CSM Campaigns

Wow, so much bitter.

I'm not sure why you are implying an in-game effort to create content has any relevance to the purpose and daily activities of the CSM. Of all the roles it has grown to fill, running in-game contests isn't really something the CSM is for.

Sabriz, I have cast my multiple ballots for you. You have had an uphill battle for a seat with all the competition this year, but I am optimistic that your campaign has reached many and you have a shot at one of the last seats. Your thread has the most likes of any, and only Tora's has more views.

People, if you haven't voted and you want an engaging New Eden full of excitement, conflict, and energy; a New Eden where a proper risk and reward balance drives players towards evermore hilarious destruction; putting Sabriz as your #1 is a really good idea.

Running on a platform of content creation in no way requires him to run events. Also, RL happens. Of course, to an NPC with a blank killboard, none of this will make much sense as you're just here to troll. Thanks for keeping the thread bumped though.

lol don't have to get hissy I was just making fun of the typo. We all make them. I apologize if I don't check the forum often enough on weekends for your liking. I typically only check it while I'm at work.

Still digesting the Sov devblog. Posted only minor thoughts in that thread so far.


My post there:

Need to think much more before giving feedback as to the overall direction.

However, three small points.

1) Mining and ratting should be able to substitute for each other. This system makes doing both extremely important to holding sov. Let players do the one they prefer rather than providing mechanical advantages to splitting your effort 50/50 between the two.

2) Entosis links will be frequently destroyed and so should drive an enormous amount of industrial production. Crius (for all of its successes) had one enormous failure in that it reduced the gamewide demand for production line hours and science line hours.

I propose that you make Entosis Links take a considerable amount of time to produce (of the order 4 production hours for a T1, 36 science hours and 16 production hours for a T2 assuming skills all at 4, station services and no decryptor being used) to help address this.

This will help address some of the economic issues caused by Crius's increased production throughput.

Some numbers that would achieve this ballpark:

Base production time: 6 hours Entosis Link 1, 24 hours EL 2
Base invention %: 30
Base copy time: 6 hours EL 1
Invention time: 6 hours EL 1
Base BPC max runs: 720 (EL1), 1 (EL2)


Finally, EL2s should be produced with something that marks them out as 'different' to other production, and that favors building them in nullsec. I propose a Megacyte-heavy basket of minerals for EL1s, and an EL1 plus 250 of each racial Processor for EL2s.

(Edit: 250, not 2500. You have a math degree IRL Sabriz, don't be an idiot)


3) Entosis trollfits (fitted for absurd speed) are going to be a hell of a nuisance. A 10MN MWD Confessor orbiting a structure with an EL2 will be a horrendous thing to catch. Please add a hard cap on the speed players can go with an EL active - I propose 3000m/s for EL1 and 3600m/s for EL2.

For RL reasons I will not disclose the precise reasons I dropped out of EVE for most of the period of that event I had planned, other than to say it was a low-level personal emergency. Details are a private matter.

Had I been on CSM at the time, I'd have gone inactive for those weeks too.

I wouldn't fault a CSM member that went inactive for those reasons. Real life comes first.

Well played, NPC.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFLu8_rEQL0
:D

I wouldn't fault a CSM member for it either, but surely you can see why someone would see it as a bad sign that someone who's going for a platform of content creation and aiming to take on a second full time job might be scrutinised if during just the campaign they've already had their real life commitments collide with their scheduled activities. Whether there's good reason or not is irrelevant, people want a CSM member who will be active. If someone were prone to illness and often had to go away for weeks at a time for example, while they would not be faulted, they also wouldn't be a good choice for CSM.

Indeed they can and I'm not disputing that, but surely you can understand why someone would take it as a bad sign when we're not even past the campaigning stage, right?

Of course you can't, but then from a CODE member who quite publicly has some kind of personal problem with me trying to push for a CODE candidate, I hardly expect you to be objective. Didn't you block me already?

At the end of the day, people can take it how they want. Clearly that guy takes it as a bad sign, and while I may not entirely agree, I can understand why he sees it that way. Personally I think the problem with Sabriz isn't the level of work he'd put in, it's that he'd actively refuse to consider opposing styles of play to his own as even valid, let alone deserving of any positive changes.

Perhaps he should state that then. From his ideas and listening to his interviews, he believe that miners should be forced to engage in PvP with guns, a playstyle they are both terrible at and dislike. He states this will add more conflict - by which he means with guns - even though he also states that conflict come in multiple forms.

Please stop referring to it as content creation as if all other playstyles are not. Content is created in a multitude of ways. I don't think any of the CSM member could be considered anti-content. honestly I think what CODE does is damaging to many other playstyles. Effectively you are happy to have your content while roflstomping over everyone else's playstyles in highsec, and you want to be able to do that with even greater ease. It's for that exact reason that sov is being changed to make my own group less effective too. While no, other CSMs don't necessarily represent all playstyles, they certainly are more balanced in their views than Sabriz. Obviously you guys will vote for him because he's pro your playstyle, but outside of that people shouldn't even consider it. Nobody should vote for someone who would quite happily erase whole playtyles and force people to play in ways they don't want to. It's for that exact reason I'd not advocate voting for one of the CSMS who want ganking to just be deleted either.