These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Re-Elect Trebor Daehdoow to the CSM

First post
Author
Grumpy Owly
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#61 - 2012-02-15 21:39:53 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Grumpy Owly wrote:
Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting

The Bounty Hunting idea has been discussed by CSM with CCP (both Malcanis' post and an earlier one by Ogopogo Mu. We are in general agreement that a revision to the current mechanics along these sort of lines is a good thing, and have encouraged CCP to consider it.

Just another example of your CSM Tax ISK at work... Twisted


ty Trebor, quoted in linked thread
OldMan Gana
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#62 - 2012-02-15 21:52:18 UTC
That's what I like about Trebor, he always get back to you, or he posts something in the forums to us all.

Love United- Hate Glazer

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#63 - 2012-02-16 02:47:27 UTC
OldMan Gana wrote:
That's what I like about Trebor, he always get back to you, or he posts something in the forums to us all.

Well, given that I don't have a bloc behind me, I have to diligently wh*re for every vote I can get.

"Trebor -- servicing EVE players since CSM5"

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Cearain
Plus 10 NV
#64 - 2012-02-16 16:02:48 UTC
If you like the changes in crucible then you have trebor to thank more than any other person from csm5 or 6.

He was the one who kept pushing for the changes the players upvoted in assembly hall by setting up the system to prioritize them.

He managed to finally get many of those changes implemented in game despite years of neglect.

And he did that despite having a certain csm chairman who basically ignored the assembly hall issues and said it was an outmoded way to communicate with ccp.

Nice work Trebor. Way to keep pushing for the changes the players wanted. The game is better thanks to you.

Make faction war occupancy pvp instead of pve https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=53815&#post53815

Kopfe Jager
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#65 - 2012-02-16 21:24:29 UTC
+1 Man
Tcar
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#66 - 2012-02-17 06:59:48 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
Well, given that I don't have a bloc behind me, I have to diligently wh*re for every vote I can get.


More fanservice going on here than a whole warehouse of anime. . which come to think of it, you have.

Bump
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#67 - 2012-02-17 12:49:54 UTC
Tcar wrote:
More fanservice going on here than a whole warehouse of anime. . which come to think of it, you have.

Even better, I now have a warehouse full of Hello Kitty -- and it is an open secret that certain devs are huge Hello Kitty fans.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#68 - 2012-02-17 17:00:15 UTC
Voters who do lots of PI work may be interested in an idea I'm floating in Science & Industry -- "Semi-Automatic Route Specification to reduce mindless setup clicking"

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Jack Atarius
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#69 - 2012-02-17 17:58:41 UTC
+1 You've got my vote.
Gelugon
Bank Robbers
#70 - 2012-02-17 22:01:07 UTC
Trebor has been a huge part in making the CSM what it is today. From my perspective he seems to be the hardest working member - a member keen on making sure that ideas and suggestions from all eve players moves forward and are implemented. Trebor deserves to be re-elected its simple...

Good luck Treb - you know you have my vote.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#71 - 2012-02-18 03:50:01 UTC
I have succumbed to a memetic virus -- enjoy "I am a CSM"

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Endeavour Starfleet
#72 - 2012-02-18 03:58:49 UTC
So what do you plan to do to help incursions as part of CSM7?

Do you plan to push hard for implementation of the modular Corp and POS system so that smaller corps can isolate potential spiez without shutting them out of everything if they are indeed legit?

Could we count of CSM7 to SERIOUSLY push the botting and RMT issue? I am sick of tired of hearing people say "Nothing CCP can do bout it" And even alliances having rules against reporting Blue Bots.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#73 - 2012-02-18 15:07:59 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
So what do you plan to do to help incursions as part of CSM7?

Define "help". Quite frankly, some people think they are ISK-faucets that need to be nerfed a bit. My position is (as with other issues like ABC in WH) that CCP shouldn't do anything without having hard data with which to justify their actions, and that tweaks to Incursions should be aimed at rebalancing risk/reward and increasing the fun/challenge as opposed to blinding wielding the nerf-bat.

Quote:
Do you plan to push hard for implementation of the modular Corp and POS system so that smaller corps can isolate potential spiez without shutting them out of everything if they are indeed legit?

I have been pushing for a POS rewrite since CSM5 (I crowdsourced player POS concerns and raised and passed the Possibly Practical POS Performance Proposal); I think it's something that is way overdue, and something that fits in nicely with a overhaul of corporate roles. I have been actively lobbying for a POS rewrite to be the centerpiece of the Winter 2012 expansion.

Quote:
Could we count of CSM7 to SERIOUSLY push the botting and RMT issue? I am sick of tired of hearing people say "Nothing CCP can do bout it" And even alliances having rules against reporting Blue Bots.

I've been pushing for more effort here since I got on the CSM almost 2 years ago. I am seriously concerned about the lack of transparency (both to CSM and to the players) being demonstrated by CCP -- quite frankly, using "that's a security issue, we won't talk about it" as an excuse is a load of crap.

At the most recent summit, I was the CSM who called out CCP Sreegs and told him that his proposed "technical" approach to botters was flat out wrong.

RMT is an even more difficult problem than botting, because it interacts much more with the real world. I have repeatedly suggested to CCP that they engage the services of a forensic accountant to investigate RMT (just as they have an Economist on staff). Apart from helping fight RMT, the information gained may also provide insights into real-world criminal activity like money-laundering -- certainly there are some interesting and entertaining academic papers that could be written on EVE RMT.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Endeavour Starfleet
#74 - 2012-02-18 19:26:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Endeavour Starfleet
I like your platform when it comes to the POS revamp (Tho I think Summer would be better just my opinion) And am glad you seem to be the one putting pressure on them.

Yet your stance on incursions concerns me. Considering we have a few active CSM potentials calling for nerfs to incursions you using the "Isk-Faucet" Phrase concerns me.

The data proves that farming bounties injected multiple times the isk into the economy of incursions. A good chunk of that is likely bot based. I like that you state actions should be taken with hard data but unless we have CSM members pushing the community aspect of incursions I worry about the power the ones that want them nuked can wield.

Vanguards need SOME tweaking (Not payout cuts) Such as force complete and maybe a spawn change so less "WTFPwn" webpointpwn of the frig spawns in VGs. Which will be of benefit of nonshiny fleets.

100M+ An hour relies on a highly trained fleet of super shiny ships. A person farming Sanctums in nullsec with 2-3 accounts can make much more than that and have far less risk of Logi DC or other effects that gets community fleets into pods.

I would urge you to take another look at how incursions (Especially Assaults and HQs which need more payout) Need few changes outside of more content for the Assaults and HQs.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2012-02-18 22:13:03 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I like your platform when it comes to the POS revamp (Tho I think Summer would be better just my opinion) And am glad you seem to be the one putting pressure on them.

There's simply not enough time to plan and implement such a major feature in time for the summer, IMHO.

Quote:
Yet your stance on incursions concerns me. Considering we have a few active CSM potentials calling for nerfs to incursions you using the "Isk-Faucet" Phrase concerns me.

It's a technical term, and I used it in that sense; Incursions and farming bounties both inject ISK into the economy.

Quote:
The data proves that farming bounties injected multiple times the isk into the economy of incursions. A good chunk of that is likely bot based. I like that you state actions should be taken with hard data but unless we have CSM members pushing the community aspect of incursions I worry about the power the ones that want them nuked can wield.

One should be careful about stating "the data proves". It's all in how you evaluate the data. For example, the total amount of ISK injected into the economy by Incursions vs. other methods of earning ISK is a simplistic measurement. A better yardstick would be the earning rate per hour adjusted by the investment (in equipment) needed to achieve those earnings.

CCP seems to be on the right track regarding their current approach to balancing issues like Incursions. To quote from the December 2011 Summit Minutes, Page 8:

Focusing the discussion on Incursions, CSM brought up the point that Incursions are unbalanced in that the easier levels of Incursions are more profitable than the more difficult levels – something that CCP has noted as well and is working on adjusting. The full details of that adjustment are not known at this time as there are several options available. And the issue is not just monetary, the gameplay is also becoming too predictable, and with this predictability, the risk is reduced. Players applying cookie-cutter solutions to the sites, and running some in just a few minutes, is a problem that needs to be addressed. Both the CSM and CCP agree on that Incursions are good in terms of gameplay and ISK payout, but the time for adjustments based on player behavior data is at hand – adjusting the distribution of the sites and adjusting the payout being highest on the list. But this is a positive problem, these issues are cropping up because there are so many people running Incursions. Such changes will be another example of the iterative approach CCP is committing to.

Quote:
100M+ An hour relies on a highly trained fleet of super shiny ships. A person farming Sanctums in nullsec with 2-3 accounts can make much more than that and have far less risk of Logi DC or other effects that gets community fleets into pods.

The safety of deep nullsec and the resulting risk/reward imbalances are a well-known issue -- and the devil is always in the details. If you want to see the Lords of Nullsec go apeshit, just suggest that truesec dynamically adjust based on the estimated risk in each system (say, by keeping track of player losses). Twisted

Seems to me, though, that we are in broad agreement. Some tweaks are needed, and the idea should be to tweak the level of challenge in preference to level of reward to get the risk/reward to the right place.

Furthermore, I and others on the CSM are continually pushing for CCP to consult directly with affected player communities before making any final decisions. To quote again from the minutes:

The CSM reminded CCP that any changes done to game systems purely in terms of graphs and ISK consideration (i.e. in a vacuum) usually had some side effects on player behavior that resulted in increased player dissatisfaction. The CSM stressed that when game systems are to be changed, it has to be done in a holistic manner and in consultation with the playerbase. The CSM also wanted to make the point that such public discussions regarding Incursions, like the one taking place at the summit, were exactly the steps that needed to be taken to prevent these mishaps. CCP accepted the criticism and was also glad that the steps of discussing changes before implementation (another example is the hybrid balance done in Crucible), to prevent dissatisfaction in the future were accepted by the CSM.

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Endeavour Starfleet
#76 - 2012-02-19 04:46:15 UTC
I thank you for taking the time to address my concerns and I agree that we generally want the same things. Benefit of the community.

You seem to be serious about fairness in this regard and for that you have my respect. And my vote. My first considering a few other candidates responses were simply "nerf it" Or outright hoping to win to spite me (When did CSM to said person become an ego game instead of the issues?)

I look forward to your continued work as part of CSM 7 and hope that you and the others that represent the community will be able to get the needed changes implemented.
Trebor Daehdoow
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#77 - 2012-02-19 15:17:00 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
You seem to be serious about fairness in this regard and for that you have my respect. And my vote. My first considering a few other candidates responses were simply "nerf it" Or outright hoping to win to spite me (When did CSM to said person become an ego game instead of the issues?)

Different people have different motivations for running for CSM, and their apparent motivations should be a factor that influences who gets your vote. Twisted

Private Citizen • CSM in recovery

Farseer Taldeer Iwaira
Farseer Taldeer Iwaira Corporation
#78 - 2012-02-19 15:51:50 UTC
You've got my vote! Hope you get re-elected!

Good luck!
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#79 - 2012-02-19 16:31:57 UTC
Trebor Daehdoow wrote:
The safety of deep nullsec and the resulting risk/reward imbalances are a well-known issue -- and the devil is always in the details. If you want to see the Lords of Nullsec go apeshit, just suggest that truesec dynamically adjust based on the estimated risk in each system (say, by keeping track of player losses). Twisted

This would be hilarious (since we'd abuse the crap out of it by thunderdoming in rifters or smartbombing shuttles with neutral alts or some other such method).
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#80 - 2012-02-19 16:45:48 UTC
For what it is worth, Trebor is an extremely valuable member of CSM6

~