These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

KORVIN FOR CSM7 - the reasonable choice.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Issler Dainze
Tadakastu-Obata Corporation
The Honda Accord
#101 - 2012-02-23 22:03:21 UTC
Damm, I should have trademarked the term "reason" in all it's variants in CSM candidate slogans!

Issler Dainze
The founder of the "Voice of Reason" party in Eve!
Internet Lawyer
Frontier Investments
#102 - 2012-02-24 04:27:21 UTC
Six pages and you've barely had to answer a thing. Intolerable.

How do you feel about the current state of factional warfare?

What would you do to make low sec more interesting?

What is your stance on supercaps? Nerf bat or no? Why?

What is your opinion on the changes CCP made to war dec mechanics last year?

Tech 2 BPOs - Nerf, eliminate or leave alone?

You served on the CSM in the past, in 4 and 5. What did you do in each term that you were most proud of? What did you not get a chance to do that frustrated you the most?

What did you think about CSM 6, the people on it and the job they did? What about the CSM's you served on as well?

Let's see how you do with this and I'll check back later.

Issler Dainze wrote:
Damm, I should have trademarked the term "reason" in all it's variants in CSM candidate slogans!

Issler Dainze
The founder of the "Voice of Reason" party in Eve!


Go back to your own horrible campaign thread and stop signing your posts.

EVE Online Public Defender
Triksia Bonsol
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#103 - 2012-02-24 06:29:39 UTC
Supported
Nashuatec
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#104 - 2012-02-24 06:36:43 UTC
Supported
Ali Lin
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#105 - 2012-02-24 06:40:37 UTC
Supported
Eelify
Eelify Corporation
#106 - 2012-02-24 07:08:43 UTC
Supported.
Lina Pret
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#107 - 2012-02-24 08:05:19 UTC
Supported
Pretorik
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#108 - 2012-02-24 08:07:40 UTC
Supported
Art Kz
Iris Covenant
The Gorgon Empire
#109 - 2012-02-24 10:17:19 UTC
Supported
Kataky
Shade of the Samurai
#110 - 2012-02-24 11:17:22 UTC
Supported
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#111 - 2012-02-24 15:15:53 UTC
Thank you for your questions.
Internet Lawyer wrote:
How do you feel about the current state of factional warfare?

What I had expected from FW when it was announced is not what I see now.
I had expected it to be a roleplaying PVP environment, scripted and managed by CCP stuff, with lots of events, in game history evolution, based on backstories, and players that could participate in the show.
The first thing I thought when it was announced was “Wow, where do they expect to find the stuff to support this?”.
The answer was trivial, they didn’t. We god a mix of unfinished wardec system with the unfinished missions system and a rejected prototype of sov warfare system.
What I want to ask CCP, is to define the goal that FW should achieve.
The way I see it – it’s a good ground for CCP events, CCP stuff could lead those armies on a pre-made script, having fun (I know, lots of CCPeer want to play EVE), evolving the background history with those players enjoying events.
The main restriction is that those FW events should be limited to FW and game backstories, and have no influence to the rest of the sandbox. It’s a tricky thing, considering the butterfly effect, but I believe CCP can manage this.

Internet Lawyer wrote:
What would you do to make low sec more interesting?

I have a lot of fun in Low sec environment right now. There is a lot of small scale PVP there, and I think that’s the best part of the Low sec. What are the main points, that leads to a small scale PVP, that we could improve? Pirates vs Anti pirates and caravan defense. There is several known places, to make the shortcut between empire regions, camped by pirates. We all know them. Rancer and neighbor systems, Tama and Tannolen, Amamake, Zinkon exit ets. Those systems are priceless. We need more systems like that. Some routes have significant shortcuts, some makes only 1-2 jumps difference, making them pointless. FW the way I described it could be a good addition to the motion. Boosters revamp and contraband the way it was described in CSM5 could also give some interesting results. There are also some small grab and run sites for the risky chance based profit gain, that could be added, like the old statiс deadspaces, still generating the good portion of smallscale PVP and fun.

Internet Lawyer wrote:
What is your stance on supercaps? Nerf bat or no? Why?

The way I see capital fleet treated is not like normal ships, but the mobile structures, fortresses, that makes the sence to another dimension of the game – the sov warfare strategy game. They should not take any roles of a normal sub-cap ship. They should operate only in siege, and in the non-siege mode they should be as good as a fat BS. Why surer capitals are way more better? Maybe the main reason is that they don’t need a siege to operate? I stand for the idea that supercapital ships should need the siege mode as much as dreadnoughts needed it at the very beginning of the POS warfare era.

Internet Lawyer wrote:
What is your opinion on the changes CCP made to war dec mechanics last year?

Had something really changed?

Internet Lawyer wrote:
Tech 2 BPOs - Nerf, eliminate or leave alone?

No need to change this at the moment. The demand of T2 BPC is much higher, than the supply that T2 BPO can cover. We have a lot of new t2 modules, that nave no T2 BPO, and that is good enough for me.

Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
Korvin
Shadow Kingdom
Best Alliance
#112 - 2012-02-24 15:17:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Korvin
Internet Lawyer wrote:
You served on the CSM in the past, in 4 and 5. What did you do in each term that you were most proud of? What did you not get a chance to do that frustrated you the most?

Being the non-block aligned candidate in CSM4 and also the first Russian CSM member I was in a situation of extra responsibility for the localization process improvement, and looking back, I’m proud of the job done. It was obvious, that I could not get a major support from the rest of CSM, regarding most of those issues, but even in this case we could find a compromise suitable for everyone, and I’m glad to see improvements in the localization not only in Russian client, but the all other languages CCP eventually are going to implement.
The main goal of my CSM 4 platform was to bring attention for the small fixes in game, awaiting their chance for years, I’m glad CCP have the team BFF now, solving those issues. I’m also glad CCP had paid attention to my research of a mineral source issue and insurance. My corporation has supported me by buying and suicide a ton of Ravens, showing that the mineral cost and insurance systems are imbalanced. We got the fastest CCP reaction I ever saw. Thanks for all CSM 4 members for their dedication to improve the game, regardless the standings and ingame relationships. It was a pleasure to work side by side.
The main focus of my CSM5 platform was shifted to the PVP balance issues, paying attention to the useless items appeared in the game. The change of the CSM process itself, sorting out the backlog and several hundred proposals from the previous 4 CSMs, left forgotten by CCP. It was obvious for me, that to make a proper implementation of all that proposals, we need a global plan, considering the evolution of the game. CSM 5 members were consistent in their efforts to improve the communication between CCP, CSM and all players. It was a hard time, since CCP had their internal issues, regarding the huge growth of a company, but most of our efforts were not left unnoticed, and in the darkest hours of the summer CCP crisis, they still had a great influence.

Internet Lawyer wrote:
What did you think about CSM 6, the people on it and the job they did? What about the CSM's you served on as well?

The main thing that I can say about CSM6 is that I know nothing about their work. No offence for all CSM6 members, but what I was expected is the continuation of the process to improve the communication between the players and CCP, making the CCP policy more transparent, their goals and plans more detailed so players could make their proposals according to the CCP plan, not opposite to it. We all know what troubles we have as players; we have a very active community, willing to help CCP to solve those troubles, but to make this possible, we also need to consider the CCP plans and interests. The CSM6 process was closed even more, than it was required by NDA. I can’t see the discussion process itself, I can’t see the voting pattern of a particular issue, how can I decide if my interests match the particular CSM6 candidate opinion? I want the CSM process to be as transparent as it could be.

Member of CSM 4&5 ... &8
Allan Cassius
Suchii Kot Corp
#113 - 2012-02-25 12:38:35 UTC
Supported.
Aksi Niminen
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#114 - 2012-02-27 20:32:27 UTC
Supported.Smile
Brusanan
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#115 - 2012-02-28 22:09:42 UTC
Supported.
Saggy Ballz
Sardaukar Merc Guild
General Tso's Alliance
#116 - 2012-02-28 22:15:19 UTC
Supported.
Manalapan
Dynasty Banking
#117 - 2012-02-29 01:07:35 UTC
Supported

Korvin is almost as awesome as me.
Burseg Sardaukar
Free State Project
#118 - 2012-02-29 01:18:19 UTC
Supported! Any dude that kills an Utu has my vote, especially since it was my member that lost it!

Go Korvin!

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!
Ellen Reeplay
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2012-02-29 12:30:52 UTC
supported
Iron Straw
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#120 - 2012-03-01 01:02:45 UTC
I don't always support Russians, but when I do, I support Korvin.