CSM Campaigns

As of right now, I can only reply to this in one way: "If there is a CFC Party Line, I don't know it."

All of the ideas that I have both published in this thread, as well as those which I publish in my weekly column, are my own. The short version is that I believe that sov warfare should be asymmetric and engaging, with most of the options coming purely from player agency rather than a predefined "you must do X Y and Z to contest this system." The same theme of player agency stems into my other beliefs, which are primarily that the upcoming structure and capital changes should give individual players a lower barrier towards group action. As of right now it is very difficult for small groups to create an organization worth a damn, and a greater suite of in-game tools offered by the new structures, as well as applying some of what is available at the corp level to the alliance level, would allow for much easier collective organization by those who can't afford out of game websites, Teamspeak servers, etc. If you want to know more, you should consider reading some of my weekly TMC columns, which are linked in my OP.

To expound upon it a bit:

Imagine a game of Capture the Flag in Halo 3. (I pull an example from my own youth simply due to nostalgia, this can be applied to so many other games obviously.)

In a game of Capture the Flag, you can play on a couple dozen or so different maps, each with different terrain. Some are asymmetric, some symmetric in terms of their physical terrain. The asymmetric ones tend to favor the defender, giving more defensive tools to the defensive side and more offensive tools to the offensive side. The symmetric ones offer equal quantities to both. But that's just the terrain of the map, currently we can't even begin to get into that as the closest we have to "terrain" are fundamental things like WH effects and constellation layout, so let's address that later.

There is another layer of asymmetry vs symmetry which is much more prevalent: the number of options you have for how to capture that flag and return it to your base. In Halo, if I want to capture the flag from the other team, I have a huge number of options. I can opt to run and gun my way in, in which case I will run into a greater number of defenders and die. I can group up with a bunch of others and turn it into a bloodbath halfway down the map. I can sneak in the side door and make a break for it. I can grab a powerful weapon like a rocket launcher and blow apart a group standing in my way. I can take a land or air vehicle, laying down cover fire or using it to quickly get in and out.

On the most fundamental of levels, EVE's terrain is inflexible and there are limited numbers of options. But on a broader scale, with the number of ways to catch that flag, you have only one: you Entosis the node until it goes into ref, and then you contest the node in warfare throughout the constellation. The fights change, of course, but not by much considering that there are a few select "optimal" ways to do this that people who are better at military tactics than I am can explain. This means that Sov warfare is fundamentally not particularly asymmetric as you are only afforded a limited number of options for core gameplay. Sure, on the more surface scale of fleets and fleet fights you have a broader scale, but there is a limit to the number of options available at the core. No physical mechanics that I can use to undermine the defender's ADMs or weaken their infrastructure beyond "force them to stop ratting and blow up their IHUBs." Nothing I can do to screw with the attackers.

It's this asymmetry and the sheer number of different ways that you can capture the flag in Halo that makes it so much damn fun. While Fozziesov is an improvement, it lacks that true variety that makes no two CTF matches in Halo be exactly the same. So, what I'm saying is that less symmetry and more opportunities for play vs counterplay would make EVE's sov warfare much more engaging. ****, even something as simple as "you can Entosis the Sov structures to capture them or shoot them with DPS to destroy them," something I recommended in this column would make it more interesting just because it creates more options for attackers and defenders.

Hope that helps.

It would be an interesting idea, yes. There's a lot to be said for stuff like that: Nullarbor talked a lot about asset safety at EVE Vegas and we had a lot of conversations at the round table about the appropriate amounts of asset safety with new structures.

I would have to say that it should be the latter. Passive reactionary groups are not hard to come by - that's what we have things like public critique of devblogs and Sisi for. In my honest opinion, the CSM should be a proactive group of different people from different backgrounds who have proven that they can both propose innovative ideas for the future of the game and directly critique CCP's ideas before they even hit the devblog stage, and do so in a way that actually encourages us to be trusted as qualified individuals with a vested interest in the game rather than promoting the interests of a specific alliance.

These reasons are why I stay explicitly neutral when I write my columns - it would be very easy to write or spin them in a way that only proposes ideas that benefit my alliance. But that's not what I'm about - I'm about creating changes that are good for the game as a whole, not solely good for one group of people.

I appreciate the positive feedback :) I've put a lot of thought into my answers and am determined to be critiqued based on my ideas, not the fact that I am a "CFC Candidate."

As far as the CSM agreement/disagreement, I could write a lot about that, but it's currently 4 AM in my TZ. I shall leave this comment here for now and edit with an update expressing my opinion after a good night's sleep.

I think you never updated your post with the reaction to the second question, and I would like to see your response.

Thank you Anoron --- I could have sworn I updated it.

For simplicity's sake I will post replies based on the platforms of each CSM X member on the "Your CSM" page.


Steve Ronuken: "The scale of POS is also important. A unified system, scaling up from the personal depot, to the mighty outpost. A unified system where you don't need to tear down all your labs, to upgrade a medium tower to a large tower." this sentence from his campaign platform alone was what won me over for him. He presents in his platform a very nice combination of advocacy for support of third-party tools and increased agency in industry. While I am not an industrialist by nature, it aligns very well with my ideas. It helps that he's a generally cool guy :)

Sion Kumitomo: Due to my long time spent working with TMC and thus alongside and under Sion, I will abstain from commentary on his platform due to a strong risk of bias. I will leave any comments at the fact that he was very intelligent, well-organized, and pleasant to work alongside.

Sugar Kyle: Also a Kyle. Thus awesome. In more seriousness, two statements that make me really agree with Sugar Kyle come from the CSM IX campaign thread:
"Low Sec suffers from an identity crises brought on by the tiered approach of high -> low -> null."
And,
"Corporation Management Interface - The unintuitive, obscure nature of the corporation interface needs a complete overhaul. "

Gorski Car: Honestly pretty ambivalent. He seems like a cool dude on reddit, which is a plus.

Mike: While I haven't seen a huge amount from him, the whole concept of having someone a little more casual on the CSM is actually a really good idea, especially in the face of so many people who shriek "NO POORS ALLOWED."

Corbexx and Endie I will also refrain from commenting upon in the face of accusations about bias as they are parts of my coalition, with the caveat that Endie in particular seems to always speak his mind and I really appreciate that in a person>

Sort Dragon's platform is specifically left vague. I'm not sure what to make of it honestly. I don't agree with the idea of "I have no platform per se beyond the idea of make everywhere better." Though the sentiment of focusing on something besides just 0.0 is nice I guess.

UAxDeath: I did not enjoy interviewing this guy for TMC during my time, and I felt like his priorities for nullsec were a little bit strange. Honestly, it could be a cultural thing, but SMA has been called a carebear alliance hundreds of times and we adapted to fozziesov just fine, so for him to say "We need more buffs for the defenders" just makes it sound like he wants nothing more than to plex in peace.

Thoric Frosthammer I will also refrain from commenting upon as he is a member of IMP and once again accusations of bias abound. However, during my time at TMC I noted him as a very well-informed man with a reasonable amount of patience.

Chance: Cool, but I don't understand marketing. I'm confident though that Chance does :P

Jayne: "None of these groups operate in game with anything other than a chat channel and a mailing list.
There is literally nothing else in game for these groups to use, and this needs to change."

Love it. Seriously. Very similar to what I've been saying.

Cagali: While some of the repetition and wording of the platform rubs me wrong, at the same time the idea of pushing the newbie agenda and keeping those who don't have the full picture engaged is a very noble goal.

So that's it in a nutshell. I'd be lying if I said all of this was hugely comprehensive, I'll admit. However, I wasn't hugely politically active when CSM X was a thing and I've had a lot of learning and catching up to do.

Finally available, the interview recorded by CSM Watch for the CSM 11 election coverage: Kyle Aparthos interview

Enjoy !

Okay, let's start off with some basics here.

How do you feel about being a CFC pet, and thereby willfully contributing to the stagnation of nullsec?

Have you ever been part of an alliance that was strong and independent, or do you think monolithic mega-colations are good for the game?



This is a huge negative. Every click you give to mittens isn't for the game, it's for his wallet, not to mention the dubious quality of the highly opinionated propaganda and drivel that is hosted there. TMC is literally one of the most unfair and unbalanced media outlets I can think of - period. Coverage is hilariously tilted and focused only on goons, what goons do, and how to be a good goon, or how a game change affects goons, towing the party like of their e-relevance. SO much happens in New Eden on a daily basis, so many stories, and somehow all the coverage is goon-related...yeah that's propaganda. There simply cannot be EvE news if its not about goons! Willingly aiding and abetting a media empire as crooked as TMC is not only morally questionable, but it may also be rather ILLEGAL to do as CSM candidate - surely someone who wants to be a candidate has read the rules, or do you think your mittani-graced, goon-sent self is above that?



TMC is absolutely another gaming media outlet. What do you have to say about the fact that you may be ineligible for CSM?



Some would say that you are merely a yes man of the Imperium, and when you say reacted to the changes to EvE, you simply mean fighting those changes all the way to preserve the status quo. Basically, I think you are hilariously duplicitous and two faced. On one hand....



So you tacitly admit that super blobs are a bad thing that prevents good sov game play, but then on reddit freely admit that..
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/40r8ny/i_want_isk_comms_evil_afoot/cywixlc



Basically, do as I say, not as I do. You are happy to point out that super blobs destroy opportunities for small alliances, but you are more than happy to call on them to serve your interests....I mean the interests of the Imperium. This speaks volumes of the depth of your character and coalition. You elaborate on this dependence on a larger coalition here too: https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/41xufw/what_exactly_is_the_point_of_the_space_monkey/cz674l4

Basically, while Phoebe and Aegis by all rights should have given power back to the people, to the alliances, and taken it away from the coalitions, you seem very content to live in the old paradigm so long as it suits you. Oh go ahead, masquerade as a small time mom and pop alliance leader, but you can't hide the fact that you represent the business interests of big-ticket null coalitions. It is impossible to be part of the Imperium and not.

Basically all you said is "grr goons, you shouldn't be allowed to have friends and allies. you have to willfully handicap yourself so we have a fair chance!"

Not at all.

Basically what I said is that it is completely daffy to wish for or seek a mechanical solution to a social problem.

When AegisSov was working, quite well in fact, the CFC hated it and continued stewing and bemoaning about how bad it was and the lack of content opportunities it gave, while other smaller alliances rejoiced and celebrated New Eden style by indulging in unadulterated pew. I realize that several of my critics have placed me entirely into a PvP labeled box, but war means business; functionally working AegisSov means more abundant and more accessible industry for all.

None of the 'pet' candidates have come up with a response to why burning Cloud Ring was a good idea. None of the 'pet' candidates have even attempted to address what is legitimate criticism of their reception of AegisSov vs the reception it had among other entities.

I would rather willfully handicap my chances to have a legitimate chance at fun, than embrace the permanent stasis that the coalitions have sold to it's members. We have seen where this goes for years. We know who speaks for the coalitions, who then speaks for the players?