These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
DNSBLACK
Dirt Nap Squad
#101 - 2014-03-03 23:13:17 UTC
I can't say enough about a long time friend and eve player. He will make a great CSM and here is why.

1. He cares about people

2. He cares about the game

Black
Acidictadpole
Perkone
Caldari State
#102 - 2014-03-04 16:59:58 UTC
Hi Manny,

I like your ideas so far so I wanted to put forward a question about something different:

As the creator of the slowcat doctrine, do you feel that sentry drones (even after the proposed assign nerf) are possibly a little too powerful? They've been a staple build in the alliance tournaments for a few years now, and have pretty much had a consistent showing in the banlists for each match (Domi, Ishtar, etc). Given that small groups and large groups alike feel that their moderate range, high damage, and ability to circumvent most ewar make them the de facto weapon system, do you feel that they need a change?

And a followup, besides the power projection problem, how do you feel about the current capital metagame?
Zaporozh
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#103 - 2014-03-05 00:25:44 UTC
+1 Good Luck
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#104 - 2014-03-05 16:18:33 UTC
Been under the weather. Made it all winter and on the tail end I get sick . I appreciate all the support and ill try to answer any questions in a day or two.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#105 - 2014-03-06 11:20:00 UTC
Keep all the great questions and feedback coming its much appreciated.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Seraph IX Basarab
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#106 - 2014-03-06 19:23:45 UTC
Your argument that power projection is too great is similar to my own. The issue is that you'll have thousands of players all in one system at the blink of an eye causing major issues for gameplay. Instead of getting rid of jump bridges (won't happen imo) would you advocate measures to make small gang relevant in 0.0? My argument has always been to take certain aspects of FW, modify it for 0.0 and use that as a way to curve power projection and cease the tidifest of massive battles.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#107 - 2014-03-06 20:08:50 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Your argument that power projection is too great is similar to my own. The issue is that you'll have thousands of players all in one system at the blink of an eye causing major issues for gameplay. Instead of getting rid of jump bridges (won't happen imo) would you advocate measures to make small gang relevant in 0.0? My argument has always been to take certain aspects of FW, modify it for 0.0 and use that as a way to curve power projection and cease the tidifest of massive battles.



Something I posted awhile back:

Taking sov in system A would consist of 2 timers much like the timers we have now. The defender gets the advantage of being able to set a timer with a built in variance of +/- so many hours. To successfully contest each timer attackers must assault a bunker in systems A , B & C. Whereby as the bunker becomes active it goes into a 15 minute selection phase where each Fleetboss right clicks the structure and selects themselves and fleet members as a attacker or defender. Then a 120 minute last man standing battle would happen whereby if the defender was defeated and none were left on the field the attacker wins the point. If the attacker wins @ 2 of 3 points it forces the bunkers into the next RF cycle. If the defenders exist on the bunker grid at the end of 120 minutes then the bunker is saved.

Some Rules to the system.

Registering as a attacker or defender takes 15 minutes to apply. ( reason for this is you want people to be able to reinforce fights but not metagame it and come on grid in the last minute to game the timer )
Bunker timers are not affected by TIDI
You must be on grid and uncloaked to count as a attacker or defender.
If you leave grid or cloak you lose you're registration as a defender or attacker.
Fleet bonuses only apply for what is on grid. (Meaning you have to have all bonus ships in the 500km grid for them to apply.)


Stations would not be attackable other than services until all 3 bunkers are destroyed. Stations shield and armor hitpoints would stay the same but structure hitpoints would increase by 300% . Once all 3 bunkers are destroyed you shoot the station down to 75% structure and wham you change ownership of the station. If you choose to shoot on you can shoot the station to 25% structure. When it reaches 25% it goes into a 14day RF cycle where the station is wrecked none of the services work all market orders are disabled. After the 14 day period the station violently explodes leaving a permanent station wreck . All items within the station are then ejected or relocated by concord to a npc station.

Anyone during the 14day structure timer can repair the structure back up to 75% and save the station from its destruction. Meaning in order to destroy a station sov would need to stay unclaimed and the station re-reinforced to another 14day timer.


Making Bunkers vulnerable:

In order to make bunkers vulnerable you must anchor SBU's and control 51% of the stargates. Once the 3 hour online time happens for sbus all 3 defensive bunkers become vulnerable. The attacker would then put the bunkers into RF bunkers would have 50% of ihubs current hitpoints. To place the bunker into RF you would shoot it to 25% which is 15.75 million shield points. ( Ihubs currently have 42 mil shield ehp). Reaching the 25% mark places the bunkers into RF cycle.

Attackers only need to RF 2 of 3 bunkers ( speeds things up a tad for uncontested space )

Ihubs would be non-destructible structures that CCP would seed into every nullsec system. Sov owners could install any sov upgrade module at any time but they come active based off the existing indexes. IHUB become hackable where someone can hack a specific upgrade on a ihub. Once successfully hacked the ihub enters into a 30 minute stasis timer where defenders can chase off attackers and unhack the ihub. If the 30 minute timer passes then the service is disabled for 24 hours that was hacked. After 24 hours the ihub service returns to normal. This would take some of the ehp grind away from the equation and give small gang skirmish opportunities

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Findail
Quid Plorus
#108 - 2014-03-07 12:21:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Findail
This'll be the first time I've voted for CSM... Manny definitely gets my vote

Even if he did leave out getting drunk then falling asleep while on FIX roams from his list of things he's done in EVE Lol
Hendrick Tallardar
SniggWaffe
WAFFLES.
#109 - 2014-03-07 19:53:57 UTC
Assuming you are elected, how do you feel your contributions to the EVE community outside of your CSM role will be affected?

Do you feel that perhaps CSM members in CSM 9 should work with publications such as TheMittani.com, EVENews24.com, CrossingZebras.com, etc. to put out their statements and/or opinions on changes CCP are making, so long as they are not in violation of the NDA? Much like how Two-Step commented on CCP's actions numerous times, and so forth?

How do you plan to continue communication between the CSM and the community? What do you feel CSM 8 did wrong in the way of communicating with the player base? What do you feel they did correct? What do you feel is the biggest fault with CSM 8? What is their biggest accomplishment? i.e. "didn't communicate with the community enough" "didn't push for community proposal X enough" etc.

As an EVE player do you look towards any person and/or group as inspiration? As a potential "politician" do you have any real world experience in managing a community and the communications therein that would apply to your role on CSM? (not so much as a game designer etc. but as a "people person")
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#110 - 2014-03-09 08:31:49 UTC
Blah been pretty sick sorry for neglecting the questions.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Znagl
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#111 - 2014-03-11 12:19:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Znagl
Manny for CSM! Extremely chill dude who knows his ****...

Btw. the first few slowcat fleets with you as fc I actually had you mistaken for grath and was wondering why there was no rage....


Two questions:

1. With Supercapital Escalations like in B-R5RB every one that jumps into a fight of this proportion and soul crushing lag/tidi will eventually be stuck on the grid until the next downtime or server crash. Supercaps (and perhaps even caps to certain individuals) are assets that will not just allow you to o7logoff and just go to work .

No matter how that event was spun in the media, no one that actually plays this game wants to watch a screen semi afk for 12 hours with guns not cycling propperly or only once every hour. Do you see any improvement that could be made?

2. With carriers being limited as a sentry drone combat vessel what would you do to make fighters not totally useless?

Bonus Question: Would you endorse making airhorns a high slot module on capitals?
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#112 - 2014-03-11 22:08:38 UTC
Znagl wrote:
Manny for CSM! Extremely chill dude who knows his ****...

Btw. the first few slowcat fleets with you as fc I actually had you mistaken for grath and was wondering why there was no rage....


Two questions:

1. With Supercapital Escalations like in B-R5RB every one that jumps into a fight of this proportion and soul crushing lag/tidi will eventually be stuck on the grid until the next downtime or server crash. Supercaps (and perhaps even caps to certain individuals) are assets that will not just allow you to o7logoff and just go to work .

No matter how that event was spun in the media, no one that actually plays this game wants to watch a screen semi afk for 12 hours with guns not cycling propperly or only once every hour. Do you see any improvement that could be made?


Power projection nerf. If you limit power projection it just simply won't be feasible to see every nullsec group in eve all piled into one area of space. Making undefended space easier to take coupled with power projection nerf. Will mean you will see more localized conflicts as people simply won't be able to take a few jumpbridges or cynos to other parts of the game as they do now. That should pay dividends to making fights more manageable from a server hardware perspective and from a player experience perspective. I am a firm believer that there is a threshhold in most peoples minds of what is a large fight and what is a epic fight.

IMHO I think most people will agree that a fight feels large anytime you have over 200 dudes slugging it out on grid. A epic fight is usually defined by the outcome. Like overcoming insurmountable odds or destroying vast amounts of isk. I think you would still see VERY LARGE 1500+ man fights but they would not be a everyday event in a post power projection/sov change Eve. Because it would take much more effort to move large bodies of players to far distances. So special occasions like "That Big Pivotal Timer" might perhaps see "The calling in of outside help". In this imaginative Eve of my minds eye would see increased value on mercenaries "specialist nomadic groups that could move into augment offensive or defensive forces". I think through mechanics changes or addition of mechanics this opens up great opportunities for Dust Mercs to get involved. Perhaps dust mercs could battle in a infrastructure hub to disable cyno jammers or other defensive upgrades. Perhaps Dust mercs could battle to disable cloning or repair service in a station. Or perhaps battle to short circuit a sbu.

So yes you can very easily change the face of eve in nullsec.

Znagl wrote:
2. With carriers being limited as a sentry drone combat vessel what would you do to make fighters not totally useless?

Bonus Question: Would you endorse making airhorns a high slot module on capitals?



You know fighters are so completely underwhelming that they need a complete overhaul. Its a fine balance I think between completely useless and overpowered. They need a dps increase but you have to fix the overarching problem associated with any drone platform. They are so incredibly vulnerable to bombs. Personally I would change all drones so that when you request them to return to drone bay they spool up for a period of time and then MJD to your ship. That way bombers can still kill drones of players who don't pay attention. But for players who do pay attention that depend on drones there is some counterplay to bombs for drone users. I think the balance would need to have a cooldown timer on the MJD feature of drones or you could abuse it greatly.


Because the main problem with fighters , heavy drones and fighter bombers is they are slow so once you get them out and more then a few KM from your ship you are at mercy of opponents to not shoot them or bomb them. Because most times you will never get them back in in time.

* Bonus Question - Sure why not we got snowball launcher

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Lucine Delacourt
The Covenant of Blood
#113 - 2014-03-13 22:37:12 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:



In this hypothetical would the drones be scramable? Assuming the Gila/Rattlesnake get similar changes to the Worm, drones MJDing back to the bay would a pretty big buff.
Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#114 - 2014-03-13 23:17:10 UTC
Lucine Delacourt wrote:
Manfred Sideous wrote:



In this hypothetical would the drones be scramable? Assuming the Gila/Rattlesnake get similar changes to the Worm, drones MJDing back to the bay would a pretty big buff.


Perhaps that could be a thing hey.

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Ripard Teg
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#115 - 2014-03-14 02:18:06 UTC
I'm in the midst of writing a series of blog posts about the changes I've seen over the last few years to EVE's culture. I feel we've become much quicker to embarrass and humiliate each other, much less likely to treat each other with respect, more inclined to see how far we can push another player... see if we can break him... see if we can drive him out of the game or make him snap.

And if successful, we crow "Go back to WoW, you pussy!" and we celebrate our "victory."

1) Do you agree?
2) If so, why do you think it's happening? If you disagree, why?
3) What, if anything, do you feel CCP should do about it?

aka Jester, who apparently was once Deemed Worthy To Wield The Banhammer to good effect.

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#116 - 2014-03-14 17:49:11 UTC
Ripard Teg wrote:
I'm in the midst of writing a series of blog posts about the changes I've seen over the last few years to EVE's culture. I feel we've become much quicker to embarrass and humiliate each other, much less likely to treat each other with respect, more inclined to see how far we can push another player... see if we can break him... see if we can drive him out of the game or make him snap.

And if successful, we crow "Go back to WoW, you *****!" and we celebrate our "victory."

1) Do you agree?
2) If so, why do you think it's happening? If you disagree, why?
3) What, if anything, do you feel CCP should do about it?



I think the internet just desensitizes people in general. However , with that said I think Eve Online has one of the best and closest gaming communities of any game I have ever played. If you think people can be toxic in Eve try out some RPG's , FPS or MOBA's and you will be exposed to true toxic environment. Eve is a cold and cruel place where you can win or lose it all. A place where the developers themselves put out a video titled "Harden the **** Up".'

I think CCP has done pretty well with managing unacceptable behaviors you know death threats racial slurs and encouraging players to end their lives. They have also cracked down on players linking porn and age inappropriate content in the game. So I really feel like they are doing about all they can. I love that in Eve you can scam , steal , spy and all the other nefarious things that would get you banned in other games. I love that Eve is this dark dangerous place where at any moment someone can come out of the shadows and slit my throat. It adds to the excitement for me. I think in the end everyone needs to remember we are all just people on the other side of the monitor doing the same thing " Playing a video game for leisure and enjoyment ".

‚ô•Manny

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

Lanctharus Onzo
Alea Iacta Est Universal
Blades of Grass
#117 - 2014-03-14 20:38:50 UTC
Hello Manfred,

I am one of the co-hosts of the Cap Stable Podcast. www.capstable.net

We would like to invite you to be on the show to be part of our CSM9 coverage.

Prospective CSM candidate who are interested in setting up a 30 minute interview, please use any of the methods detailed below to contact us. Interviews will be posted unedited, save clearing up any technical difficulties and they will be granted on a first confirmed, first served basis. Each CSM candidate will be paired with one of our hosts for an one-on-one interview. We will make ourselves available as possible, but we would prefer to record evenings US time, about 2:00-5:00 EVE time most days.

Email: podcast [at] capstable.net

Please remember to provide us with a contact e-mail and your Skype ID.

We hope to hear from you soon and thank you for participating in the Council of Stellar Management elections.

Sincerely,


Lanctharus Onzo
Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal
Co-host & Writer, The Cap Stable Podcast

Executive Editor, CSM Watch || Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast || Twitter: @Lanctharus

Manfred Sideous
H A V O C
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#118 - 2014-03-16 19:32:45 UTC
Lanctharus Onzo wrote:
Hello Manfred,

I am one of the co-hosts of the Cap Stable Podcast. www.capstable.net

We would like to invite you to be on the show to be part of our CSM9 coverage.

Prospective CSM candidate who are interested in setting up a 30 minute interview, please use any of the methods detailed below to contact us. Interviews will be posted unedited, save clearing up any technical difficulties and they will be granted on a first confirmed, first served basis. Each CSM candidate will be paired with one of our hosts for an one-on-one interview. We will make ourselves available as possible, but we would prefer to record evenings US time, about 2:00-5:00 EVE time most days.

Email: podcast [at] capstable.net

Please remember to provide us with a contact e-mail and your Skype ID.

We hope to hear from you soon and thank you for participating in the Council of Stellar Management elections.

Sincerely,


Lanctharus Onzo
Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal
Co-host & Writer, The Cap Stable Podcast



Ill send ya a E-mail

@EveManny

https://twitter.com/EveManny

knobber Jobbler
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#119 - 2014-03-17 12:57:38 UTC
Question:

Previously you were an unashamed abuser of the drone assist mechanic, something which many people wanted changed for obvious reasons. With that in mind, are you truly able to be objective and represent EVE's players in discussions with CCP? If you were on CSM 8, what would you have said in the nerf drone assist discussions? Would you have supported it, or remain with the status quo?
Makie Tachibana
Knights in White Satin
#120 - 2014-03-17 15:56:41 UTC
Manfred Sideous wrote:

A sandbox as we all know depends on interaction and the best way to create interaction is via dependency so it is my firm belief that anyway we can strengthen dependency upon eachother the healthier the game will be. I would like the chance to work with CSM 9 and CCP on things like:


Sandboxes do not depend on player interaction; sandboxes depend on being able to create your own environment. Look to Minecraft as an example. If you favour increased interaction that's fine, but it doesn't derive naturally from the nature of sandbox games.