These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

A voice of reason in the Wilderness CSM7 candidate.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#101 - 2012-02-19 14:25:41 UTC
Endeavour Starfleet wrote:
I have to ask then have you ever run an incursion?

High level incursions? Do you mean Assaults and Hqs? Why should they be in low and null only? They get the most community response yet rarely break 60M an hour?

Would you consider changing that stance to one of reason instead of yet another "force people out of hisec" one?


ok understand my point of view here.


The incursions are the sanshas trying to create a beachhead against is all.

The live in nullsec.

The empires which they fight are in Highsec.

Therefore The main incursions should appear in low sec and if capsuleers fail in holding back the tide, then the incursions should then move towards high sec.

Its the are of war and supply lines, something every 0.0 and low sec capsuleer knows about.

I find it stupid that incursions only hang around for a set time, perhaps this is to stop the farm of incursions rather than just the interaction with them.

I propose that Incursions be change to have a effect on the system they take and infact it boosts the next system they take, as "supply lines"

If people want incursions into highsec, then so be it, but make them justifyable.

Main forces will invade lowsec, smaller more elite forces would invade highsec to gain a breach and allow the main force to gain a foot hold in Highsec.

If the main force enters high sec, then all hell should break loose, and not as is current.. about isk and isk alone...
Elise Randolph
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#102 - 2012-02-19 16:39:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Elise Randolph
Having perused your thread and blog, I have a few questions about certain parts of your platform.

Quote:

5. Pos's can be fitted with a module which effectively fires the old style Doomsday area effect weapon. When fired this device drains power from the fuel reserves fuel block available. with a recharge time of 24 hours, and expenditure of at least 500 stront and 3000 fuel block.

How do you see this working out? The way I see it, this protects an established empire from being overrun by a smaller, fresh group of players. It means that the big super powers have a more pronounced advantage, since they would have the resources to overcome to obstacles you place in front of them.

Quote:

The current system is all about the attacking phase, and nothing about the defensive phase.
Power-bloc alliances, either jump in there hordes of supers, or pay someone else to jump in there supers to negate any resistance from smaller alliances.

To me this is where sovereignty is unbalanced.... Those with more power to wield will win everytime.

I suggest a long forgotten addon CCP mentioned when it first decided to alter the sov warfare mechanic...

Guns for stations, owned, paid for and operated by the sov holding Alliance.

How does guns for stations help small players looking for space? What you envision will aid an inept, failing empire, from falling to a smaller force with gumption. Effectively you would be forcing these small entities to join the existing powers - CVA included- rather than letting them get a piece of the pie for themselves.

Quote:

Yes, I live in Providence and have done so for the last few years. We have been Conquered and exiled from our homes several times in that Period for "LOLZ" and "BECAUSE WE CAN", but as with all things, these bullies, leave and go find other people willing to play the game there way. The NBSI way.


When it comes down to it, this is what bothers me about your platform. Your view of the game, and the view you will take to the CSM, is one such that people unfairly attack you in spaceships. RPing the victim card in space is one thing, taking that notion out of game and having it cloud every part of your judgement is another. In Eve it is my view that a hobbled empire should not be able to stand; if it grows too large, too inept, or too unyielding a fresh group should be able to over run the failing empire. Just because a group has existed forever doesn't give them the right to continue existing, they need to earn it like everyone else. This is what makes Eve great. A pre-Dominion SOV system is terrible and boring. It doesn't help smaller entities at all, in fact it hurts them.


Quote:

This game has been built on backstabbing your friends, what kind of message are we sending to our younger players?


You literally roleplay in a spaceship alliance that endorses slavery.

~
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#103 - 2012-02-20 00:48:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Sollana
Quote:
5. Pos's can be fitted with a module which effectively fires the old style Doomsday area effect weapon. When fired this device drains power from the fuel reserves fuel block available. with a recharge time of 24 hours, and expenditure of at least 500 stront and 3000 fuel block.

How do you see this working out? The way I see it, this protects an established empire from being overrun by a smaller, fresh group of players. It means that the big super powers have a more pronounced advantage, since they would have the resources to overcome to obstacles you place in front of them.


My platform is to bring the voice of NRDS to the CSM. So far we have the voice of every NBSI alliance in there. Our voice needs to be heard, our way of life needs to be heard. I'm not here to force our way of thinking onto people, I give them credit to choose there own views. there are three sides to every story, yours, ours and the truth (b5 quote). The truth is not everyone wants mayhem and destruction.. You say that the smaller alliance want pie, we CVA has given pie to people/alliances that fought with us, no rent, just the understanding to follow NRDS and join in when fleets are called.

They fought for this space, they have a right to prosper from it and defend it... Now how those defences are manifested, well thats for me and you and others to discuss and put to CCP.



Quote:
The current system is all about the attacking phase, and nothing about the defensive phase.
Power-bloc alliances, either jump in there hordes of supers, or pay someone else to jump in there supers to negate any resistance from smaller alliances.

To me this is where sovereignty is unbalanced.... Those with more power to wield will win everytime.

I suggest a long forgotten addon CCP mentioned when it first decided to alter the sov warfare mechanic...

Guns for stations, owned, paid for and operated by the sov holding Alliance.

How does guns for stations help small players looking for space? What you envision will aid an inept, failing empire, from falling to a smaller force with gumption. Effectively you would be forcing these small entities to join the existing powers - CVA included- rather than letting them get a piece of the pie for themselves



failing empires usually forget to pay sov fees before it comes to that, smaller entities tend to rent rather than fight for a system, or find someone weaker as is the way in eve.

Adding guns to stations will be a minor annoyance, nothing more.But is also an expense, an upgrade to absorb isk..


Quote:
Yes, I live in Providence and have done so for the last few years. We have been Conquered and exiled from our homes several times in that Period for "LOLZ" and "BECAUSE WE CAN", but as with all things, these bullies, leave and go find other people willing to play the game there way. The NBSI way.


When it comes down to it, this is what bothers me about your platform. Your view of the game, and the view you will take to the CSM, is one such that people unfairly attack you in spaceships. RPing the victim card in space is one thing, taking that notion out of game and having it cloud every part of your judgement is another. In Eve it is my view that a hobbled empire should not be able to stand; if it grows too large, too inept, or too unyielding a fresh group should be able to over run the failing empire. Just because a group has existed forever doesn't give them the right to continue existing, they need to earn it like everyone else. This is what makes Eve great. A pre-Dominion SOV system is terrible and boring. It doesn't help smaller entities at all, in fact it hurts them.


My view of the game is one of community. you spend 3-4 hours a day with the same bunch of people, and you all want the same things they become friends. More friends join and you become a community. People join in with you because they like that Ideal.

To be honest everything in eve is just fluff, a reason to really occupy your time, while you converse within your own community.

When 2 communities clash, they either fight or avoid each other.

I believe that eve is about war, but its also about empire building, keeping your friends and community out of harms reach, protecting them

CCP need to look at that point of view as well as ways to kill. that will help balance , an already severly out of balance Sov system.

Don't get me wrong, EVE needs its conflict to make it interesting... and I enjoy it as much as the next person.....


Quote:
This game has been built on backstabbing your friends, what kind of message are we sending to our younger players?


You literally roleplay in a spaceship alliance that endorses slavery.


LOL, but under the new legislation of the Empress Jamyl, Slaves have been set free. All slaves within CVA space are there for there own free will. But Seriously, its a game with many aspects. CCP created it to be that way, but then only upgrade some parts. Not everything can be upgraded, but then they should not publically announce stuff to be added and then can it because they want to add dresses and shoes to the game...

My view is all aspects of the game need fixing, not just the ones some people use some of the time.
Meissa Anunthiel
Redshift Industrial
Rooks and Kings
#104 - 2012-02-20 07:28:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Meissa Anunthiel
Sollana wrote:

My platform is to bring the voice of NRDS to the CSM. So far we have the voice of every NBSI alliance in there.


I'll make no comment on the rest of your platform, but I'll just correct this small inaccuracy.

I have served on the CSM continuously since CSM 2 and part of the reason for that is because of Foundati0n alliance who was, with CVA, one of the bare handful of NRDS alliances, so you can be assured NRDS and the challenges associated with it have been represented for the past 3 years.

Likewise, roleplaying has been pushed as well by yours truly (and others). I take it you appreciated our work in making sure incursions were not just dropped in the game, but came with significant events and story integration.

Member of CSM 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7
Neerub
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#105 - 2012-02-20 07:45:30 UTC
Elise Randolph wrote:
In Eve it is my view that a hobbled empire should not be able to stand; if it grows too large, too inept, or too unyielding a fresh group should be able to over run the failing empire. .



implausible ... atm failing Empires rent PL.... Stationguns shut be able to destroy Supers... the best fix for 0.0 atm...
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#106 - 2012-02-20 09:23:34 UTC
Meissa Anunthiel wrote:
Sollana wrote:

My platform is to bring the voice of NRDS to the CSM. So far we have the voice of every NBSI alliance in there.


I'll make no comment on the rest of your platform, but I'll just correct this small inaccuracy.

I have served on the CSM continuously since CSM 2 and part of the reason for that is because of Foundati0n alliance who was, with CVA, one of the bare handful of NRDS alliances, so you can be assured NRDS and the challenges associated with it have been represented for the past 3 years.

Likewise, roleplaying has been pushed as well by yours truly (and others). I take it you appreciated our work in making sure incursions were not just dropped in the game, but came with significant events and story integration.


I do retract my comment, but seeing as your part of rooks and kings, I assumed you where the usual kind of scumbag we have to kill and run out of Providence, because you kill miners/ratters....
Marchejita
NRDS What Else
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2012-02-22 14:28:40 UTC
If you can add also in your program to ask to CCP to have the possibility to export and import the standing.

That will be great because now when you would like to come in Providence and Play the NRDS it's a crasy job to ajust the standing and add manually 200 corporations or alliance or player.
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#108 - 2012-02-22 21:08:08 UTC  |  Edited by: XavierVE
I would be happy to vote for you but... gate guns in 0.0? God, no.

One of the beauties of Providence is the small gang aspect. We roam Providence during US TZ and we get good fights with hostiles coming to pirate the area. Fun to police the region a bit... guns on gates and stations would simply destroy that dynamic. Not to mention that it's not even that much of a buff to Providence, which is actually populated by living, breathing people at the keyboard who can form defense gangs to go attack other gangs entering the region... it's a buff to AFK empires and botters, who then have automated defenses against people hitting chokepoints in their space.

Not to mention the obvious fact that we ground down most of Providence by using bombers to hit abandoned stations... station guns would have wiped out that attempt and now what is a populated region would never have been taken back from AFK entities. What you propose would have delayed or destroyed the guerrilla warfare CVA/allies used to take the region back.

I don't see how this would help Providence at all. It would not reduce the random intervals of Providence being wiped out. If anything, I would expect a CVA candidate to have ideas tying sovereignty to system activity, rather than "giant structures with tons of HP." The biggest problem in the game is that most of 0.0 is dominated by AFK empires.

Hopefully you revisit your positions regarding the main argument of your candidacy, otherwise can't see voting for you, unfortunately.
Forester Pete
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#109 - 2012-02-23 17:56:25 UTC
+1 from me.

some good ideas
Nick Laughlin
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#110 - 2012-02-24 15:42:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Nick Laughlin
XavierVE wrote:
I would be happy to vote for you but... gate guns in 0.0? God, no.

One of the beauties of Providence is the small gang aspect. We roam Providence during US TZ and we get good fights with hostiles coming to pirate the area. Fun to police the region a bit... guns on gates and stations would simply destroy that dynamic. Not to mention that it's not even that much of a buff to Providence, which is actually populated by living, breathing people at the keyboard who can form defense gangs to go attack other gangs entering the region... it's a buff to AFK empires and botters, who then have automated defenses against people hitting chokepoints in their space.

Not to mention the obvious fact that we ground down most of Providence by using bombers to hit abandoned stations... station guns would have wiped out that attempt and now what is a populated region would never have been taken back from AFK entities. What you propose would have delayed or destroyed the guerrilla warfare CVA/allies used to take the region back.

I don't see how this would help Providence at all. It would not reduce the random intervals of Providence being wiped out. If anything, I would expect a CVA candidate to have ideas tying sovereignty to system activity, rather than "giant structures with tons of HP." The biggest problem in the game is that most of 0.0 is dominated by AFK empires.

Hopefully you revisit your positions regarding the main argument of your candidacy, otherwise can't see voting for you, unfortunately.


Same here! I would happily vote for you Sollana, but i don´t agree with you on Gateguns in 0.0 and Doomsdays on Pos. I don´t think they would help smaller alliances and even worse they would help renters and as Xavier wrote the evil "afk empires" ;-)

Your Coalition-suggestion is nice and maybe would even help highsec-alliances to form larger entities and not to be afraid to be "forever at war".

-no grandstanding
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2012-02-26 14:48:59 UTC
Nick Laughlin wrote:
XavierVE wrote:
I would be happy to vote for you but... gate guns in 0.0? God, no.

One of the beauties of Providence is the small gang aspect. We roam Providence during US TZ and we get good fights with hostiles coming to pirate the area. Fun to police the region a bit... guns on gates and stations would simply destroy that dynamic. Not to mention that it's not even that much of a buff to Providence, which is actually populated by living, breathing people at the keyboard who can form defense gangs to go attack other gangs entering the region... it's a buff to AFK empires and botters, who then have automated defenses against people hitting chokepoints in their space.

Not to mention the obvious fact that we ground down most of Providence by using bombers to hit abandoned stations... station guns would have wiped out that attempt and now what is a populated region would never have been taken back from AFK entities. What you propose would have delayed or destroyed the guerrilla warfare CVA/allies used to take the region back.

I don't see how this would help Providence at all. It would not reduce the random intervals of Providence being wiped out. If anything, I would expect a CVA candidate to have ideas tying sovereignty to system activity, rather than "giant structures with tons of HP." The biggest problem in the game is that most of 0.0 is dominated by AFK empires.

Hopefully you revisit your positions regarding the main argument of your candidacy, otherwise can't see voting for you, unfortunately.


Same here! I would happily vote for you Sollana, but i don´t agree with you on Gateguns in 0.0 and Doomsdays on Pos. I don´t think they would help smaller alliances and even worse they would help renters and as Xavier wrote the evil "afk empires" ;-)

Your Coalition-suggestion is nice and maybe would even help highsec-alliances to form larger entities and not to be afraid to be "forever at war".

-no grandstanding


I still believe that system defense needs an overhaul. Gates Guns? Perhaps a step too far, but the should be something to deter large maraudering gangs, and anniliates Super capitals.

As previously said, this is just an Idea, to be worked on and discussed as neccesary. your opinions are noted and will be expressed, as I stand for those who wish to portray the NRDS style of gameplay within eve.
ThisIsntMyMain
Doomheim
#112 - 2012-02-26 15:29:39 UTC
Osabojo wrote:
What's your position on being able to purchase a robe and wizard hat with micro transactions?


Sollana,

You might think that this is an obvious troll question - but there's a serious point here.

The CSM isnt a role playing game. But everything you write here, makes you appear to be unable to separate playing a game from the nuts and bolts of how the mechanics work, and that you are indeed the type of person who would walk into a Blizzard software development team meeting wearing a wizards robe and hat.

Your proposals are all designed to make your individual play style easier for you and harder for anyone else. And you seem to think that you will somehow be able to walk into meetings with CCP and utter the words "Ammar Victor" and still be taken seriously.


So serious question time here ....

What are your proposals for making this a better game for EVERYONE who plays - and that includes the people who choose play styles radically different from your own.
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#113 - 2012-02-26 22:12:26 UTC
My view is my view, and I know it is not for all.

for the way most other wish to play the game you have the mittani's etc to voice there arguments and concerns.

There is no apparent voice for those that wish to follow NRDS.

More standings slots, more available defensive mechanisms with sov warfare, upgrades to pos defences and a general view to have something survive longer than they do atm.

I still love ship explosions, i will still cheer when a battle is won.

I stand for CSM to be a voice to be heard, and when heard with others, understood.
Goddess Amarr
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#114 - 2012-02-29 00:18:36 UTC
You have my vote :) I love null and love what u propose
ThisIsntMyMain
Doomheim
#115 - 2012-02-29 02:45:19 UTC  |  Edited by: ThisIsntMyMain
Sollana wrote:
My view is my view, and I know it is not for all.

for the way most other wish to play the game you have the mittani's etc to voice there arguments and concerns.

There is no apparent voice for those that wish to follow NRDS.

More standings slots, more available defensive mechanisms with sov warfare, upgrades to pos defences and a general view to have something survive longer than they do atm.

I still love ship explosions, i will still cheer when a battle is won.

I stand for CSM to be a voice to be heard, and when heard with others, understood.


So thats it ... Thats your entire reply .....


  • You say you only represent yourself
  • You say we should vote for the mittani if we don't like you
  • You ignore that Meissa is a current CSM delegate who supports NRDS
  • You ask for game changes that make defending CVA space easier and entrench the positions of existing 0.0 sov holders
  • You "cheer when a battle is won", which sounds rather like role playing to me
  • You want to make your voice heard - which could be said of every troll on this forum
Sollana
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#116 - 2012-03-03 09:16:16 UTC
ThisIsntMyMain wrote:



  • You say you only represent yourself

    • I represent the people whom will vote for me.

  • You say we should vote for the mittani if we don't like you

    • You should vote for whom you wish to vote, mittani is a key candidate.

  • You ignore that Meissa is a current CSM delegate who supports NRDS

    • Supportting NRDS is good.

  • You ask for game changes that make defending CVA space easier and entrench the positions of existing 0.0 sov holders

    • I think Sov holder deserve to be able to entrench, they pay isk and time to hold space, why should it be easy to take it away. too options must occur for balance, Nerf Supers in Sov warfare (stupid idea) or make it harder for supers to steamroll a system within 10 minutes.

    A solution would be for an Anti supercapital ship... butthen we are inthe realms of daftness.

  • You "cheer when a battle is won", which sounds rather like role playing to me

    • Im with CVA... need I say More, but This is a game, a game we emerse our selves in.....so technically we all role play.

  • You want to make your voice heard - which could be said of every troll on this forum

    • thank you for trolling :P
Bantara
Dolmite Cornerstone
#117 - 2012-03-06 20:46:56 UTC
I'm not a fan of the gate gun idea, and Sollana has already withdrawn the idea. But ideas like those can be sorted out within the CSM, or even by CCP. I don't read platforms to see what they plan on proposing specifically--I read platforms to see what kind of person the candidate is. How a position is arrived at is more important to me than the position itself. It is a good indicator of what I am going to get out of that representative on all the other issues not covered in the platform.

And who says we can't have 2 NRDS reps in CSM?
(Which, btw, I have yet to find anything which tells me, as an outsider, that RnK are NRDS.)
Justin Snodgrass
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#118 - 2012-03-06 23:34:41 UTC
Greetomgs,


i have noticed that some of the canidates have opinions that seem to screw guys like me that make their living ratting in null. what is your stance on changing things to make them less effective?
Nyoris
State War Academy
Caldari State
#119 - 2012-03-07 00:42:55 UTC
+1 Sollana, You have my vote.
Aeneus McKay
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#120 - 2012-03-07 08:28:17 UTC
I'm not a big fan of the gate gun idea (I guess you've withdrawn that though?) but something does need to be done about the AFK cloakies. The mines idea is a good one although not new (they had em 8 yrs ago). Right now it would probably be too hard on the hardware/servers though. However the fuel option is probably the best choice and easiest to implement and is probably right around the corner for implementation. We just need people to keep pushing it to the devs. Darius III mentioned a cloaky smart-bomb for close proximity (something that would disrupt for a cycle like you mention). I like that idea too. Some kind of 'space sonar' might be good but make it where it's also affecting the pinger as well...