These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sugar Kyle for CSM X

First post
Author
Alan Mathison
The Gold Angels
Sixth Empire
#81 - 2015-01-09 20:22:54 UTC
Sugar:

Very nice interview on Cap Stable.

You are currently near the top of my top third tier. You have good ideas and you present them very well.

I remain impressed. Thank you!

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#82 - 2015-01-09 20:37:02 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
I don't think anyone deserves another seat in the CSM as much as Sugar Kyle.

I wanted to know your thoughts on combat boosters and if you had any ideas on how to improve them. Would you be willing to have CCP take another look at them or do you feel they're mostly fine as they are?


Boosters are not fine as is. I like their concepts. But they are are an abandoned, neglected project that received a mild touch up in Apocrypha. The general idea is fantastic. I love the idea of making choices and fine tuning not just your ship but your pilot to your situation’s needs. There are implants that do this to some extent. However, the temporary nature of boosters makes them their own viable series of choices. But they need to be revisited and updated.

Contraband was introduced but smuggling never reached its potential. Instead, it’s handicapped the market for boosters and caused them to be an inconvenience in a game where we maintain assets across multiple regions and sectors of space. Ether the restrictions need to go or smuggling, a completely untapped zone, needs to be brought into the current game.

We need more booster types. I think that fine details would be fine. The idea of the explorer selecting a mix to help him hack into systems better at the loss of other sensory feedback is an interesting one. Let them potentially harm themselves trying to string out to the max. Increase and decrease risks based upon the choices the pilot makes and the skill training they have put into it.

It opens up more gas potential in player consumption, acquisition, industry, and marketing. Currently the role of combat boosters in the game feels as if it was only the first or second step to a much larger project that was never finished.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Protovarious
The Neocom Network
#83 - 2015-01-10 02:36:18 UTC
There can be no doubt of Sugar's participation, involvement with the CSM process, or her dedication to the player base. She's someone I continue to admire about as much as Mike Azariah. I can think of no better outcome than to continue to have Sugar Kyle represent us going into CSMX. This is going to be a crucial time in our game's development history and I want the absolute best of us seated in that meeting room in Iceland.

Sugar Kyle for CSMX. Without a doubt. #Endorsed

Co-host of The Neocom Podcast - http://www.TheNeocom.com

Eve Community Blogger - The Eve Editorial - http://eveeditorial.wordpress.com

Twitter: @Proto_Eve

Mynxee
Signal Cartel
EvE-Scout Enclave
#84 - 2015-01-10 02:48:50 UTC
I enjoyed your Cap Stable interview too, Sugar!

You're still getting my vote...I'm very impressed with the work you do with and on behalf of new players. That's so important if Eve is to grow and thrive.

Lost in space, looking for sigs...

Blog: Cloaky Wanderer

Doomchinchilla
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#85 - 2015-01-13 17:01:44 UTC
Sugar works hard and puts the effort in to make this game better for us. She has my votes!
Sven Viko VIkolander
Tang Ping
#86 - 2015-01-14 22:33:43 UTC
Sugar will likely always be my top vote. Easily the MVP of the CSM.
Bagehi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#87 - 2015-01-15 17:25:18 UTC
Sugar is a good CSM member. Really seems to represent the player base as a whole, and low sec specifically, very well. Sugar will be on my short list for CSM X.
Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
Shadow Ultimatum
#88 - 2015-01-15 18:02:28 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
I don't think anyone deserves another seat in the CSM as much as Sugar Kyle.

I wanted to know your thoughts on combat boosters and if you had any ideas on how to improve them. Would you be willing to have CCP take another look at them or do you feel they're mostly fine as they are?


Boosters are not fine as is. I like their concepts. But they are are an abandoned, neglected project that received a mild touch up in Apocrypha. The general idea is fantastic. I love the idea of making choices and fine tuning not just your ship but your pilot to your situation’s needs. There are implants that do this to some extent. However, the temporary nature of boosters makes them their own viable series of choices. But they need to be revisited and updated.

Contraband was introduced but smuggling never reached its potential. Instead, it’s handicapped the market for boosters and caused them to be an inconvenience in a game where we maintain assets across multiple regions and sectors of space. Ether the restrictions need to go or smuggling, a completely untapped zone, needs to be brought into the current game.

We need more booster types. I think that fine details would be fine. The idea of the explorer selecting a mix to help him hack into systems better at the loss of other sensory feedback is an interesting one. Let them potentially harm themselves trying to string out to the max. Increase and decrease risks based upon the choices the pilot makes and the skill training they have put into it.

It opens up more gas potential in player consumption, acquisition, industry, and marketing. Currently the role of combat boosters in the game feels as if it was only the first or second step to a much larger project that was never finished.


I like what you are saying and I completely agree. If elected would you pursue this platform within CSM X? Is there anyone within the previous CSM which you would see yourself working with on the subject?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#89 - 2015-01-16 07:26:22 UTC
Sending a vote your way!
Karl Jerr
Herzack Unit
#90 - 2015-01-17 19:24:27 UTC
yup and +1
Dave Korhal
Kite Co. Space Trucking
#91 - 2015-01-18 00:01:15 UTC
What features would you like to add to the way Standings currently work?

Matt: "Mining is the devil's work. If any of you mine, I will AWOX you."

Vikkiman: "What about Dave?"

Matt: "Dave gets a pass; he's batshit insane."

Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#92 - 2015-01-19 06:51:28 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:

I like what you are saying and I completely agree. If elected would you pursue this platform within CSM X? Is there anyone within the previous CSM which you would see yourself working with on the subject?


I plan to continue to push the subject and suggest it as a wonderful idea that everyone should love as much as I do. Within the CSM, as with all ideas and topics it is open to collaboration and opinion by anyone who wishes to join in. I like owning ideas but I am not going to live in a void with a project. With there being so many different play styles on the CSM there would be many angles beyond my own personal knowledge cases that would apply.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#93 - 2015-01-19 18:18:44 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
I don't think anyone deserves another seat in the CSM as much as Sugar Kyle.

I wanted to know your thoughts on combat boosters and if you had any ideas on how to improve them. Would you be willing to have CCP take another look at them or do you feel they're mostly fine as they are?


Boosters are not fine as is. I like their concepts. But they are are an abandoned, neglected project that received a mild touch up in Apocrypha. The general idea is fantastic. I love the idea of making choices and fine tuning not just your ship but your pilot to your situation’s needs. There are implants that do this to some extent. However, the temporary nature of boosters makes them their own viable series of choices. But they need to be revisited and updated.

Contraband was introduced but smuggling never reached its potential. Instead, it’s handicapped the market for boosters and caused them to be an inconvenience in a game where we maintain assets across multiple regions and sectors of space. Ether the restrictions need to go or smuggling, a completely untapped zone, needs to be brought into the current game.

We need more booster types. I think that fine details would be fine. The idea of the explorer selecting a mix to help him hack into systems better at the loss of other sensory feedback is an interesting one. Let them potentially harm themselves trying to string out to the max. Increase and decrease risks based upon the choices the pilot makes and the skill training they have put into it.

It opens up more gas potential in player consumption, acquisition, industry, and marketing. Currently the role of combat boosters in the game feels as if it was only the first or second step to a much larger project that was never finished.


I like what you are saying and I completely agree. If elected would you pursue this platform within CSM X? Is there anyone within the previous CSM which you would see yourself working with on the subject?


for the record? I like this idea as well

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Xenuria
#94 - 2015-01-19 22:29:08 UTC
You have my vote. I especially like the way you describe your EvE in your character bio. You demonstrate a rich and mindful understanding of how things work here.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#95 - 2015-01-20 23:26:42 UTC
Dave Korhal wrote:
What features would you like to add to the way Standings currently work?


There are several common complaints about standings that have been brought to me. One is the slow method of repairing standings from a negative standpoint. This topic was discussed during the Summit Summit and no resolution came of it yet. The idea is that healing negative standings should become more flexible and more productive. Please understand that any time I speak of any type of standings repair it never, ever goes above zero. There are tools in high sec where you can turn in tags for instance for a standings buff but those agents are tucked deep in high sec space where negative standing pilots would have to deal with the faction police while trying to repair them. Much of this discussion comes from players who have decided to leave faction warfare and their repair comes at a long series of level one missions.

It makes me ask questions. Is our current mission system the best? Do people have to go through a series of level 1 missions to get to level 2 missions or should it be a choice? If people could grind their standings back with level 4 and 5 agents instead of level one agents would it be a better solution? It is a topic I’d want to sit back and engage in a broad spectrum of players with. It needs to be more graceful. When players walk away from a game mechanic and give up a chunk of the game they want to play rather than endure it I think it needs to be looked at and a way to make that better found.

The other idea is doing more for those with positive standings. There are bonuses but why not more for those who keep them up? More reasons and options to try to maintain high standings for those that do. It is a mechanic that I believe needs to be looked at. It needs to be a bit more clear and the information for gains and losses more obvious to the player.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

X Gallentius
Easy Eight
#96 - 2015-01-21 17:00:07 UTC
+1 Sugar Kyle. I can confirm, from personal experience, that she listens to the player base and transmits our feedback and suggestions to CCP.

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#97 - 2015-01-21 18:59:30 UTC
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Sugar?

F
voetius
Grundrisse
#98 - 2015-01-21 22:50:03 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Sugar?

F


As someone said in another campaign thread, it's not that simple. I've murdered people in an instalocking HIC in low sec gate camps and in that sense I was driving conflict. I also got killed doing that when the bigger fish arrived, so still driving conflict. If I was able to do that with impunity on the Jita 4-4 undock it would drive conflict but not necessarily be good for the game.
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#99 - 2015-01-21 23:20:49 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Sugar?

F


I cannot answer yes or no and you do not want any other words about it.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

Dave Korhal
Kite Co. Space Trucking
#100 - 2015-01-21 23:50:50 UTC
voetius wrote:
As someone said in another campaign thread, it's not that simple. I've murdered people in an instalocking HIC in low sec gate camps and in that sense I was driving conflict. I also got killed doing that when the bigger fish arrived, so still driving conflict. If I was able to do that with impunity on the Jita 4-4 undock it would drive conflict but not necessarily be good for the game.


That reminds me of an experience I had in a small scifi PvP MUD years ago.

New players started on Earth. In order to do anything, you had to launch off Earth and travel to other planets. However, the moment you reached Earth orbit a camping battleship immediately blew up your ship. I tried several times over the next few days to leave, including pooling my money with other players to buy a better ship, and got blown up every time. Checking the game's forums, I wasn't the only one with this problem; apparently the player(s) spent 10+ hours every day just camping Earth orbit and blowing up new players trying to leave just for the lulz. The game's developers said the game was working-as-intended and that they wouldn't act against the camper. The popular theory among the forum populace was the camper was close friends with the developers. I quit a few days later and moved on to greener pastures.

There was plenty of conflict there; it was just horrendously one-sided and caught new players in a Catch-22 loop of needing a more expensive ship to leave Earth, but being unable to make money without leaving Earth.

Not all conflict is the same. There are certain types of conflict we want to encourage, and other types of conflict we want to avoid like the plague. In addition, there needs to be downtimes between conflict, an ebb and flow between conflict and peace, etc. If, for example, all of NullSec was locked into sov war and fighting over timers every day, there would be obscene burnout amongst the NullSec coalitions.

Matt: "Mining is the devil's work. If any of you mine, I will AWOX you."

Vikkiman: "What about Dave?"

Matt: "Dave gets a pass; he's batshit insane."