CSM Campaigns

I'm only going to field questions relevant to the CSM from now on.

*Edit: Removed reply to a deleted post - ISD Eshtir*

Back to interesting stuff:



This may sound harsh, so let me start off by saying that I agree. However: You know how many thousands of ~words~ have been written about complete overhauls of the sov system. You know how many years it's been a hot topic (from what I have read, it's been approximately all of them). Dominion was a long time ago.

Given that:

How are you planning to contribute to something actually getting done? Clearly, it's not on CSM to do it, but the will has been there for years on both sides of the table. There is no shortage of ideas. There's been no shortage of debate. How do we get to implementation, and what sort of timeline do you think we might be realistically looking at (yes, that will be a pure guesstimate, and I promise to not hold you to it!). How do you see the ESS, and the new anchorables, contributing to a new system? What if there's more than one way to do sov?

2) Let's say that CSM 9 has exactly the same impact on nullsec that previous CSMs have had: much discussion, some good ideas, some bad ideas, and some new shinies, but at the end of the day it's still IHUBs and TCUs and SBUs as far as the eye can see. What will you tell the people who are now hoping that you, or someone, will ~fix sov~?

Thanks.

Thread cleaned up for breaking the rule below:



Let me be very clear on this. The forum patrons will never know if you say the truth when you accuse someone for breaking the EULA. Only the Game Masters can decide that should you inform them via a support ticket. Posting your accusation here and providing chat logs via paste bin will only lead to a moderator stepping in to enforce rule number 31.

Any more rumor mongering will be reported to the community team.

Please note, your post may also have been removed if it was a reply to deleted post. This is to warrant thread consistency.

I don't want this interpreted as a killboard trolling post, but do you have any substantial experience in small gang pvp, preferably in outnumbered engagements? I would think that most of the people that prefer it would say that its an entirely different beast from 20+ sized gangs, and probably the type most affected by individual balance changes.

Why does actual experience matter? It's impossible to experimentally simulate every possible fight matchup, so when we make balance judgments, we have to rely on our experiences to fill in the gaps. Theorycraft isn't an acceptable substitute in many cases. After all, the 2012 nanodrake (most defined by HML, dual web, dual nano) and the current popular single-AAR pulse navy omen have what appears to be awful deficiencies on paper, yet the former was one of the most influential ships in the meta and the latter is currently one of the most popular small-gang nano ships.

In your RLML analysis, you seriously underrate the crippling nature of the lack of ammo switching flexibility. I give you credit for acknowledging that the issue exists, but without experience, how can you actually assign its actual importance? I'll freely concede that two experienced players can differ on the ultimate conclusion of RLML viability in the small gang meta, but using copious amounts of EFT warrioring as a substitute for actual flying is problematic. And I don't think its unreasonable to expect a pvp-focused CSM to be able to intelligently evaluate proposed balance changes...

I'll accept that you are pretty experienced with black ops style stuff, but let's be honest - in nearly all cases, when your lone hostile or couple hostiles are saturated with ECM / other EWAR, you could fit triple sensor boosters to your manticore and it would hardly change the outcome of the engagement. When you're fighting with even or against the odds - then these differences matter, and that's when flaws in your theorycraft are revealed.

That's fine - I know that the killboard on Jayne looks weak. That's due in no small part to this character being exclusively used for black ops and bomber engagements. With no cruiser or battlecruiser skills, I use my other characters to FC from, most commonly I've used "Aristo Moon" and have been doing so ever since I purchased the character specifically for this reason. My favorite size of gang to FC, and those that I run most often, are in the 20-40 man range.

Yes, it appears that the only thing that I do is black ops and bomber engagements.
That's because on this character, it's the truth.

Side Note: I agree with the ONI looking like **** on paper, heh, but Kovoirx proved that sure wasn't the case.

As for ammo switching, IIRC my analysis came before CCP Rise actually assigned the massive reload to the launchers themselves. Being able to comfortably switch and select ammo types in battle is a huge asset, and something that any missile-spewing frigate pilot is intimately familiar with. That said, frigate pilots will also know how scary front loaded DPS really is, regardless of damage type.


A great point, and a point that I repeat on a regular basis to my pilots. For example, those who have flown with me know that I hate using Falcons in my fleets, simply because it encourages complacency and removes any necessity for pilot skill in piloting or fitting. Too often I've heard "if only that jam had landed...!" as justification for a loss of ships or entire fleets. Using ships like the Rapier or the creative application of sensor dampeners can be just as effective if not more, and still teach your pilots about damage mitigation and application instead of "LOL jammed". Same thing with blob warfare, your mistakes and your inadequacies can be hidden by the sheer numbers surrounding you. I don't find that type of PvP enjoyable.

Ironically, my current obsession in Eve is actually trying to fight severely outnumbered. This little goal of mine started when I forced myself to learn Solo PvP - look up any Stabber, Moa, or Vexor, loss on Aristo Moon. I knew I would encounter gate camps or small gangs, and I had to be able to hit well above my weight class if I wanted to survive, or at least succeed ISK efficient. Thankfully, that wasn't too hard, given how plentiful and brazen interdictor and interceptor pilots are these days.

This is to say I know where you're coming from, and I understand that EFT doesn't have all the answers.

... but I have more experience in space than you give me credit for.

I'm on my lunch break right now, and I know there are a few other question I haven't gotten around to yet. This one just caught my eye and I had to reply right away. If your question hasn't been answered yet, don't worry, I'll get to it later today.

I've been putting off on answering your question because it's probably the hardest one I've been asked so far.... but here goes. Quite simply, as a CSM member I think this relies heavily on the design direction that CCP is currently undertaking. Although there have been hints as to the direction we're heading with the post-Rubicon expansions, it's a toss up whether or not you interpret these hints as having anything to do with the sov system. A complete redesign of one of the core mechanics in the entire game is a difficult investment in both resources and time for CCP to justify, regardless of player desire when no new features or content would be created.

As a single member of the CSM, there is simply no way for me to force CCP into redesigning sov, if CCP doesn't have the desire (or the ability!) to do so. How do we get to implementation? A really, really good question... and not one I'll have the answer to until I'm on the CSM at which point it would probably fall under the NDA.

As for mobile structures, I see this as a huge positive which hints towards a desire for a more dynamic sov system with temporary and semi-permanent structures dictating the mechanics, benefits, and functionality of not only systems but specific locations within systems.

What will I say when CSM9 comes to a close and the sov system remains unchanged?

..... I don't know.

The only sentiment that I could hope to express is one of optimism, and that it's best to take the time to do somthing right, rather than rush a design and have something worse than we already have. Devil you know versus the devil you don't. Is that a total deflection of your question? Yeah, totally, but there are so many things that could happen between now and then I simply don't have any satisfactory answer, beyond optimism. If it does happen, and sov is fixed, I hope to have been a part of it.

Thanks for clearing that up and also for linking what I couldn't whilst I was out on my mobile. Admitting that you screwed up was by far the best response possible and you've certainly gone some way to repairing the damage. I'll continue to pay close interest ;-)

Yes. Not just yes, but hell yes.

The job of the CSM isn't to sing the praises of CCP regardless of their actions, it's to ensure that whatever actions CCP does take is worthy of praise. Eve is a ten year old game, and I have no doubt that it will be around in ten years from now. It's odd for a game to consider one year as a short period of time, but in terms of altering the mechanics of a persistent universe, things must be approached with care. Beyond the importance of respecting the lore, it's simply impractical to hit the reset button on sov and tell these established groups to start again from scratch.

Ship rebalancing alone has taken over a year now, and we haven't even discussed half of the T2 ships or any of the capitals. Sov is going to be infinitely harder to change, especially if we want to change it in a regard that doesn't make people legitamently infuriated with the outcome. To be explicit with my answer this time instead of deflecting: Yes, I am completely fine with temporarily disrupting nullsec in order to make the main driver of conflict, content and narratives more enjoyable and playable. It will probably suck at times, but cutting out a tumor is just as painful as it is necessary.

I have removed a rule breaking post.

The rules:
4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not beneficial to the community spirit that CCP promote and as such they will not be tolerated.

Hmmm, it seemed to have been rather well received by most, including Grath himself. Everything in that article was either sourced, or demonstrated to be accurate through various methods. Just because the results don't align with your beliefs or training plan doesn't mean that it's a show of incompetence or inherently untrue. Although feel free to actually critique my analysis with specific points and counter arguments - I'll explain and defend my rationale to anyone who asks.