These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Manfred Sideous for [CSM9]

First post First post
Author
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#41 - 2014-02-18 22:01:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Seleene
Let me tell you about Manny - I've worked with this guy for the better part of seven years in EVE. My first encounter with him was when he was just running logistics for FIX back in 2006. Even back then I knew there was no way he was just going to fuel POSs forever. Manny is driven to excel, regardless of what his position in an organization is. I've made deals with him. I've fought wars alongside him and, in recent years, followed him into some of EVE's most iconic events. There aren't many players with his resume.

For some people that play EVE, it's about power or money or influence. Manny? Manny is invariably just trying to HELP people. He has a unique style that encourages you to just relax and enjoy the game. People join his fleets because they know Manny will be the first man in and the last man out. He'll also go broke helping you replace your losses. Over the years he has evolved from being just another player to something rare - Manny is a content creator. He's one of those players that, weather you realize it or not, has influenced the game you are playing by doing nothing more than just PLAYING THE GAME.

I've known that a CSM run was in the cards for Manny for a couple years now, but I also knew that he wouldn't do it until he felt he could have maximum impact and support. Now is that time.

Folks, I've seen the CSM from both sides of the coin - as a dev and as a CSM member myself. There have been some truly great people in past (and the current) CSMs that have devoted countless hours to working with CCP to improve this game we all play. I have no doubt at all that Manfred can and should be one of those people in CSM 9. Put this man on your list. Give him a vote. Send him to Iceland to kick ass on behalf of us all.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#42 - 2014-02-19 00:55:42 UTC
Live on http://eve-radio.com/ with DJ Bigcountry and the crew.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Heinel Sidewind
Power-Hug Training Bootcamp
#43 - 2014-02-19 05:08:54 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:

When I think about Eve and the way it is laid out it mirrors how we have our societies laid out. You have Urban centers like high security space. They are typically densely populated and are usually market centers where large bulk of trade happens. Then you think of Industrial centers which in my mind would represent low security space. Its a little darker less populated its a place of production and a place of extortion and piracy but also a place for protection, The old families control it and get they're cut from everything and they have there armies and crews ( Faction Warfare). The lastly you have the Rural areas which represents Null sec and Wormhole space these are the farm & fields the mines and forest of Eve. Way under developed in comparison to low security or high security space. Lawless where player diplomacy and player violence is the law. I think all areas of Eve all types of gameplay should be possible but each type of gameplay has specific areas where the undertaking of such endeavour makes the most sense.


When you talk about this societal layout, are you saying this is your ideal vision? Since right now, aside from population density, the analogy appears not to hold.

1. Can you name some systems in low security space that are "industrial centers"?
2. With respect to faction warfare, what do you mean by "old families control it"?

===

Another question. In the above narrative, it appears you support the idea that the majority of trade should happen in high sec. However, the biggest buyers are in null. How do you reconcile the conflicting imperatives between urban hub versus null independence, without collapsing the high sec economy?
Freelanc3r
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#44 - 2014-02-19 08:22:42 UTC
Hey Manny

I'll vote for you.

FIX4LIFE
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#45 - 2014-02-19 18:46:49 UTC
Heinel Sidewind wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:

When I think about Eve and the way it is laid out it mirrors how we have our societies laid out. You have Urban centers like high security space. They are typically densely populated and are usually market centers where large bulk of trade happens. Then you think of Industrial centers which in my mind would represent low security space. Its a little darker less populated its a place of production and a place of extortion and piracy but also a place for protection, The old families control it and get they're cut from everything and they have there armies and crews ( Faction Warfare). The lastly you have the Rural areas which represents Null sec and Wormhole space these are the farm & fields the mines and forest of Eve. Way under developed in comparison to low security or high security space. Lawless where player diplomacy and player violence is the law. I think all areas of Eve all types of gameplay should be possible but each type of gameplay has specific areas where the undertaking of such endeavour makes the most sense.


When you talk about this societal layout, are you saying this is your ideal vision? Since right now, aside from population density, the analogy appears not to hold.

1. Can you name some systems in low security space that are "industrial centers"?
2. With respect to faction warfare, what do you mean by "old families control it"?

===

Another question. In the above narrative, it appears you support the idea that the majority of trade should happen in high sec. However, the biggest buyers are in null. How do you reconcile the conflicting imperatives between urban hub versus null independence, without collapsing the high sec economy?



Lowsec in my minds eye most closely represents a industrial area thats what I was referring too. In regards to the old families I was referring to Amarr , Caldari , Minmatar , Gallente.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Droewa
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#46 - 2014-02-19 22:34:17 UTC
+1 for Manny
Heinel Sidewind
Power-Hug Training Bootcamp
#47 - 2014-02-19 23:11:01 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Lowsec in my minds eye most closely represents a industrial area thats what I was referring too. In regards to the old families I was referring to Amarr , Caldari , Minmatar , Gallente.


If you mean abandonned industrial area with lots of vacant buildings (stations) that people can squat in for shelter then I think many people can agree. :)

Can you give a general overview of how you think null warfare and sov can be improved?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#48 - 2014-02-20 01:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Manfred Sideous
Heinel Sidewind wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Lowsec in my minds eye most closely represents a industrial area thats what I was referring too. In regards to the old families I was referring to Amarr , Caldari , Minmatar , Gallente.


If you mean abandonned industrial area with lots of vacant buildings (stations) that people can squat in for shelter then I think many people can agree. :)

Can you give a general overview of how you think null warfare and sov can be improved?


Changes to Nullsec & Sov

1 ) Nerf Jumpbridges and Jumpdrives by removing them or adding a cooldown a spool-up or other mechanic to limit power projection. Perhaps cooldown on jumping to a cyno ( can only do it so often 30 mins maybe) and no blues using jumpbridges or perhaps a jumpbridge can only be activated once every 30 minutes. So @ 00:00 & 00:30 jumpbridges go active and you can jump forward.

2 ) Make ihub upgrades hackable - So you would be able to hack a ihub and disable a ihub upgrade like the cynobeacon or jammer or maybe the pirate upgrade. When you do so it sends out a system wide warning that a hack is taking place. This gives chances for small gang pvp. To re-enable the ihub upgrade you would have to essentially un-hack it. This gives meaningful small gang objectives that small gangs can go do to illicit fights and or to cause damage to peoples infrastructure. IHUBS would become static items in systems provided by concord or whatever "lore" you wanted to use.

2A ) Perhaps make upgrade destroyable by dust mercs . Example you contract dust mercs to go in and RF upgrades ( creates a 24 hour timer) When the timer comes out the mercs come back and either fight the forces the defender has hired or they destroy the upgrade removing it from the ihub.

3 ) Control Bunkers - System timers would be centered around control bunkers. Each system would have 3 bunkers that would be spread between 3 systems in the constellation they would have a 3rd of the hitpoints of a ihub. In order to RF a system you would place sbus after the 3 hour window the control bunkers would become vulnerable. You would have to RF at least 2/3 to put the system into RF mode. You would also RF the station in the target system. The bunkers would all have identical timers. When the bunkers exit RF mode you have to push at least 2/3rds into the next RF cycle.

3A ) Attackers can hire dust mercs to attack a bunker when the timer exits ( have to hire at least 30 hours in advance so the defenders have a chance to contract dust mercs) Defender mercs can also be pre-emptively hired in order to diffuse the bunker assault . So you would end up with a situation where dust mercs would pod jump in to the bunker and try to diffuse the bunker from its vulnerability phase essentially negating Eve attackers from pushing it forward into final RF timer.

3B ) Perhaps the bunker timers dont have to be about grinding the hitpoints of a structure but instead a " King of the Hill" scenario that when the bunker exits RF mode a countdown happens lets say ( 1-2 hours ) where at the end of the countdown whoever has the most forces registered as attacker or defender wins the timer. So you would have a king of the hill battle on the bunker grid where you register yourself as a attacker or defender if you leave the grid for more than 5 minutes (tidi time included) then you are removed as a registered party and would have to re-register to count .


The overall idea is you nerf power projection and ease of logistics you make different types of warfare possible like attrition warfare. You split up the objectives across multiple systems to ease "The Blob" factor and " Server load". You make advancing timers to be about something else other than grinding hitpoints with a "King of the Hill" battle or "Last Man Standing". Maybe the defender gets to choose what type of battle is required on the bunkers like King of the hill or maybe good old structure grind. Then you also open up the possibility for smaller alliances to contract dust mercs to augment their power to defend.


*Note my ideas are just spitballing and I fully admit need refinement and input. But overall the objective should be to create a funner more manageable (server , lag ) environment that is more dynamic and exciting than the current EHP Grind.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#49 - 2014-02-20 10:03:07 UTC
What do you think of players historically having to abuse a faulty or poorly designed game mechanic nearly to a point-of-no-return to get CCP to oftentimes simply acknowledge the issue?

By that I mean things like AoE Doomsdaying capital ships at the end of Delve 2 and more recently projects like Dec Shield.

No sig.

Jherik
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#50 - 2014-02-20 16:06:26 UTC
manny will appear on my ballet, the only thing to be determined is where.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#51 - 2014-02-20 18:02:40 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
What do you think of players historically having to abuse a faulty or poorly designed game mechanic nearly to a point-of-no-return to get CCP to oftentimes simply acknowledge the issue?

By that I mean things like AoE Doomsdaying capital ships at the end of Delve 2 and more recently projects like Dec Shield.



I honestly think its ******** that we had to wait so long for changes to things like the aoe DD , Tech etc when it was apparent they were terribly broken. Right now we have sensor damps and bombers that horribly broken and instead of CCP taking the onus to pre-emptively change , adjust or nerf it they havnt and it will likely take a player uproar to draw attention to the subject.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#52 - 2014-02-20 18:03:53 UTC
Jherik wrote:
manny will appear on my ballet, the only thing to be determined is where.



Appreciate the support!

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#53 - 2014-02-20 18:40:41 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
What do you think of players historically having to abuse a faulty or poorly designed game mechanic nearly to a point-of-no-return to get CCP to oftentimes simply acknowledge the issue?

By that I mean things like AoE Doomsdaying capital ships at the end of Delve 2 and more recently projects like Dec Shield.



I honestly think its ******** that we had to wait so long for changes to things like the aoe DD , Tech etc when it was apparent they were terribly broken. Right now we have sensor damps and bombers that horribly broken and instead of CCP taking the onus to pre-emptively change , adjust or nerf it they havnt and it will likely take a player uproar to draw attention to the subject.


If you were to list the five things you consider the most broken or counter-productive in pvp mechanics (besides common issues like sov, blobs yaddayadda) what would they be and why? You already mentioned bombers and damps, can you explain why you think they're broken and add up three more?

No sig.

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#54 - 2014-02-20 19:45:17 UTC
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:
Hatsumi Kobayashi wrote:
What do you think of players historically having to abuse a faulty or poorly designed game mechanic nearly to a point-of-no-return to get CCP to oftentimes simply acknowledge the issue?

By that I mean things like AoE Doomsdaying capital ships at the end of Delve 2 and more recently projects like Dec Shield.



I honestly think its ******** that we had to wait so long for changes to things like the aoe DD , Tech etc when it was apparent they were terribly broken. Right now we have sensor damps and bombers that horribly broken and instead of CCP taking the onus to pre-emptively change , adjust or nerf it they havnt and it will likely take a player uproar to draw attention to the subject.


If you were to list the five things you consider the most broken or counter-productive in pvp mechanics (besides common issues like sov, blobs yaddayadda) what would they be and why? You already mentioned bombers and damps, can you explain why you think they're broken and add up three more?



1 ) PVP probing - Its way to easy and fast and takes 0 skill. Drop probes click button to stack probes in pre-defined formations click scan and then warp fleet . It strangles tactics as its just to easy to go to 0 on someone. It makes kiting and sniping concepts all but obsolete.

2 ) Damps - No counterplay to it at all I mean it isnt much simpler than that.

3 ) Bombers - Being able to fleet warp tons of bombers and they all stay cloaked until bomb release has greatly impeded fleet tactics.

4 ) Power Projection - Jumpdrives Jump Portals and Jumpbridges they allow people from the otherside of the map to traverse the known universe in just mere minutes of time. So you have groups like PL able to fight in several regions in very short periods of time . Or you can have groups like the CFC who control vast swaths of space but can move their entire coalition to other areas of the game to prosecute wars whilst their space is completely safe due to being able to portal bridge or jump home. Both examples are grossly overpowered.

5 ) Sov system - No room for small or medium sized organizations to take part in it without being a Pet or Renter of a huge coalition.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Hatsumi Kobayashi
Perkone
Caldari State
#55 - 2014-02-20 22:40:24 UTC
Thanks, always nice to have your insight old friend!

No sig.

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#56 - 2014-02-21 01:11:40 UTC
Please keep the great questions and feedback coming. I am enjoying the exchange!

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Sephira Galamore
Inner Beard Society
The Watchmen.
#57 - 2014-02-21 01:22:32 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:
2 ) Damps - No counterplay to it at all I mean it isnt much simpler than that.
I'm not an expert but... how about: Get closer, use SeBos (/those low slot mods) or use remote sebo?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#58 - 2014-02-21 02:47:09 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:
2 ) Damps - No counterplay to it at all I mean it isnt much simpler than that.
I'm not an expert but... how about: Get closer, use SeBos (/those low slot mods) or use remote sebo?



That sounds great in a small vacuum but in a large fleet fight setting where you are facing multiple fleet comps that isnt possible. Scenarios usually look something like this:

Bomber fleet - Meaning whatever you bring needs to have low sig or able to withstand 30+ bombs
BS Fleet - Lots of EHP able to dish out dps past 100km
Sig Based Fleet - T3's very hard to hit with large guns requiring you to have webs and painters
EW Fleet - Damp/Tracking Disruptor fleet


So when you have all these things that you are fighting it makes it very hard to bring a fleet concept that can fight against the myriad of comps arrayed against you. The reason Damps weren't as big of a problem as they soon will be is because drone assign. If most people were damped out you could reassist drones to someone that wasn't. Post drone assign nerf you will have 5mil isk cruiser hulls ( celestis ) completely negating the ability for dps platforms to do dps. Since you also have to bring a fleet comp thats able to withstand bombs track sig based concepts and be able to trade fire with heavy EHP platforms you aren't able to fit specifically to counter dampners. This is the reality of fleet fights in Nullsec.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#59 - 2014-02-21 16:37:51 UTC
Looking forward to more great questions.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Veskrashen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#60 - 2014-02-21 16:57:45 UTC
Posted this in the BNI Candidate's thread, but would be interested in your take as well:

We often hear about "risk vs. reward" from major Nullsec powers, who are dismayed that players can make so much isk in High Sec and FW. Gevlon Goblin (trolltastic as he may be) often points out that nullbears often have high sec or FW alts to make most of their casual isk. And yet, nullsec is always the focus of the increased rewards due to perceived risk - when aside from major fleet battles, there's precious little PvP risk in nullsec. FW space - or lowsec in general - plus highsec see far more kills per day than nearly any nullsec region not currently the target of an invasion. Even wormholes, with their lack of local chat, unpredictable connections, harder NPCs, and highly restricted ship movement are considered less of an "end game" and thus deserving of less attention / reward.

What's your take on risk vs. reward? What kind of risk should be compensated? Is Sov Nullsec actually safer than high sec and low sec, and should it be rewarded less as a result? If logistical difficulty is a factor, how does the prevalence of jump capable logistics networks that allow you to bypass all the traditional chokepoints and risks of travel out to the hinterlands of nullsec?

Also, what do you think of Marlona's power projection limitation idea, or Fiddler's "Adverse Possession" ideas?

We Gallente have a saying: "CCP created the Gallente Militia to train the Fighters..."