These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mike Azariah ---> CSMX

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dersen Lowery
The Scope
#161 - 2015-02-13 01:28:31 UTC
^^ That.

I have nothing against Sion Kumitomo, but the fact that Mike is essentially incomprehensible to him is an excellent reason to have Mike on the CSM: It means he's representing people who Sion could not hope to speak for.

And that's OK. It just means that EVE is a big game.

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!
ShadowandLight
Trigger Happy Capsuleers
#162 - 2015-02-13 01:47:03 UTC
Well I'll say Mike came out against drone assist need, which I agree with him on and there were many other ways to balance carrier fleets.

however I'm not sure his opinion on multiboxing and isboxer users.

It

Legacy - An EVE Online Blog

Legacy of a Capsuleer Podcast

EVEServers.info - One stop API Solution for Corps/Alliances
FrFrmPukin
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#163 - 2015-02-13 08:05:31 UTC  |  Edited by: FrFrmPukin
I believe people tend to forget that a candidate's opinions are a very small part of everything. The largest part of being a CSM member is how they are going to represent the players. Like Sion said himself in his TMC article, they are just a focus and feedback group and not DEVs or employees of CCP. They filter and sort through the cosmic white noise that is the pilots comments, the forums, and the EVE Media. Then they focus the strongest signals to CCP. This allows CCP to focus more assets on the game development and content. While being bound by NDA, they do the same thing in reverse. They convey what they can to the public via multiple different avenues.

Candidates need to have the ability to focus on what is good for the game and not what is good for an individual or a group. Communication skills and the ability to work within a team environment is also a must. Their personal opinions are just spice added to meal, but not the whole meat and potatoes. Creativity, knowledge of the game and the ability to provide educated thoughts to the CSM group or devs is more important than personal and biased interests.

Mike A. has earned the respect of the incumbents, much of the player base and those at CCP. Since we don't really have a good way of evaluating their performance while serving on the CSM, we have to rely on those they have served with to give us some limited feedback on the their peers. Since they can not speak poorly of each other due to the rules imposed on them, you can only go off the level of praise they give each other.

Mike is also supported by the majority of the those in the EVE Media. His willingness to do shows and interact with player base is also well known by so many. Mike always has a notebook nearby to write down suggestions, comments and complaints. He is willing to funnel those things, that he writes down, to the right people at CCP or the CSM group for discussion.

MY opinion is that if you don't vote for Mike and put him towards the top of you ballot while voting, then there is something clearly wrong with you and you should go skill yourself in game. Then give me all your things. Just put Mike in your top 10 for CSM10!
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#164 - 2015-02-13 08:15:30 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Yes yes yes...Mike is a 'nice guy' who 'works hard'...

My point is this, CSM membership shouldn't be a popularity or work-ethic contest (for Dexter shure worked hard at putting a lot of bodies in the ocean...). It should be about people who will simply fight to the death to defend the damned sandbox. We don't need a fence-sitting trained seal or carebear supporting nerfs. We need someone who will defend the sandbox.

EvE is not WoW for a reason, but Mike would take us there, while pretending he isn't helping CCP do just that.

F




It's still good comedy to watch you chest beast about sandbox when you don't acknowledge both sides of the coin. Some play for pew and glorious internet spaceship murder. Others don't. That you fail to accept this concept is your problem, Not his.
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen
Doomheim
#165 - 2015-02-13 21:31:42 UTC
Urziel99 wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
Yes yes yes...Mike is a 'nice guy' who 'works hard'...

My point is this, CSM membership shouldn't be a popularity or work-ethic contest (for Dexter shure worked hard at putting a lot of bodies in the ocean...). It should be about people who will simply fight to the death to defend the damned sandbox. We don't need a fence-sitting trained seal or carebear supporting nerfs. We need someone who will defend the sandbox.

EvE is not WoW for a reason, but Mike would take us there, while pretending he isn't helping CCP do just that.

F




It's still good comedy to watch you chest beast about sandbox when you don't acknowledge both sides of the coin. Some play for pew and glorious internet spaceship murder. Others don't. That you fail to accept this concept is your problem, Not his.

Explain to me how this is honoring both sides Urziel, in the context of EvE being conflict and spaceship detonations at its founding core, and the first duty (in my mind) is for CSM's to protect that, not help CCP slit their own throats on the road to WoW theme-park. Then search your soul on if Mike has truly been defending that.

I get he's your podcasting bro, but CCP doesn't need player help in making hisec a theme park from our elected CSM's, when the CSM's should be the balancing counter-point TO CCP's theme-park intentions.

F

Would you like to know more?
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#166 - 2015-02-14 00:19:54 UTC
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
this

Most of the items on that list were fixes to major bugs, exploits, or oversights that made piracy altogether too easy. Highsec was originally intended to be pretty safe and the only reason it took so long for those changes to happen was because it took a long time for the playerbase to really take advantage of the issues on a large scale. Also, I like (or rather, I HATE) how your list conveniently ignores all changes made in the other direction.

So here's what REALLY has happened:

* CONCORD response times adjusted for the increase in prevalence of highsec ganks
* sec status penalties for ganks increased due to the discovery of easy ways to raise it again
* Insurance removed for gankers, Tornado added. Expensive ganks retain similar cost, cheap ganks still cheap.
* Barge and exhumer HP buffed because they were paper-thin and were getting demolished by 1 destroyer even when tanked. Now it actually costs either ISK or players to gank an expensive ship.
* Ventures added, which have built-in warp stabs with full cost to slots, CPU, targeting range, and scan resolution--so it's a less flexible frigate.
* Baiters can only re-ship in a combat-flagged Orca, to prevent Orca pilot from being combat-flagged for not doing anything.
* War declaration mechanics made to allow corporations to attack others freely in highsec after paying a fee.
* War declaration costs increased in balance pass after they are shown to be too cheap.
* unlimited allies can join a defender or attacker - this is (obviously) used almost exclusively by attackers
* can flipping gives suspect flag now, instead of combat only with one person - duels added for those who don't want suspect status
* ganglinks can't be used inside POS shield > allegedly mining foreman links can, but I find this hard to believe. Can anyone confirm?
* drone bug fix breaks exploit that allowed a player to flag another player for combat merely because the player had drones out
* allegedly corps can disallow free shooting of corp members. I never heard of this.

So with all of these changes, we see a lot of rebalancing of highsec combat, but overall one very strong detail rings clear: highsec is much more dangerous now with wardecs than it ever was without them. The rest of that stuff (which isn't really strongly in favor of the defenders so much as balance retention) is insignificant in comparison.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#167 - 2015-02-14 17:53:13 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
this

Most of the items on that list were fixes to major bugs, exploits, or oversights that made piracy altogether too easy. Highsec was originally intended to be pretty safe and the only reason it took so long for those changes to happen was because it took a long time for the playerbase to really take advantage of the issues on a large scale. Also, I like (or rather, I HATE) how your list conveniently ignores all changes made in the other direction.

So here's what REALLY has happened:

* CONCORD response times adjusted for the increase in prevalence of highsec ganks
* sec status penalties for ganks increased due to the discovery of easy ways to raise it again
* Insurance removed for gankers, Tornado added. Expensive ganks retain similar cost, cheap ganks still cheap.
* Barge and exhumer HP buffed because they were paper-thin and were getting demolished by 1 destroyer even when tanked. Now it actually costs either ISK or players to gank an expensive ship.
* Ventures added, which have built-in warp stabs with full cost to slots, CPU, targeting range, and scan resolution--so it's a less flexible frigate.
* Baiters can only re-ship in a combat-flagged Orca, to prevent Orca pilot from being combat-flagged for not doing anything.
* War declaration mechanics made to allow corporations to attack others freely in highsec after paying a fee.
* War declaration costs increased in balance pass after they are shown to be too cheap.
* unlimited allies can join a defender or attacker - this is (obviously) used almost exclusively by attackers
* can flipping gives suspect flag now, instead of combat only with one person - duels added for those who don't want suspect status
* ganglinks can't be used inside POS shield > allegedly mining foreman links can, but I find this hard to believe. Can anyone confirm?
* drone bug fix breaks exploit that allowed a player to flag another player for combat merely because the player had drones out
* allegedly corps can disallow free shooting of corp members. I never heard of this.

So with all of these changes, we see a lot of rebalancing of highsec combat, but overall one very strong detail rings clear: highsec is much more dangerous now with wardecs than it ever was without them. The rest of that stuff (which isn't really strongly in favor of the defenders so much as balance retention) is insignificant in comparison.


Mining links are the only ones that work in a shield. All others won't work. The intercorp aggression flag is coming with Tiamat. It plugs a major security hole and it's made to encourage more social play instead of countless alt corps or just sitting in an npc corp.

But feyd here isn't interested in balance, he just wants easy kills by any means available. There are still plenty of complete bullshit mechanics that CCP either lacks the will or technical skill to fix. *cough* Bumping, hyperdunking, -10's still active in highsec *cough* So don't bother playing poor downtrodden victim around here. It won't hold water.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
S.N.O.T.
#168 - 2015-02-14 19:06:19 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:
this

Most of the items on that list were fixes to major bugs, exploits, or oversights that made piracy altogether too easy. Highsec was originally intended to be pretty safe and the only reason it took so long for those changes to happen was because it took a long time for the playerbase to really take advantage of the issues on a large scale. Also, I like (or rather, I HATE) how your list conveniently ignores all changes made in the other direction.

So here's what REALLY has happened:

* CONCORD response times adjusted for the increase in prevalence of highsec ganks
* sec status penalties for ganks increased due to the discovery of easy ways to raise it again
* Insurance removed for gankers, Tornado added. Expensive ganks retain similar cost, cheap ganks still cheap.
* Barge and exhumer HP buffed because they were paper-thin and were getting demolished by 1 destroyer even when tanked. Now it actually costs either ISK or players to gank an expensive ship.
* Ventures added, which have built-in warp stabs with full cost to slots, CPU, targeting range, and scan resolution--so it's a less flexible frigate.
* Baiters can only re-ship in a combat-flagged Orca, to prevent Orca pilot from being combat-flagged for not doing anything.
* War declaration mechanics made to allow corporations to attack others freely in highsec after paying a fee.
* War declaration costs increased in balance pass after they are shown to be too cheap.
* unlimited allies can join a defender or attacker - this is (obviously) used almost exclusively by attackers
* can flipping gives suspect flag now, instead of combat only with one person - duels added for those who don't want suspect status
* ganglinks can't be used inside POS shield > allegedly mining foreman links can, but I find this hard to believe. Can anyone confirm?
* drone bug fix breaks exploit that allowed a player to flag another player for combat merely because the player had drones out
* allegedly corps can disallow free shooting of corp members. I never heard of this.

So with all of these changes, we see a lot of rebalancing of highsec combat, but overall one very strong detail rings clear: highsec is much more dangerous now with wardecs than it ever was without them. The rest of that stuff (which isn't really strongly in favor of the defenders so much as balance retention) is insignificant in comparison.
In addition to this there have been other changes which have pushed it the other way, for example the corp hangar changes, allowing Orcas to drop loot from ther fleet hangars. No changes which were beneficial to his playstyle make it onto his graph. Also for wardecs, you used to be able to dec shield yourself, making it ridiculously expensive to declare war. You also use to be able to shed wars, and now can't do that.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
Thanatos Marathon
Moira.
#169 - 2015-02-14 19:38:12 UTC
Mike,

Assuming someone wanted you, steve, corbexx, and sugar to get re-elected, what do you think the order would need to be on the ballot to ensure maximum success?

JUSTK is recruiting
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#170 - 2015-02-14 20:03:11 UTC
Thanatos Marathon wrote:
Mike,

Assuming someone wanted you, steve, corbexx, and sugar to get re-elected, what do you think the order would need to be on the ballot to ensure maximum success?


Yeesh, that is a really tough question. Trying to answer it without being self-serving is even harder

So let me tell you how I am thinking it.

Visible support currently in effect is the key along with how the election algorithm is worked. We ALL need some #1 vote slots to make it past the first winnowing and pass throughs. So if you had multiple accounts I would suggest you shuffle them a bit to spread the love.

That being said I would say that, right now my money is on Sugar and Corbexx for being almost sure things. Corbexx has a solid and supportive constituency and I challenge you to find anybody saying anything negative about Sugar. I expect to see her on a lot of null ballots as well as the low support. Steve and I are the odd ducks. Neither of us have a huge support block behind us and as a result are more at risk. If you listened to my interview with Cap Stable you will know Steve was who I chose as the one person I would like to see get in (besides myself)

So to keep it from looking self serving

Steve, Me, Sugar, Corbexx

But there are lots of other good candidates that deserve to be on that list as well. I am going to hack my way through the final list in the next few days and see who I like over all

oh, and thank you for putting me on the same list as those other three, I consider that a high compliment.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Reaver Glitterstim
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#171 - 2015-02-14 21:52:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Reaver Glitterstim
Urziel99 wrote:
Mining links are the only ones that work in a shield. All others won't work. The intercorp aggression flag is coming with Tiamat. It plugs a major security hole and it's made to encourage more social play instead of countless alt corps or just sitting in an npc corp.

I agree with the intercorp aggression flag though I am a bit disappointed about it. But the mining links working inside the shield is inexcusable and I disagree strongly with that! It should be fixed.

Mike, I thought you were a shoe-in. You might get a few less votes because of the high number of folks getting interested in other candidates, but I highly doubt you won't win a slot. Steve will probably get in, too, he's got popularity. But you're right, Corbexx and Sugar Kyle are total shoe-ins.

FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."

Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
Aditu Ibuki
The Consciencious Ursine Noviate
#172 - 2015-02-15 00:09:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Aditu Ibuki
Why if the majority of the players are not set up in low-sec/null-sec alliances and wars is CCP not focusing on content development for them. The entirety of the EVE media seems dedicated to advancing the interest of players to play EVE just to blow each other (and the rest of us up) Why are our interests not being represented well, why is CCP not advancing content in the games in areas where you are not targeted by players 4 seconds after you de-cloak? This is not about separating more groups of players with different interests but a ambition to add something in the game for those of us not interested in new ways to blow people up...
Tyrant Scorn
#173 - 2015-02-15 00:39:23 UTC
Quote:
Mike Azariah

While I like Mike personally, I remain unconvinced of the value of serial podcast appearances or EVE-O posting marathons. He tends to fence-sit frequently, and it can be frustrating to determine what he genuinely thinks about a given issue. He has been consistently active and engaged. I'm convinced he's an anarchist. Sion's review of incumbents


Sion is not the only CSM member who shares this opinion, I've heard people say the exact same thing before Sion even released this.

The Tyrant King

YouTube | Twitter | Twitch
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#174 - 2015-02-15 03:08:41 UTC
Aditu Ibuki wrote:
Why if the majority of the players are set up in low-sec/null-sec alliances and wars is CCP not focusing on content development for them. The entirety of the EVE media seems dedicated to advancing the interest of players to play EVE just to blow each other (and the rest of us up) Why are our interests not being represented well, why is CCP not advancing content in the games in areas where you are not targeted by players 4 seconds after you de-cloak? This is not about separating more groups of players with different interests but a ambition to add something in the game for those of us not interested in new ways to blow people up...


Simple exercise for you. Open the map and go to the statistics tab and click on players in space in last half hour. Then rethink your first sentences.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Aditu Ibuki
The Consciencious Ursine Noviate
#175 - 2015-02-15 03:27:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Aditu Ibuki
I have corrected the missing negative in my post.

The map doesn't help me tot up all the next to empties compared to the smaller much redder empire space.

I am assuming there was still a significant proportion of people playing almost entirely in high-sec, maybe they've all gone and I am overdue too...

I have been told in replies to my other postings in no uncertain terms that EVE is a PVP game and has always been and I am in the wrong place. I have played since 2004 and have never shot at another players except in self-defence. What worries me is that the games seems to have no momentum in making non PvP content, players like me are just ridiculed, the only significant non PvP content I can think of since I started playing is PI, exploration and epic arcs, these are all dusty furniture now and I hear nothing on new content for non player combat areas all all focus and clamour is in the opposite direction.

I am alone in this view? Why does CCP just disband NPC space and stop deluding players that there is a non PVP game here too for those who want it?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#176 - 2015-02-15 03:40:53 UTC
Ah, ok. See I was answering the first question and scratching my head wondering where you got the impressions everybody was in null.

I disagree that CCP always plays to one portion of the population but at times the communities can act very envious of the other ones if action is taken to fix something over there. Yes, the next year is going to have a lot of Null focus because SOV really does need some attention. NO, that does not mean that all the other parts of space will be ignored.

That is why I am running. To represent Hisec play and the Casual gamer. To watch over the fact that no part of space is isolated from the rest, not even wormholes. Any change causes ripples across all of New Eden and so you need WH reps, Low sec reps, Hisec carebears like myself, as well as the Null representatives who admit that they don't need YOUR votes because their own people will sweep them in to victory easily.

I do not have that luxury. I need you and people like you to vote.

a lot

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Aditu Ibuki
The Consciencious Ursine Noviate
#177 - 2015-02-15 03:49:26 UTC
Then we need some kind of affirmitative statement from CCP they actually support this playstyle because reading any EVE media and reading future plans I see a big zero. The only issue discussed seems Concord tweaks and war decs, this is not new content.

I game like EVE has enormous potential for no PVP content and there seems no movement in this area. Trade expansion, market interaction expansion, science explansion, social expansion, planetary resource expansion, NPC corp interaction explansion, co-op mission explansion, the list is huge. No-one seems even to both to mention it as it is not big for PVP or alliance meta-game twaddle. Where is the prompting on CCP on this.

All this could be done, all players could enjoy it if them want, all could offer risk of various sort (economic, PVE or player pirating, where is the debate? Its seems be a total non-starter.....
Cutter John
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#178 - 2015-02-15 09:36:21 UTC
-1

I mailed you about it, you read it, then didn't reply.
XeX Znndstrup
#179 - 2015-02-15 13:55:33 UTC  |  Edited by: XeX Znndstrup
Applications are ending. Time to vote soon.

A candidate may not agree with everything but he should be a fair representative and witness of what people told him.
Before requesting our agents to endorse someone, we would like to be sure you would speak about these following subjects if member of CSM X :

1- Piracy : we don't want new game mechanics which reduce ability for some to live in a securized space. This subject is important in game but becomes also more important politically out of game when we see some unscrupulous organizations applying for CSM.

2- Walking in Station, Legion Project and Valkyrie : these 3 subjects are important because they would add other perspectives for Eve Online. That's the reason why they should be supported as a whole and not like other games. They MUST be linked with Eve Online. Perspectives in a game are the main reasons players, new or old, would stay in this game. Working on this doesn't significate CCP shouldn't work also on current mechanics.

3- Societies, social hubs or organizations : we are so we want them.

4- Market mechanics : even if it would necessitate big modifications, CCP should start to think about this in their planning. See what we spoke about in this thread about shares exchange as a way to influence in another way the sandbox.

Your answer could be as simple as an "OK" for each point.
And we will be yours.

Best regards from The Law Organization and its messenger.

Judge of The Law Organization and President of Stellar Order.

"Long is the way, and hard, that out of hell leads up to light". John Milton, Lost Paradise.

@ /// f
Urziel99
Multiplex Gaming
Tactical Narcotics Team
#180 - 2015-02-15 17:38:15 UTC
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:
Urziel99 wrote:
Mining links are the only ones that work in a shield. All others won't work. The intercorp aggression flag is coming with Tiamat. It plugs a major security hole and it's made to encourage more social play instead of countless alt corps or just sitting in an npc corp.

I agree with the intercorp aggression flag though I am a bit disappointed about it. But the mining links working inside the shield is inexcusable and I disagree strongly with that! It should be fixed.
.



As soon as true command ships give a mining foreman bonus so the booster can defend itself. Till then, nope.