These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Jayne for CSMX - ELECTED! - Thank you for your support!

First post First post
Author
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#181 - 2015-02-04 16:57:18 UTC
I have removed a rule breaking post.

The Rules:
5. Trolling is prohibited.

Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Stoseph Stuarts
Coterie Research and Development
#182 - 2015-02-05 12:14:52 UTC
Personally I don't understand what you're bringing to the table if you were to be in the CSM except for an increased interest from the general player base towards the CSM. All of what I've read so far from you in this post is basically claiming your views are the same as those already released by CCP or other players. I want to know what will you actually be bringing to the CSM when it comes to suggestions, your own suggestions, for gameplay development?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#183 - 2015-02-05 15:07:15 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
The reason for this was summarized beautifully by Sion Kumitomo in the CSM9 Summer Summit Minutes:
Quote:
If I am a high sec CEO, my optimum path is to be non-social. It is to not invite people to help me.
.... which is wrong on so many levels it's unbelievable. Why are there no incursion corporations or alliances? What about mission running, or mining corporations? Why does highsec not have the same storied history that inspires historians to write books?

Why is this wrong? As soon as these people join a corp or organize in an alliance, they have Marmite, Forsaken, Deadly Fingertips, Pursuit and so forth on their heels and cannot do what they want to do. People already tell stories about Incursion communities like TDF, ISN, TVP and what not. Why should they further condense into something that gives them no gains?

If I as a business oriented person want to make profit, I do not want to risk -- under the current horrendous corp/roles/title system -- to give other people the slightest chance to ruin it from inside. I cannot give people specific and restricted access to anything in a corp other than fully open or not at all, which opens the floodgates to my demise and their victory. However, I am not interested in my demise nor am I interested in providing others with content where I pay for it and don't get anything other than ridiculing in return. So, why should people join corps if this will only expose them to other High sec camping people as soon as they raise their head just a micron too high? Believe it or not, I am in such a position with my activities on a weekly basis.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Koz Katral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#184 - 2015-02-06 10:47:30 UTC
Rivr Luzade wrote:
Jayne Fillon wrote:
The reason for this was summarized beautifully by Sion Kumitomo in the CSM9 Summer Summit Minutes:
Quote:
If I am a high sec CEO, my optimum path is to be non-social. It is to not invite people to help me.
.... which is wrong on so many levels it's unbelievable. Why are there no incursion corporations or alliances? What about mission running, or mining corporations? Why does highsec not have the same storied history that inspires historians to write books?

Why is this wrong? As soon as these people join a corp or organize in an alliance, they have Marmite, Forsaken, Deadly Fingertips, Pursuit and so forth on their heels and cannot do what they want to do. People already tell stories about Incursion communities like TDF, ISN, TVP and what not. Why should they further condense into something that gives them no gains?

If I as a business oriented person want to make profit, I do not want to risk -- under the current horrendous corp/roles/title system -- to give other people the slightest chance to ruin it from inside. I cannot give people specific and restricted access to anything in a corp other than fully open or not at all, which opens the floodgates to my demise and their victory. However, I am not interested in my demise nor am I interested in providing others with content where I pay for it and don't get anything other than ridiculing in return. So, why should people join corps if this will only expose them to other High sec camping people as soon as they raise their head just a micron too high? Believe it or not, I am in such a position with my activities on a weekly basis.




You do realise you just answered your own question?
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#185 - 2015-02-07 09:16:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
I'm not aware of that. Or do you mean that I should form a corp and invite other people in it so that they can ruin my EVE ambitions, ridicule me in the process and that nothing else is going to be in there for me, that this is the "right way to do it"? In this case I certainly have answered my question, and given a nice reason not to form corps or only to form personal corps and limit interaction.

Fun fact: Not even gankers and advocates for more group play and interaction do this. There are so many 1-man corps of gankers and many of them even stay in NPC corps to avoid just what I described above -- and most likely organize in loose groups outside the disadvantaging formats provided by the game. Now, someone explain me: is this also "wrong in so many ways" or is this the right way all of a sudden and it just depends on on which side you are whether you play the game wrong or right? Would be interesting to see the candidates' opinion on that. Roll

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Koz Katral
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#186 - 2015-02-08 04:23:48 UTC
You are not disagreeing with Jayne here dude. He means the current corp mechanics are wrong in so many ways, for all the reasons you have quite elegantly narrated with several paragraphs of text. You took the ball and then ran with it 500 meters in the wrong direction.
Jayne Fillon
#187 - 2015-02-08 05:39:28 UTC
Sersei Sarum wrote:
Anyway back on topic. In your vision for NPSI will there be a chance for things similar to corp thefts and other fun shenanigans?


No, the opportunity for theft would imply that these groups would be able to hold assets or structures in the first place.

These "societies" are not meant to replace corporations, which means that they shouldn't have wallets, assets, structures, etc. Social metagaming, sure, like a coup d'etat or an awox... but anything more than that would require these groups having the ability to "own" anything valuable enough to steal, which would encroach on the niche currently held by corporations.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#188 - 2015-02-08 05:50:50 UTC
Stoseph Stuarts wrote:
Personally I don't understand what you're bringing to the table if you were to be in the CSM except for an increased interest from the general player base towards the CSM. All of what I've read so far from you in this post is basically claiming your views are the same as those already released by CCP or other players. I want to know what will you actually be bringing to the CSM when it comes to suggestions, your own suggestions, for gameplay development?

Two things here.

First, the members of the CSM are not junior game designers. They don't get to sit down at a computer and program their own ideas willy nilly - they are better viewed as a focus group or advisory committee, whereas the truly optimistic might even consider them subject matter experts. This is to say that I don't get to decide on what area of gameplay is developed or iterated upon, simply that I can advise CCP on which changes are good or bad depending on the development roadmap that they have already decided upon.

This ties into my second point. CCP is indeed already working on this feature, but it is still in the very early phases of development. They don't know what they're going to do to the system, in fact they don't even know everything about the current system. All they've managed to do so far (publicly) is an agree on what to call this new proposal (Day 1 Minutes, Page 14: "Societies"). Having brought this to their attention of CCP is only half the battle: through presentations, forum threads, and personal conversation we've been able to make this need known. The difficult part is making sure these changes actually target the pain points present in the current system, and don't go the way of industrial teams - that is, great in theory, but useless in practicality.

That's where I hope to play my part. I will use my experience and my contacts in order to advise CCP on how these changes would affect both corporation management, as well as a social groups such as the NPSI and Incursion communities. This is similar to the sov redesign. CCP knows it's a problem, they know things need to be changed, and in order for that to be carried out they need players who are knowledgeable in that area of the game to help them. That's the key to making sure that CCP delivers a good product: co-operation between the players and developers, with the CSM serving as a liaison between what is desired, what is truly needed, and what can actually be delivered.

That's the role I hope to fulfil.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Jayne Fillon
#189 - 2015-02-08 05:58:51 UTC
Rivr, I'm confused as to what it is exactly you're asking, because from what you've written it appears that I agree with you.

When I say that being anti-social "is wrong in so many ways" I'm not saying that it's a suboptimal or invalid playstyle, I'm saying that it's unfortunately a necessary playstyle based on the mechanics that currently exist. What I would like to see is for the optimal playstyle to be a social playstyle, one that encourages the interaction with others and the formation of groups. My statement in the OP refers to my desire to eliminate any barriers to the formation of groups that are both social, and effective.

The existence of one man corps are a bane, but necessary for many people to operate in highsec. Honestly, I'd rather people stay in NPC corps then use the corp mechanics simply to acquire 0% tax, and isolate themselves in the process. One of the strongest parts of this game is the community itself, and it's simply a shame that some playstyles operate at maximum efficiency when working completely alone. That's what I'd like to change.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#190 - 2015-02-09 20:16:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Rivr Luzade
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Rivr, I'm confused as to what it is exactly you're asking, because from what you've written it appears that I agree with you.

When I say that being anti-social "is wrong in so many ways" I'm not saying that it's a suboptimal or invalid playstyle, I'm saying that it's unfortunately a necessary playstyle based on the mechanics that currently exist. What I would like to see is for the optimal playstyle to be a social playstyle, one that encourages the interaction with others and the formation of groups. My statement in the OP refers to my desire to eliminate any barriers to the formation of groups that are both social, and effective.

The existence of one man corps are a bane, but necessary for many people to operate in highsec. Honestly, I'd rather people stay in NPC corps then use the corp mechanics simply to acquire 0% tax, and isolate themselves in the process. One of the strongest parts of this game is the community itself, and it's simply a shame that some playstyles operate at maximum efficiency when working completely alone. That's what I'd like to change.

I don't see me running with the ball in the wrong direction. It is EVE that we are talking about, ie. the only goal is to cause other players mischief. 1-man corps are the only way to spare you from that to a certain extend. How would you want to change something that works in perfect accordance with what EVE is about: Everyone vs. Everyone? Obviously, any change revolves around a full replacement of the current corporation system with something new, something better. What are your ideas on that? Do you also keep those people in mind who give a flying scrapheap about social and simply do not want to interact with others? What about them? Brute force inclusion, or will these people also keep their way of playing the game?

Side note: Teams were not useless. It's useless players who do not invest brain into the matter. To me, teams were a fountain of good uses (even though initially I was strongly against them), both in terms of industry enrichment as well as intel tool to find juicy stuff to cause harm to. Why do you see teams as useless?

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Jayne Fillon
#191 - 2015-02-09 23:25:27 UTC
Quote:
It is EVE that we are talking about, the only goal is to cause other players mischief.
I disagree.

Quote:
1-man corps are the only way to spare you from that to a certain extend. How would you want to change something that works in perfect accordance with what EVE is about: Everyone vs. Everyone?
One man corps are the very opposite of an "everyone vs. everyone" playstyle. These proposals aren't meant so "spare" anyone, they are meant to empower new and existing groups.

Quote:
Do you also keep those people in mind who give a flying scrapheap about social and simply do not want to interact with others? What about them? Brute force inclusion, or will these people also keep their way of playing the game?
If you want to play Eve alone, as a nomad, or as a hermit.... go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you from doing what you enjoy. What's not fine is that an optimum playstyle is forcing people to play like hermits in order to guarantee their safety and/or profits.

Quote:
Why do you see teams as useless?
I didn't, CCP did. Whether or not they were useful, they didn't see widespread use and were widely forgotten. This emphasizes my point that no matter how good a tool is, it doesn't matter if players don't use it. The reasons why the players choose not to use the tool are irrelevant.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
#192 - 2015-02-09 23:32:36 UTC
To be fair industrial teams weren't deemed "useless", just not what Eve needs right now. The idea's been shelved until other aspects of the game are updated.
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#193 - 2015-02-10 08:15:41 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
One man corps are the very opposite of an "everyone vs. everyone" playstyle. These proposals aren't meant so "spare" anyone, they are meant to empower new and existing groups.
[...]
If you want to play Eve alone, as a nomad, or as a hermit.... go right ahead, I'm not going to stop you from doing what you enjoy. What's not fine is that an optimum playstyle is forcing people to play like hermits in order to guarantee their safety and/or profits.

Well, you cannot avoid Everyone vs. Everyone in a 1-man corp, you just make yourself a less attractive target, which works only so long you do not raise your head out of the melange. In any case: Any concrete suggestions or ideas on how to enable a "social, effective" way to interact that gives people necessary tools to remove unnecessary risk? You may say that my billions in minerals, T2 mats, BP, ships, modules and assets in general to help others are just pixels, but it is pixels I have invested a huge amount of RL time and RL money into and therefore it is only logical not to expose that to theft, misuse, leeching, lazy players and so on. Any concrete suggestions? Whether CCP in the end heeds them or just pushes forward their own ideas is impervious to me; I am supposed to cast a vote for you.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.

Tommas Crowbarius
Stronghelm Corporation
Solyaris Chtonium
#194 - 2015-02-12 00:05:59 UTC
Hey Jayne,

I have a question that hasn’t really been addressed but I believe could be a concern for others who are interested in being a part of the NPSI community. I spent a long time in the game doing a lot of PVE stuff and frankly it became boring, I was about ready to leave the game when I found Spectre Fleet and the other NPSI communities like Bombers Bar, RVB Ganked, Frigate Fun, Sir Squeebles, Redemption Road, etc. The NPSI community revitalized my interest in EvE Online and I love how in the community I can jump on several different fleets a day depending on my mood with any of the NPSI communities and still feel at home. It’s great how all these communities cross over and there’s no sense of hard feelings if you flew in a Bombers Bar fleet with the same guy in the morning and in the afternoon killed him when you were in a Spectre Fleet and they were with one of the other public fleets. It’s NPSI, everyone laughs about it and you’ll fly with them as friends the next day.

With NPSI really being where I learned how to PVP I developed the mindset of Ashurman where “there are no blues. there are no reds. you just kill anything you can thats not purple” at least for that short while your in an NPSI fleet. Just don’t be a jerk. From my experience many regular NPSI pilots have the same “hippie” mindset where there’s no reason to get butthurt over a little friendly NPSI PVP.

My problem started when I joined a corporation that was part of a large SOV holding alliance. At first it was great and I looked forward to even more PVP where I could either join the SOV battles and experience that aspect of the game, or if nothing was going on or I was in the mood I could hop into an NPSI fleet. I thought I could have my cake and eat it too. Unfortunately I was surprised to find there’s a lot of butthurt about this nonsensical blue thing. The worst part for me was when I’d join an NPSI fleet I’d run into a ton of “Blues” out there and you’d either waste several hours on a fleet when the NPSI FC Blops’d a blue carrier while you sat on your hands, or you’d have to make a decision to throw away your good name and awox.

Instead of having my cake and eating it by getting on all the PVP I could handle, I ended up frustrated and disappointed because 50% of the ships the NPSI fleet would see were blue SOV alliance members. A lot of my other corp members who were NPSI pilots found this a problem as well, which culminated in a number of them leaving the corp or “messing up” and shooting blue. Eventually I left the corp and alliance as well because at heart I’m an NPSI player, but I do wish there was a way to do both NPSI and fight in the larger SOV battles without drama. For the most part it was inferred to me that I had to either choose the SOV alliance and quit NPSI or choose NPSI and quit the SOV alliance.

While your club idea is interesting on some level’s it doesn’t address this sort of issue. Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too? Is there a way to be in SOV alliance but have them not get all bent out of shape because I decided to join an NPSI fleet one slow afternoon? Someone in a club would still have the problems I had.

One thought I had that you can use and consider if you get on CSMX is the idea that if someone joins an NPSI fleet all your blues see you as red or orange. That way they know at that point in time your not blue to them and vice versa. Perhaps a notification to alliance and corp mates that during the fleet you are not a friendly. You can kill them and likewise they can kill you and there will be no butthurt on either part. If there’s worries about spying, perhaps when you join an NPSI fleet your corp, alliance and any related alliance scouting channels would be unavailable to you. That way no one could say your a “spai”. Maybe it just comes down to large alliances and corps understanding and rethinking NPSI and PVP as a whole. Maybe people just need to get over internet space ships as being “super serious business”, or maybe I’m just an NPSI hippie and need to shut up. Regardless I wish there was a way I could have stayed in the alliance I was in and still be able to do NPSI PVP when I want and how I want.

At this point I jumped into my own small corporation so no one gets upset and I can do what I want as I so choose. It’s a little bit lonelier though and in some ways I would like to join an alliance that gives me the benefits of working with others. I think my example show’s an issue where NPSI’s regular members will be forced to stay in loner, NPC, or smaller corporations and alliances. It would be nice if we could find a way to address that.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#195 - 2015-02-12 14:25:53 UTC
This year I'm starting to have a look at the running CSM candidates in a bit more depth, and I've written a short review of your campaign, which can be found here.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
#196 - 2015-02-12 17:22:03 UTC
So by strong platform you mean:

1. "CCP's idea of corp-lite sounds neat! I should be voted based on this even though I didn't contribute anything new to the idea!"

and

2. Complaining about wardecs ( Roll ) but providing no alternative.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#197 - 2015-02-12 17:50:00 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
So by strong platform you mean:

1. "CCP's idea of corp-lite sounds neat! I should be voted based on this even though I didn't contribute anything new to the idea!"

and

2. Complaining about wardecs ( Roll ) but providing no alternative.
No, by strong platform I mean that he has a good understanding of what the CSM does, he's got a primary target audience but has evidenced that he's able to consider issues outside of that area and has a good idea of what will be beneficial for the game overall. I'd trust him to make decisions and raise concerns as a CSM member that would help CCP improve the game.

Look, I understand that you have some personal issues with Jayne, and I don't care. Not even a little bit. Whether or not some random player dislikes a CSM member is completely irrelevant to my opinions of them. I don't care if he wronged you, I don't care if you feel like his actions make him a a terrible person, I simply don't care what your opinion of him is. I'm calling these like I see them, and in my honest opinion there is no better CSM candidate for players who enjoy the NPSI playstyle.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
#198 - 2015-02-12 17:55:07 UTC
Please look at my posting history and you will see I critique several CSM candidates. I don't have a "personal issue" with Jayne and he hasn't done anything that I feel "wronged" about. His idea for the NPSI portion of his platform isn't even his idea and the "issues outside of that area" (I assume you mean wardecs) provides no actual solution.

"Wardecs are currently bad!"

Ok? I disagree, with your premise that they're just griefing tools but sure, what is your suggestion to solve this problem?


Tired of candidates that say "X IS A PROBLEM!" But offer no ideas or solutions.
Lucas Kell
Solitude Trading
#199 - 2015-02-12 18:08:06 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
"Wardecs are currently bad!"

Ok? I disagree, with your premise that they're just griefing tools but sure, what is your suggestion to solve this problem?


Tired of candidates that say "X IS A PROBLEM!" But offer no ideas or solutions.
It's not a CSM members job to come up with all the ideas, it's their job to present players concerns and ideas to CCP and work with CCP to ensure that what they do deliver is designed around what players expect. In this instance Jayne has simply answered a question about what he would remove from the game if he could, and struck a chord with me. He's not being asked for a replacement idea, and I certainly wouldn't expect him to come up with one.

Quite honestly though, removing wardecs as they currently stand would be less terrible for the game than their existence currently is. As they stand, they make it completely pointless to attempt to run a corp in highsec, which is bad for player interaction. If you run a corp that isn't a pure PvP corp, and you get beyond a certain size you become an instant perma-dec target for the few groups looking to farm easy kill. I'd love to see large corporations of all types duking it out in highsec, but that just doesn't happen very often at all.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Seraph IX Basarab
Outer Path
#200 - 2015-02-12 18:16:56 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
It's not a CSM members job to come up with all the ideas, it's their job to present players concerns and ideas to CCP and work with CCP to ensure that what they do deliver is designed around what players expect. In this instance Jayne has simply answered a question about what he would remove from the game if he could, and struck a chord with me. He's not being asked for a replacement idea, and I certainly wouldn't expect him to come up with one.


Garbage. CSM is not just a stand in. They're suppose to help CCP by presenting possible solutions and ideas because they're suppose to have first hand experience on the subject. A CSM should do more than say "Hey CCP, X demographic is complaining about Y issue." They're suppose to communicate possible ideas, and suggest solutions.


Lucas Kell wrote:
Quite honestly though, removing wardecs as they currently stand would be less terrible for the game than their existence currently is. As they stand, they make it completely pointless to attempt to run a corp in highsec, which is bad for player interaction. If you run a corp that isn't a pure PvP corp, and you get beyond a certain size you become an instant perma-dec target for the few groups looking to farm easy kill. I'd love to see large corporations of all types duking it out in highsec, but that just doesn't happen very often at all.


Of course it struck a chord with you. Not surprising. But here's the big point: You shouldn't be able to run industry nilly willy without conflict. So yes if you want to run JUST a PvE Indy corp, you shouldn't be able to. You need to HTFU and be prepared to defend yourself. Plenty of highsec corps do exist and simply being ignorant of that fact doesn't necessarily mean we need to turn highsec into WoW styled Candy Land.