These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

CSM X - What are you voting for?

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Jenshae Chiroptera
#21 - 2014-12-11 20:31:00 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
This thread isn't even two pages long and you missed something. I have no hope of becoming a CSM. That is not why I am doing this.

I believe it's in the rules that in order to run you must be prepared to win a seat. If you want to express ideas to the CSM, there is the assembly hall for that. If you wish to express ideas about the CSM or candidates to other players who may be voters soon, then you might better spend your time replying to the CSM candidacy threads.


If I accidentally win it I will take it most seriously. I just find it highly improbable and am using the soap box while I have it.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-12-11 20:32:29 UTC
I've seen other candidates do that, but most of them don't broadcast that little fact.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Jenshae Chiroptera
#23 - 2014-12-11 20:35:57 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
I've seen other candidates do that, but most of them don't broadcast that little fact.


I am one of those rare people. Honest. Completely unsuited for "playing the game" and smoozing up to people. I get frustrated when people are playing silly social games and just want to get the job done. Thus, I am a terrible politician but I might be the best bureaucrat you could ever hope for. P

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#24 - 2014-12-12 12:39:38 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
I have removed a rule breaking post and the one quoting it.

The Rules:
27. 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 to the off-topic poster.

Also, thread unlocked.

Reason being: Everybody that complies to the requirements set forth in this article under the header Candidate Eligibility is allowed to run.
The perceived chances of them winning, perceived by themselves and/or by others, is irrelevant in that respect.


Edit for clarification: If a person complies to the requirements to run for CSM is only for CCP to decide, as the forum moderators have no access to private information of the players, or access to information on or about their player accounts for that matter. And quite rightfully so I might add.
The only thing we can (and will!) make decisions upon is if a character has broken the forum rules.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Jenshae Chiroptera
#25 - 2014-12-12 15:36:10 UTC
ISD Ezwal wrote:
Edit for clarification: If a person complies to the requirements to run for CSM is only for CCP to decide, as the forum moderators have no access to private information of the players, or access to information on or about their player accounts for that matter. And quite rightfully so I might add.
The only thing we can (and will!) make decisions upon is if a character has broken the forum rules.


I confess that I am pleasantly surprised. Thank you very much.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#26 - 2014-12-12 17:18:32 UTC
I have said in the past that running is a great way to influence the direction of the discussion and thinking of the CSM and even CCP . . . win or lose. So I think it is fine that Jen runs and uses this platform to make the points that he/she feels need making.

Make the Voters think, Make the other candidates think.

Good goals

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Jenshae Chiroptera
#27 - 2014-12-12 19:08:49 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
I have said in the past that running is a great way to influence the direction of the discussion and thinking of the CSM and even CCP . . . win or lose. So I think it is fine that Jen runs and uses this platform to make the points that he/she feels need making.

Make the Voters think, Make the other candidates think.

Good goals

m


Mike, thank you.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#28 - 2014-12-12 19:29:40 UTC
I'm glad you backed down from the "delete CSM" position.

I would also be more worried about overrepresentation of sov nullsec powers if they were abusing the privilege, but as long as they send thoughtful people with an eye on the big picture (which is one thing that their lofty perch gives them access to) it seems more like an academic question to me.

Rooks and Kings are infamous--especially in wake of the latest promotional video--for pipebombing, which seems more like an example of the "suddenly dead" PVP that you dislike than any sort of stand-up brawl. Also, how do you nerf "alpha" when it's mostly a function of the number of ships? Until very recently beam lasers had terrible alpha individually (and it's still not great), but if you get enough of them to fire simultaneously at a target, it will evaporate just as surely as if you used Tornadoes. You just need more of them. Fleet alpha is a significant design problem in EVE, but I'm not sure that you're coming at it from the right angle, especially in terms of ease of implementation.

The only time ships just appear on grid is if you undock or jump onto a grid where they're already there. Otherwise, you can see them on D-scan (and, situationally, in Local). The basic survival strategies of setting standings and using D-scan are, regrettably, not taught to new players by the game itself. Is there a reason you prefer mechanical nerfs to attacks that are already in progress instead of putting greater emphasis on teaching situational awareness?

I understand how an "abstain" vote would have semantic value, especially if you could specify a reason, but I'm reasonably sure that a vote of no confidence would be terribly abused (see also: the lack of a "dislike" button on the forums) by precisely the blocs that you're worried about. Is that a larger problem than the apparent disinclination of most of the game to participate at all?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#29 - 2014-12-13 02:51:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Dersen Lowery wrote:

I would also be more worried about overrepresentation of sov nullsec powers if they were abusing the privilege, but as long as they send thoughtful people with an eye on the big picture; it seems more like an academic question to me.
Rooks and Kings are infamous---for pipebombing, which
Also, how do you nerf "alpha" when ....
D-scan (and, situationally, in Local). .... Is there a reason you prefer mechanical nerfs to attacks that are already in progress instead of putting greater emphasis on teaching situational awareness?
I understand how an "abstain" vote would have semantic value, but I'm reasonably sure that a vote of no confidence would be terribly abused


My reply might be a bit short and sharp, I am in space so my attention is split and it is getting late here, bear with me, please.

I doubt most of the CSM do it deliberately, for the most part people see themselves as good people, doing good things, rel- {de-railment food deleted} However, when you live in a certain place, be it a city, country or type of space, you naturally develope a familiarity and a bias. You make decisions based on the experience you have had and the freshest of those.

As I see it, the problem is two fold
1) Null has voting blocks and coalitions vote for their representative for the most part, rather blindly
The inverse is that high sec is split up, scattered and hardly knows each other.
2) The other sectors of space don't know or have lost hope of being represented in CSM

The vote against option would allow them to nullify the first part of the problem. Then knowing that and putting coming forward to stand for their type of space would rely on CCP informing them properly through MoTDs in local and the Launcher.

The pipe bombing is a tool that will hopefully have a counter found by the players or coded. However, the root of it is that it is a small group that stand toe to toe with much larger foes.

Alpha, I have been thinking that either there is a delay where logi have a chance to respond, preventing a one shot or you can link your fleet in someway to "dissipate energy" and spread the damage.

As I said in another thread, I have slow boated between two book marks across asteroid anomolies in worm hole space, ready to warp at a moment's notice while hitting that horrible D-scan over and over again.
- That is not fun.
There should be manual D-scan with quicker results and a slower auto D-scan like auto pilot, some drawback to it.

So, I would say a bit of both. I like some Darwinism but I like good tools for people to use also.

71% of active pilots are in high sec. EVE essentially is a high sec game, a fair amount of them might be null sec alts but they would not exist without a purpose there.
My belief is that the null blocs might vote me to 0 repeatedly because I antagonise them and am not charismatic but I still think that if high sec felt empowered then they would knock some nulls down to a level that is more competitive and vote up some of their own.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Mario Putzo
#30 - 2014-12-13 07:08:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
I support your position on changing voting mechanics to allow players to vote against but you will still end up with Null Blocs just voting as a bloc against certain individuals, instead of for individuals, and since it is a runoff either way LS HS and WH candidates will be eliminated by the combined efforts of NS block voting.

That being said, there is nothing wrong with having NS bloc voting, but I think that CCP and CSM should encourage a format change where only a certain number of regional representatives can be voted in. A set number of spots for each region NS 2, HS 2, LS 2, WH 2 for example. This allows people who aren't being spoonfed a vote to target representation that reflects them, instead of simply picking from a list of names in a hat essentially.

As for Alpha, any reduction to it should be met by an equal nerf to logistics, as the only way to counter the logistical capability of fleets is to use enough Alpha to eliminate ships before reps land. If you eliminate Alpha strikes then what is stopping half the people who used to fly Alpha ships, from flying Logi. You end up with 2 unkillable fleets fighting each other...which makes the change redundant.

Thats my 2 cents on your issues Good Luck in your campaign!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#31 - 2014-12-13 13:48:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Mario Putzo wrote:

As for Alpha, any reduction to it should be met by an equal nerf to logistics, as the only way to counter the logistical capability of fleets is to use enough Alpha to eliminate ships before reps land. If you eliminate Alpha strikes then what is stopping half the people who used to fly Alpha ships, from flying Logi. You end up with 2 unkillable fleets fighting each other...which makes the change redundant.

Thats my 2 cents on your issues Good Luck in your campaign!


Thank you. I have no further arguments for the first half of your post. The voting could go either way but at least if we tried a new system then we tried.

Possibly the energy spread trick could be linked to the logi? They could sacrifice one or maybe two high slots to be used as absorb slots instead and lock onto targets with them. Any damage to them would be shared with the logi locked on.

Example:

The FC is yellow boxed by 100 Tengus that are all doing 1000 volley and he has a pure 85k EHP with 0% resists for the purpose of making the example simple. Now with 100 000 damage incoming, he would be completely wiped out in one shot. However, he warns the logistics and some (say 10/25) of them are quick enough to lock him with the absorb damage module, some of them are already damaged and don't risk it, some are locking others incase of target changes, etc.
So, he takes 50% of that damage and is left with 35K EHP. The ten logi each take 5 000 direct damage, since it is a module on their ship that is relaying the damage it is direct and by passed their resists.
Now they will have to repair each other, repair the further DPS the FC will take, turn off some of their absorb modules to not die themselves and are doing this while only being 75% as effective at repairing as they were before.

... but they saved their FC and the fight goes on.

Edit: Now like previously you can argue that a fleet of 100 logi would keep one guy alive and you would end up with two fleet like that, however, EVE players find the counters. For example, more damage per second and less volley, attacking the logi, laughing at how little damage the other side does or jamming the logi with ECM.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Mario Putzo
#32 - 2014-12-13 18:38:09 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:

Now like previously you can argue that a fleet of 100 logi would keep one guy alive and you would end up with two fleet like that, however, EVE players find the counters. For example, more damage per second and less volley, attacking the logi, laughing at how little damage the other side does or jamming the logi with ECM.


But the same can be said of the current metrics in game to limit Alpha, there are a pile of ways to mitigate Alpha damage, one current method that is being enjoyed in large fleets currently is heavy focus on EWAR namely Damps. If you can spread damps on enough ships to the point they can no longer target your fleet with any reliability then you have already reduced the effectiveness of an Alpha doctrine. On the other side of the coin you can apply those same damps to Logi and reduce their effectiveness in engagements where you are not in an Alpha fleet.

I personally don't see the issue requiring any large change because ultimately the problem will always come down to N+1, Regardless of the mechanics at work Group A and Group B are bound to the same rule set, and thus in an everything being equal environment at the end of the day the only difference is who can bring more dudes to a fight.

As for the idea itself of limited targeting or spreading of damage, I think it is quite gimmicky. I don't see the "realism" in a ship taking hits for other ships, or inversed, ships damages being mitigated based on the number of ships firing at others. In my honest opinion the balance is there already, and if you bring the wrong fleet to the wrong engagement then that is the chance you take when you undock and engage.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#33 - 2014-12-13 19:19:44 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:

But the same can be said of the current metrics in game to limit Alpha, ...


.... and so Tengu fleet vs Tengu fleet
.... Ishtar fleet vs Ishtar fleet.

Current meta but eHP and damage are the two you keep going for. Passive tanks, active tanks, etc there are so many varieties never mind ships that are entirely side lined because they pop far too easily.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Migui X'hyrrn
No More Dramas Only Llamas
#34 - 2014-12-13 21:00:38 UTC
> For null sec voting blocks to have less power.

Do you hate democracy?

If Nullsec has too much power it is because Nullsec, along with w-bros and lowsec are the ones that care about this game enough to engage into spacepolitics and influence the gameplay.

Most people in highsec play EVE like if the ships around them were part of the landscape, they wouldn't even notice if EVE became offline.

So why would we have to give the power to people that essentially want to kill this game slowly?

Migui is running for CSM10!
Jenshae Chiroptera
#35 - 2014-12-13 22:00:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Migui X'hyrrn wrote:
Do you hate democracy?

I think democracy in the real world is a farce. The most gullible people vote for a few charismatic faces that don't care about them.
We have no voting power over the bureacracy and no real way to stop the corporations that control and bribe them.
The next step would be some form of technocracy.
Migui X'hyrrn wrote:
If Nullsec has too much power it is because Nullsec, along with w-bros and lowsec are the ones that care about this game enough to engage into spacepolitics and influence the gameplay.

My contention is that they are simply formed into bigger groups with a few recognisable people within them. Why high-sec doesn't manage this could be down to many reasons, such as the systems being too barren or they don't face enough conflict or there are not enough defendable pipes and dead ends or or or.

Worm Holes are split off from each other, they are like tribes in a jungle who if they meet anyone else there automatically have to assume they are hostile. They can't form friendships with their neighbours because their links keep changing.

Low Sec .... well that is just a waste land. Considering the number of systems and the population, it is worse than null sec.

I am not sure how to make low sec more sustainable and I do not think there is a cure for Worm Holes but I do believe that they should have tools to give them all a fighting chance and null sec will have access to the very same tools. It will be impartial in that way.

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#36 - 2014-12-14 02:30:02 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
...I think the defences need to reflect that when we live in a world of cheap ganking .


What?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#37 - 2014-12-14 15:40:29 UTC
I'm not sure why I find myself partially quoted here. The original post was based on if the bowhead was fit for the purposes that CCP was promoting it for.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#38 - 2014-12-14 19:05:57 UTC
Sentient Blade wrote:
I'm not sure why I find myself partially quoted here. The original post was based on if the bowhead was fit for the purposes that CCP was promoting it for.


So you don't believe that ganking is very cheap?

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere
Coalition of the Unfortunate
#39 - 2014-12-15 05:03:10 UTC
Jenshae Chiroptera wrote:
So you don't believe that ganking is very cheap?


I believe that if you have to go quoting partial sentences out of a post I made more than a month ago to back your point then you need to learn to present a better argument. Presenting arguments is of course the primary role of the CSM, the election of who is what this part of the forum is dedicated to :)

Anyway, I consider this to be a likely troll candidacy, and as such, having dealt with the issue of a barely-in-context quote, I shall retire from posting any more to it.
Jenshae Chiroptera
#40 - 2014-12-15 11:47:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jenshae Chiroptera
Sentient Blade wrote:
I believe that if you have to go quoting partial sentences out of a post I made more than a month ago to back your point then you need to learn to present a better argument.


Sorry you feel that way.

a) This is not a troll candidacy. I really am this crazy.
"I don't suffer from insanity - I enjoy every moment of it."

b) I would like to point out that I :
i) Sent you a mail with a link so you would know that you had been quoted.
ii) Have in the un-edited post a link back to the original for the full thread and context, so it is not partical, it is brief.

(Can you imagine how long winded non-fiction would become if no one could use citations but had to quote the entirety of books and chapters?) Shocked

CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids

Not even once

EVE is becoming shallow and puerile; it will satisfy neither the veteran nor the "WoW" type crowd in the transition.