These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

Re-Elect Prometheus Exenthal for CSM7

First post
Author
Prometheus Exenthal
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#1 - 2012-02-09 22:10:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
SHOW YOUR SUPPORT BY CLICKING 'LIKE' ▬►

The last year on the CSM has been an experience. After an admittedly shaky start due to problems in my real life, I returned to EVE with the goal of fulfilling my promises. Considering the magnitude of my success, and fulfilling the majority of my CSM6 campaign, I have decided to run again so I can continue my mission of repairing EVE Smile


WHAT I DID DURING THE CSM6 TERM
Getting right to it, much of my CSM6 proposal was resolved and is now in Crucibles release. I acted as a guiding hand, ensuring that proposed changes were not things that could be twisted and exploited to means deemed unacceptable.

  • I fought for, and succeeded in changes with the Gallente hybrid turret system. Reload time, weapon fitting, weapon tracking, & ammo volume were all things that I reasoned and argued for.

  • To counter the heavy drawbacks of armor rigging; I fought for, and succeeded in changes to brawling ship speed & agility. Allowing close range vessels to actually catch and maintain tackle on prey that was once deemed too difficult to engage.

  • I assisted heavily in the development, testing, and revitalizing of a fairly uncommon ship class. For the Assault frigates, I publicly proposed well thought out and researched changes that had been refined (and well received) since 2007. Despite some initial resistance, AFs have become viable ships to fly and are now balanced to our new Destroyers, & threats to larger ships outside of empire space.

  • I helped protect our best interests by fighting flawed ideas like CCPs attempted drug changes that were being tested on Sisi, as well as things that can’t be disclosed.

  • And finally, I routinely help out new players and enemies. People often seek my advice, and unless heavily occupied, I’m always willing to have a conversation for an hour... or two. During my term, I went so far as giving a lengthy lesson on PvP to EVE University, answering all questions and solving issues any players had.

    Although my candid nature may come across the forums as cold, all I ask is that you simply get to know me. Send me a message and let’s talk about whatever!


    WHAT I HOPE TO ACHIEVE FOR CSM7
    I am not a candidate who primarily focuses on a particular niche location like W-Space, LowSec, or Null-Sec. I am looking to improve what affects everyone; spaceships and spaceship related mechanics. If re-elected, my primary goals will be to continue my crusade of fixing & revitalizing the neglected aspects of EVE mechanics and ship balance.

    A few classes are woefully imbalanced, and in some cases only have one good* ship per race. I’ve got the momentum, influence & know-how to push CCP into devising changes to low-tier T1 Frigates & Cruisers, Electronic Attack Ships, and Command Ships; All of which are in need invigoration.

    On the gameplay side, there are longstanding tactics and modules that have grown to be exceedingly popular due to the ease of their exploitation:

  • Mechanics such as ECM need a significant level of change, and on the other side of the coin, as do Dampening items.

  • With the advent of Tech3 Cruisers we’ve seen links grow in popularity and exploitability, and as a result Warfare linked ships may be in need of some mechanical change to make them more combat oriented.

  • Perhaps the most important aspect that needs work is risk vs. reward. As the number of subscribers increases, and the rich players get richer, the barrier of entry is gets larger & larger. It’s extremely difficult for small time players to have a worthwhile amount of success when they can’t afford to compete with the increasing populations, thus making it harder to keep new players in the game. Alongside CCP, I’d like to come up with a solution that makes the little people a bit scarier to the big folks. Perhaps something along the lines of increasing the production costs of T2 weaponry, & boosting the abilities of T1 items. This could assist more impoverished & lower skilled players in making a profit during their endeavors.


    THE BENEFITS
    I’d like to see EVE become a more tactically dense game. With more players subscribing every day, this means the task will grow to be increasingly difficult. However, this doesn’t make the task less relevant. At the very core, I don’t want EVE to become a game where you can just mass anything & be successful.

    I am hoping that I can continue to build off of the success of the CSM & Crucible expansion. I’ve got the momentum from CSM6 behind me, & I’d very much love to continue working for the community in hopes of a better EVE. Lately CCP has been paying attention to the CSM and its subscribers, so I think now is the prime time for familiar faces with good ideas.

    I don't care who you play with or what you do, we all use spaceships;
    A vote for Prometheus Exenthal is a vote for a better EVE.


    ABOUT MYSELF
    My name is Adrian Mugnieco from Ontario, Canada. I’m 24; I’ve been through college twice for computer graphics and programming, so I’m quite familiar with development requirements & pipelines. Outside of EVE I’m all over the place; I enjoy 3d modeling, snowboarding, and am very much into motorsport (or anything fast for that matter).

    As for EVE, many of you may already know of me. The character is Prometheus Exenthal of Genos Occidere, and through him I’ve produced 15* popular pvp videos including the FRIGANK series. My skill set started in 2006 largely for piloting frigates of all races, but grew into what it is now, with the ability to fly nearly everything sub-capital. I try not to discriminate in what I fly since each race has different advantages.

    For more info about myself & thoughts on low sec, feel free to check these out:
    marcs survey, & my website

    https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

    DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

    I Legionnaire
    Furtherance.
    #2 - 2012-02-09 22:14:59 UTC
    first!
    Korg Tronix
    Mole Station Nursery
    #3 - 2012-02-09 22:19:27 UTC
    I Legionnaire wrote:
    first!


    Damn It!!!

    Evil: If I were creating the world I wouldn't mess about with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers, eight o'clock, Day One! [zaps one of his minions accidentally, minion screams]

    Lyris Nairn
    Perkone
    Caldari State
    #4 - 2012-02-09 22:31:55 UTC
    Best of luck space friend!

    Sky Captain of Your Heart

    Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn

    Ktorn Sinus
    CANCER.
    #5 - 2012-02-09 23:30:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Ktorn Sinus
    f****** careerist! (vote, gl).

    honourable anti-ecm pvp.
    Drake Iddon
    CastleKickers
    #6 - 2012-02-10 00:13:13 UTC
    Already secured my vote along time ago m8

    also, DRAKE IDDON WILLS THIS THREAD TO RISE TO THOU TOP (bump)
    GreenYoshi
    Misappropriation
    Domain Research and Mining Inst.
    #7 - 2012-02-10 00:47:12 UTC
    Supporting, of course. Let's keep balance in Eve at the forefront of CCP's attention.
    Filthy Crosstrainer
    Our Ibises Will Blot Out The Sun
    #8 - 2012-02-10 01:26:58 UTC
    Nerf my falcon and link ships already
    rodyas
    Tie Fighters Inc
    #9 - 2012-02-10 01:38:04 UTC
    Which ship do you think would make the best snowboard? Talos or upside down drake? Plz dont say drake since it is already overpowered enough.

    Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne

    Prometheus Exenthal
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #10 - 2012-02-10 01:57:39 UTC
    rodyas wrote:
    Which ship do you think would make the best snowboard? Talos or upside down drake? Plz dont say drake since it is already overpowered enough.

    Neither, the Coercer/Heretic trumps both Cool
    But I prefer the Nyx because then I could do this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpCVrzVr97M

    https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

    DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

    Requiescat
    Caldari Provisions
    Caldari State
    #11 - 2012-02-10 02:41:50 UTC
    Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
    A few classes are woefully imbalanced, and in some cases only have one good* ship per race. I’ve got the momentum, influence & know-how to push CCP into devising changes to low-tier T1 Frigates & Cruisers, Electronic Attack Ships, and Command Ships; All of which are in need invigoration.


    While I agree on this point, I disagree on this one:

    Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
    Perhaps the most important aspect that needs work is risk vs. reward. As the number of subscribers increases, and the rich players get richer, the barrier of entry is gets larger & larger. It’s extremely difficult for small time players to have a worthwhile amount of success when they can’t afford to compete with the increasing populations, thus making it harder to keep new players in the game. Alongside CCP, I’d like to come up with a solution that makes the little people a bit scarier to the big folks. Perhaps something along the lines of increasing the production costs of T2 weaponry, & boosting the abilities of T1 items. This could assist more impoverished & lower skilled players in making a profit during their endeavors.


    Honestly, T1 vs T2 module balance is, at present, a game of how much money you want to spend on faction devices versus how much time you want to spend training for things you should train for anyway. I understand that may sound cold or harsh to a new player, but this newfound habit people have of joining EVE and running off to join a 0.0 alliance first thing, before they know autocannons from assault missiles, really isn't healthy in my opinion. What's more, Meta-4 weapons have the same base stats (and easier fitting) compared to T2, the difference is only T2 ammo and the bonus from specialization skills. What you're suggesting would mean making Meta-4 better than T2...?

    I'm not sure where you're headed with this one. Care to elaborate?

    hi i'm requiescat, and i'm your best friend♥

    Lady Spank
    Get Out Nasty Face
    #12 - 2012-02-10 04:19:03 UTC
    7 votes for Prom. You have already proved yourself more than worthy with irrefutably positive high-profile fixes thus far, and I know you have a broader spectrum of interests in game balance overall which I think is otherwise lacking.

    The last CSM overall did a brilliant job but I think you particularly deserve the medium to small gang and solo voters in particular to look your way ♥

    (ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)

    Prometheus Exenthal
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #13 - 2012-02-10 05:55:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
    Requiescat wrote:
    I disagree on this one:
    Prometheus Exenthal wrote:
    Perhaps the most important aspect that needs work is risk vs. reward. As the number of subscribers increases, and the rich players get richer, the barrier of entry is gets larger & larger. It’s extremely difficult for small time players to have a worthwhile amount of success when they can’t afford to compete with the increasing populations, thus making it harder to keep new players in the game. Alongside CCP, I’d like to come up with a solution that makes the little people a bit scarier to the big folks. Perhaps something along the lines of increasing the production costs of T2 weaponry, & boosting the abilities of T1 items. This could assist more impoverished & lower skilled players in making a profit during their endeavors.

    Honestly, T1 vs T2 module balance is, at present, a game of how much money you want to spend on faction devices versus how much time you want to spend training for things you should train for anyway. I understand that may sound cold or harsh to a new player, but this newfound habit people have of joining EVE and running off to join a 0.0 alliance first thing, before they know autocannons from assault missiles, really isn't healthy in my opinion. What's more, Meta-4 weapons have the same base stats (and easier fitting) compared to T2, the difference is only T2 ammo and the bonus from specialization skills. What you're suggesting would mean making Meta-4 better than T2...?
    I'm not sure where you're headed with this one. Care to elaborate?


    Sure, and let me start by stating that this is merely a possible solution and shouldn't be interpreted as gospel.
    Let me also clarify that this would be T2 weapons (turrets/launchers), and not the whole range of modules like tackle, tanking, and propulsion.

    The primary purpose would be to lower the skillpoint & wallet requirements for players to have success in combat.
    Statistically speaking, yes, I'd like to see t1 named weapons perform better, possibly with best-named being *better* than their T2 counterparts.

    To put a number on it, I'd like to see T2 weapons begin to share similar costs to that of best-named T1 weapons (if not a little bit less). Loot tables can be adjusted to make the T1 goodies a bit more common, where the intention is to give T1 items some relevance while reducing required ship costs.

    Currently there is absolutely no need to fit named weapons on a pvp ship.
    If you're in a turret ship and you can't fit a full rack of X turrets, you simply plug in the right implants, mix and match sizes, or adjust your fit to accommodate. Nobody fits a T1 turret on anything, unless they are completely out of options.
    Heck, navy & faction weapons are absolutely atrocious on everything, with Officer modules being the only beacon of light.
    The reason being is that T2 weapons still have a significant edge as they gain T2 ammo. That may not seem like a big deal, but think of how many people would enjoy flying Amarr without Scorch, or Minmatar without Barrage.

    The T1 tradeoff should be something that while they are easier to fit & afford, they are harder to use, but not as risky on the wallet. The T2 advantage is the flexibility you gain from that T2 ammo, and the extra bit of damage from the spec skills. Heck, perhaps changing T1 weapons to have slightly worse heat management would help balance out the stats.

    In the end, I hope it would work out that good pilots could actually make some profit *farming* the richer players without breaking the bank in the process.

    At any rate, it's merely an idea. My point is that Risk vs. Reward is an aspect of EVE that has very little merit nowadays, and I want to fix that. You shouldn't need to kill & loot 10 Cruisers with T2 fits (with perfect drops) in order to pay for your one rigged ship.

    https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

    DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

    Raimo
    Genos Occidere
    HYDRA RELOADED
    #14 - 2012-02-10 07:04:04 UTC
    Supporting!
    Djakku
    Magister Mortalis.
    Undead Nation
    #15 - 2012-02-10 08:13:09 UTC
    like
    Inggroth
    Harbingers of Reset
    #16 - 2012-02-10 08:43:47 UTC
    Hi Prom,

    could you please elaborate on the exact impact you had on the balance changes we enjoy post-crucible? (hybrid-buff /assault frigate buff)?
    I sure do appreciate those, and pushing something like this through is a major argument for voting a certain candidate.
    On the other hand these changes are "low -hanging fruits" - i mean everyone was yelling for a 4. AF bonus/hybrid buff for years so its not exactly hard to come up with a solution for a buff.

    If it is of any relevance - i did vote for you for CSM6. Now i'm really not sure if i should rather vote for someone whose ideas i may not necessarily agree to the same extent, but who is more promising on the "communicate/persuade CCP" front.
    I mean the big thing CSM6 did is getting CCP to release something like Crucible in the first place, being arguably the first actual content expansion since Dominion. Again, i'm not sure how much impact you had on this.
    Roime
    Yamagata Syndicate
    Shadow Cartel
    #17 - 2012-02-10 10:02:42 UTC
    Yes, been waiting for this thread to appear Cool

    Definitely the spaceship candidate.

    Thanks for your work and good luck, will vote!

    .

    Prometheus Exenthal
    Aliastra
    Gallente Federation
    #18 - 2012-02-10 10:07:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Prometheus Exenthal
    Inggroth wrote:
    Could you please elaborate on the exact impact you had on the balance changes we enjoy post-crucible? (hybrid-buff /assault frigate buff)? I sure do appreciate those, and pushing something like this through is a major argument for voting a certain candidate. On the other hand these changes are "low -hanging fruits" - i mean everyone was yelling for a 4. AF bonus/hybrid buff for years so its not exactly hard to come up with a solution for a buff.

    THE ASSAULT FRIGATES
    I have no way of proving this, but the AF changes are very similar to my series of amended proposals from years gone by.

    The original thread was proposed on the now defunct Scrapheap-Challenge back in mid-2009. Response was relatively positive, but I didn't think much of it because I wasn't confident in the idea.

    In October 2010, I made a 2nd iteration which was posted once again to the Scrapheap as well as the EVE-O Community (link). Response on EVE-O wasn't overwhelming (there are tons of these threads), but both SHC & EVE-O were mostly positive.

    Prior to my campaign in 2011, I made another post on the Scrapheap with a newly revised document.
    Early Fall of 2011, I was discussing AFs and brought up the doc from earlier in the year. I made a PDF this time (because someone couldn't read docx) and uploaded it to my own site so it wouldn't get lost. In the Fall of 2011, it was brought up once again so I uploaded it to my eve-files (link). Each time, the response to this was mostly positive.

    At this point I was on the CSM, and being that I said I would aim to get these fixed (and had now publicly proposed changes several times) I pressured CCP to find out what their stance on AFs were and if they had any intention of solving them. I gave them the same research I had given everyone else.

    Is it possible that some aspects are from other players proposals? Definitely, and very likely. To me, the final results look very similar to my original (and iterated) proposals, but that doesn't mean another persons good idea isn't part of the process.
    Changes were made internally and discussed with the whole of the CSM. Testing shortly began on Sisi & issues and concerns were monitored by the team, and addressed accordingly.


    THE HYBRIDS
    This was more of a team effort. Just about everyone on the CSM had some input on the general issues with the weapons.
    Much of my work was arguing against foolish ideas (proposed by others), and being a hybrid pilot, trying to explain the current benefits and pitfalls of brawling ships. As I stated in the original post, I was arguing for "reload time, weapon fitting, weapon tracking, & ammo volume" and by association, ship agility. Don't know how much more specific I can get than that, as it's pretty self explanatory.

    Now, you could argue that Hybrids were a low-hanging fruit. AFs I would have to disagree on though.
    To me, if CCP couldn't come up with a solution after 4 years, they were going to need help. If the aforementioned proposals were what changed the game, then that's something worth celebrating.

    I spent a good bit trying to prevent heavy-handedness resulting in potentially broken ships and such.
    I personally think that when boosting ships it's better to underachieve slightly, rather than overachieve.
    The latter tends to result in a nerf down the line (ie: Dramiels), and I think I was successful in this regard.

    I hope this answers your question Smile

    https://www.youtube.com/user/promsrage

    DO YOUR JOBS, CCP DEVS. FIX THE GAME INSTEAD OF FKING IT

    Dub Step
    Death To Everyone But Us
    #19 - 2012-02-10 14:03:52 UTC
    Great CSM member with a great outlook on Eve. I hope to see more of what you can do.
    Eugenie Lefevre
    The Intaki Ladies Deep Space Astrogation Auxiliary
    #20 - 2012-02-10 14:16:58 UTC
    Fully supported <3
    123Next pageLast page