These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Thoric Frosthammer for CSM X

First post First post
Author
Candy Knight
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#21 - 2015-02-06 18:58:48 UTC
Thoric knows what to say, when to say it, and how to say it.

He has my vote
tianan
Perkone
Caldari State
#22 - 2015-02-06 21:29:58 UTC
Bump for good man
RA Eriker
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort
Goonswarm Federation
#23 - 2015-02-07 22:08:34 UTC
Fieldgrey Fox wrote:
He's a good man, responsible, and I have no doubt he will work tirelessly for the betterment of our game and lifestyle. I fully support my friend Thoric Frosthammer for CSM.

Caribou apex
Blitzkrieg.
Mild Inconvenience
#24 - 2015-02-08 20:16:57 UTC
MAY PAPA GNOME REPRESENT THE GREAT GNOMELAND OF LAWN AT CSM X!!!!!!!
Rishian Delmater
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2015-02-08 21:55:58 UTC
I have been flying with Thoric for a while now. IRL he is a professional and will bring a high level of maturity and level headiness to the CSM. He is experienced in EVE as well as working with others and will be dedicated to cultivating strong proffesional relationships between the council and CCP.

He has my vote.

Rish
The Dude Lebowskii
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2015-02-08 22:20:43 UTC  |  Edited by: The Dude Lebowskii
Shocked go get em thoric, you have my vote!

The Dude Lebowskii Recruitment Director - Big Diggers

McDarila
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#27 - 2015-02-10 06:28:16 UTC
Thoric is great guy you will find him open and honest. He been a good friend in eve and great leader of our group Null sec(indy, moons, pve, pvp, sov holding, and cat herding). So from the null sec side he been there and done that. He does what he says and you can count on him. Thats why I voteing for him.
Phoenix Jones
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2015-02-11 16:47:40 UTC
I have few unusually direct questions for you being as you and your alliance was one of those impacted by this change..

Was the phoebe jump changes a mistake?
Would you fight to revert them? (Would you get rid of the 5 ly jump change? Jump bridge fatigue, etc)
Do you believe there should be no jump fatigue timer at all?

One final question... It's pretty well known that the phoebe jump changes killed the botlord treaty.

Do you believe botlord was a good thing, and would you fight to reinstate such agreements if the phoebe changes were reverted? In other words, would you agree to return everything to the way it was before phoebe?

Yaay!!!!

Nadia Charne
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#29 - 2015-02-11 17:16:31 UTC
I will continue to bump and Endorse Frosthammer for CSM X just as I do Harry Saq. Blink
Thoric Frosthammer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#30 - 2015-02-11 18:43:55 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I have few unusually direct questions for you being as you and your alliance was one of those impacted by this change..

Was the phoebe jump changes a mistake?
Would you fight to revert them? (Would you get rid of the 5 ly jump change? Jump bridge fatigue, etc)
Do you believe there should be no jump fatigue timer at all?

One final question... It's pretty well known that the phoebe jump changes killed the botlord treaty.

Do you believe botlord was a good thing, and would you fight to reinstate such agreements if the phoebe changes were reverted? In other words, would you agree to return everything to the way it was before phoebe?



Thanks for the questions Phoenix.

1) The idea of neutering force projection was necessary, and I support it for the health of EVE. The way it has been implemented with jump fatigue I find to be singularly annoying and punitive. I would argue that the 5ly jump limit needs to be extended slightly because it prevents people from easily moving even within regions. Jump bridge fatigue is excessive and punitive given the cost and effort involved in holding the sov in the first place and installing the bridges. The timers are aggravating because they can reduce ability to coordinate in fleets because of previously acquired fatigue. I think there's a way of implementing a force projection limitation that doesn't involve this excessively complex and annoying mechanic.

2) There are many treaties and agreements in place that aren't as well known as B0Tlord. Many of them remain in force, and others are negotiated all the time. Politics is a thing in EVE. As an alliance leader, I will support whatever, at a diplomacy level, secures the interests of my alliance.

At a different level, I want to say that your premise is slightly off. B0Tlord didn't die because of Phoebe, at least not directly. It died because PL gave up its sov. That happened because of Phoebe. But if PL had sov today, I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that it would still be in force.

I'll go back to expand on my original candidate statement, and say that you can't "fix" EVE by telling people not to play the game to win, or to do things that aren't in their own interest to make your life easier. Human nature says that won't happen. What is needed are changes to the ruleset that penalize risk averse behavior. If signing something like B0Tlord kept you from acquiring resources that your alliance or coalition NEEDED to have, or which put you in a substantially better position, you wouldn't sign it. But since the resources don't change, and so once acquired, tend to stay acquired by the same entity, inertia sets in and those agreements make a lot of sense if your goal is to minimize risk to your own resources.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
#31 - 2015-02-11 19:36:56 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)

Rakai Yudhos
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2015-02-12 17:17:01 UTC
Hail Thoric !! he surely get my vote Big smile

Blind Ratter

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#33 - 2015-02-14 18:18:31 UTC
Thorics a stand up gentleman! Has great depth and breadth of knowledge of the game both mechanically and sociologically and above all has a proven track record of good people and negotiatory skills.
These, in my honest opinion, are more required and necessary than many people may think when it comes to being on the CSM, as the recent eve media fiasco of funky bacon has proven.

Good luck my friend!
Caribou apex
Blitzkrieg.
Mild Inconvenience
#34 - 2015-02-15 02:13:39 UTC
If you don't vote for this great man you are a casual.
Pathas
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2015-02-15 10:39:31 UTC
Thoric definitely has my vote.
Reeses Peices
Doomheim
#36 - 2015-02-15 11:01:22 UTC
Thoric Frosthammer wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I have few unusually direct questions for you being as you and your alliance was one of those impacted by this change..

Was the phoebe jump changes a mistake?
Would you fight to revert them? (Would you get rid of the 5 ly jump change? Jump bridge fatigue, etc)
Do you believe there should be no jump fatigue timer at all?

One final question... It's pretty well known that the phoebe jump changes killed the botlord treaty.

Do you believe botlord was a good thing, and would you fight to reinstate such agreements if the phoebe changes were reverted? In other words, would you agree to return everything to the way it was before phoebe?



Thanks for the questions Phoenix.

1) The idea of neutering force projection was necessary, and I support it for the health of EVE. The way it has been implemented with jump fatigue I find to be singularly annoying and punitive. I would argue that the 5ly jump limit needs to be extended slightly because it prevents people from easily moving even within regions. Jump bridge fatigue is excessive and punitive given the cost and effort involved in holding the sov in the first place and installing the bridges. The timers are aggravating because they can reduce ability to coordinate in fleets because of previously acquired fatigue. I think there's a way of implementing a force projection limitation that doesn't involve this excessively complex and annoying mechanic.


I agree with this. However, what would you propose to fix the fatigue problem?
Thoric Frosthammer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#37 - 2015-02-16 04:00:20 UTC
Several alternative methods or approaches have been proposed that I think would work better: 1) Shorter maximum fatigue/timer; 2) flat timer on jump, with no fatigue timer; 3) reduce fatigue arising from jb's as compared to a true jump (this is ancillary to the other two). I'm open minded on it, but i think the essence of most of them is reduce the escalation or cap it. Make it less applicable to jump bridges, which have a built in use cost already in terms of sov/fuel/etc.
Reeses Peices
Doomheim
#38 - 2015-02-16 07:14:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Reeses Peices
What would you think about expanding New Eden, rather than constraining players into a smaller place. Rather than tying the players hand why not give them more room to move. I see no reason to penalize someone for using a faster method of transport if it is their desire to move rapidly across New Eden for any reason. Why not give new regions in all zones of space to explore and expand into?

If you want to reduce current SOV holders grasp. Why not do it through PVE as well as PVP. Create new NPC forces that wish to destroy all life that directly attack SOV structures with Capital and Subcap fleets of thier own. Why not have CCP generate more content for the players rather than completely leaving them alone to only come back and punish them for being successful.

I do not see the logic in the using punitive measures to control the players, when you can reshape the scenario in a positive manner.

What I am saying is, content, not penalty timers.
Thoric Frosthammer
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2015-02-16 18:54:24 UTC
I'd be thrilled to see new content. I've been hoping since they started talking about player built stargates that we'd see a new sort of space with different rules of engagement. I still think nullspace is better with some limitations on how fast capital ships can move across it, however. We see a lot more *gudfights* in our neck of the universe since it became harder for everyone and their titan to 3rd party from across the universe.

The CFC has been using wormholes to good effect to 3rd party and have fun in other places.

I would, as i stated, prefer make the rules less punitive, but keep some restriction on rapid movement of capital ships in place. And yes, I own a super, and lots of capitals. I've actually gotten to log them on more and use them recently than before.

I completely agree that we're well overdue for a bit of new content to give us new and interesting goals however. It fits in with my platform of decreasing the rewards of risk aversion. If you HAVE to get out and fight some NPC's to hold your space periodically, it might lead to some good 3rd partying and fights. If you can't simply huddle in your station and wait for timers to blob, there will be more aggression. Of course, as always, poor execution can lead to tedium and making it even harder to hold sov, to the point it doesn't feel worthwhile to most people. It needs to be handled carefully.

So, i agree with you partially.
Reeses Peices
Doomheim
#40 - 2015-02-16 19:48:32 UTC
Awesome, thank you for the thought out response.