledged, including on CCP-owned services, that yes, he is doing this.

It is my stance that CCP has an ethical obligation in this case to intervene--for example, by cutting off the offending player's access to the game, so as to prevent him from recruiting other players in game. Am I understanding your position correctly as being that CCP should not intervene in any way?
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#99 - 2014-03-30 04:25:00 UTC
Aebe Amraen wrote:
DJ FunkyBacon wrote:
I want to make plain for those who may not be aware of everything that my stance is not in support of any one person, but the assertion that CCP has no business regulating player interactions outside of Eve on non-CCP sponsored 3rd party services.


Consider a hypothetical situation in which CCP knows that a certain player is recruiting other players in-game to participate in an unethical and potentially harmful, if perhaps not illegal in the relevant jurisdiction(s), activity. The player in question has repeatedly acknowledged, including on CCP-owned services, that yes, he is doing this.

It is my stance that CCP has an ethical obligation in this case to intervene--for example, by cutting off the offending player's access to the game, so as to prevent him from recruiting other players in game. Am I understanding your position correctly as being that CCP should not intervene in any way?


I would maintain that they should not. Because once you start down the path you're talking about, you can replace "unethical activity" with pretty much any minority group, and you immediately have a pretty major case of discrimination on your hands. Or heck, suppose they decide that Russians are "unethical" because of the current world situation, hmm? Do they have an "ethical obligation" to ban them to make a point?

CCP's business is EVE. Not politics, not whether I get a speeding ticket, not whether they agree with my religious or moral views, not whether I play poker in a state that doesn't allow gambling.

The game should stay in the game.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Aebe Amraen
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#100 - 2014-03-30 04:27:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Aebe Amraen
"Slippery Slope" etc. etc.

Edit: To answer your question, I would maintain that yes, if CCP believes that being Russian is an unethical and potentially harmful activity because of something the Russian government did Roll, and a player is using the game to recruit other players into that unethical and potentially harmful activity (being Russian Roll) then yes, they would have an ethical responsibility to do something about that.

Fortunately I think CCP is much more reasonable than that, and your argument is little more than a straw man.