These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Mr Hyde - CSM XI

First post First post
Author
Luwina
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#21 - 2015-12-22 01:57:41 UTC
Yay. Best news in a long time. You have my vote.
Jak3 Lang
Dead Star Syndicate
#22 - 2015-12-22 02:01:29 UTC
+1

Be nice to ECM.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-12-22 02:05:19 UTC
I don't need to see a platform, more a reaction to how you will deal with specific issues. So if they decided to spend time on assault frigates to bring them up to survivable again what stand would you take?

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Mr Hyde113
#24 - 2015-12-22 02:40:46 UTC
Blinky Jimmy wrote:
Please be more specific about your platform. It sounds to me like what you are saying is "Balance for Balance's sake must be maintained". Do you want to change the small ship meta, as evidenced by your stated dislike of frigates? You are regularly seen flying larger ships; do you want to buff these? How so? You say also PvP should be accessible to new players; how do you intend to accomplish that?



(1) In general, I think that finding a healthy state of balance, is always a moving target, and more of a goal to strive for, but never something we ever fully achieve.

(2) I think that the small ship meta, especially in small gang pvp, is evidence that people do not have good/enough reasons to want to fly bigger ships. Some of this has to do with the speed; people don't like spending so much longer in warp/warping compared to smaller ships. Some of this has to do with them not bringing enough to the table for the added cost/tedium. There are a few ideas I have kicking around in my head such as a "secondary-stat" buff for BS (scan res, sensor strength, cargo capacity) which are basically quality of life improvements. But balance is not done in a vacuum, and restoring a healthy "food pyramid" of ships would go a long way to giving BS more reasons to be used. Thus why I spend a lot of time flying, and encouraging others to fly BCs and BS, so people see what they can do, so that they get used more, and then have more similar sized targets out there (rinse repeat).

(3) Right now the game does not do a good job of explaining how actual pvp works in the tutorials/NPE. We rely heavily on a player joining the right "newbro" corp that will teach them what they need to know. There are plenty of resources out there these days for new players, but it all relies on them finding these external sources. I want to see a lot of the wisdom out there put in front of new players right off the bat so we can retain as many as possible. Examples? Including basic pvp fittings in the "corp fittings" of the starter NPC corps so they have something to work off of. Making starter/lvl 1 missions more like burner missions/actual pvp; less farming and more intense 1v1 scenarios that force new players to learn mechanics.
Chance Ravinne
WiNGSPAN Delivery Services
WiNGSPAN Delivery Network
#25 - 2015-12-22 02:42:55 UTC
Electing a YouTuber? Talk about wasting a vote.

You've just read another awesome post by Chance Ravinne, CEO of EVE's #1 torpedo delivery service. Watch our misadventures on my YouTube channel: WINGSPANTT

Jim Jams
Perkone
Caldari State
#26 - 2015-12-22 02:46:08 UTC
Yes! x100
Blinky Jimmy
Irreducibly Insane
#27 - 2015-12-22 02:49:51 UTC
Mr Hyde113 wrote:
Blinky Jimmy wrote:
Please be more specific about your platform. It sounds to me like what you are saying is "Balance for Balance's sake must be maintained". Do you want to change the small ship meta, as evidenced by your stated dislike of frigates? You are regularly seen flying larger ships; do you want to buff these? How so? You say also PvP should be accessible to new players; how do you intend to accomplish that?



(1) In general, I think that finding a healthy state of balance, is always a moving target, and more of a goal to strive for, but never something we ever fully achieve.

(2) I think that the small ship meta, especially in small gang pvp, is evidence that people do not have good/enough reasons to want to fly bigger ships. Some of this has to do with the speed; people don't like spending so much longer in warp/warping compared to smaller ships. Some of this has to do with them not bringing enough to the table for the added cost/tedium. There are a few ideas I have kicking around in my head such as a "secondary-stat" buff for BS (scan res, sensor strength, cargo capacity) which are basically quality of life improvements. But balance is not done in a vacuum, and restoring a healthy "food pyramid" of ships would go a long way to giving BS more reasons to be used. Thus why I spend a lot of time flying, and encouraging others to fly BCs and BS, so people see what they can do, so that they get used more, and then have more similar sized targets out there (rinse repeat).

(3) Right now the game does not do a good job of explaining how actual pvp works in the tutorials/NPE. We rely heavily on a player joining the right "newbro" corp that will teach them what they need to know. There are plenty of resources out there these days for new players, but it all relies on them finding these external sources. I want to see a lot of the wisdom out there put in front of new players right off the bat so we can retain as many as possible. Examples? Including basic pvp fittings in the "corp fittings" of the starter NPC corps so they have something to work off of. Making starter/lvl 1 missions more like burner missions/actual pvp; less farming and more intense 1v1 scenarios that force new players to learn mechanics.

Very good and thoughtful answers...... particularly the nonsense that is bigger ships having less electronic capability...... Although I will continue following your campaign, I think there's a good chance youll get my vote.
Nardkick
The Suicide Kings
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#28 - 2015-12-22 02:52:08 UTC
Sorry man, but no you would make an ill CSM. You are too quick to anger and I fear would only attempt to serve your own narrow interests.

-1

You have been reported for using offensive language in an in-game chat channel and our review of the logs has confirmed this. This is a breach of the EULA section 6.C as it relates to the Terms of Service item 2. 

Cypr3ss Deteis
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2015-12-22 03:06:26 UTC
Jathen Codexus wrote:
+1 And suddenly I feel inclined to actually cast a CSM ballot.


I also Suddenly feel the same inclination. The Mind Games in this thread are scary.

Mr Hyde113, a mild-mannered pvper, who may or may not turn into Superman.

+1

Regards,
Cypr3ss.
Mr Hyde113
#30 - 2015-12-22 03:40:39 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
I don't need to see a platform, more a reaction to how you will deal with specific issues. So if they decided to spend time on assault frigates to bring them up to survivable again what stand would you take?

m



Understandable, and expected since that is the way for you to get a sense of where my head is on the issues. However, I have to say that the CSM in many ways isn't about CCP saying, "hey guys, this needs fixing, fix it", but rather "we were thinking this, what do you think".


I think that T3ds really put AFs in a terrible place, since before their introduction, AFs were pretty cost effective for what they did. Many would like to just see buffs to AFs, but I don't think letting the power creep train run in terms of increasing DPS/Tank stats is the way to go. You see this similar dynamic between HACs (except the ishtar, but that has been fixed mostly) and T3 Cruisers. The introduction of T3s really made HACs not as viable by comparison, but not bad before.

A big part of the solution will be toning T3Ds down (to more of the hecate's level of power), among other nerfs, which I believe CCP is working on with a focus group. Apart from that, we've seen a lot of willingness from CCP in coming up with unique roles and role bonuses: Intys are interdiction immune, BCs got projection bonuses. Right now AFs have: 50% reduction in MWD sig radius penalty, which honestly isnt that great. Perhaps replacing this with an EWAR resistance bonus (something CCP has mentioned is possible soon), could be cool since it would let AFs be good against all the new navy ewar frigs and EAFs.

Still highly dependent on how much T3Ds get nerfed though.
Dyne Celsius
NeoDyne Laboratories
#31 - 2015-12-22 03:42:56 UTC
As another long time player I fully support this. You have a good head on your shoulders.

+1
Mr Hyde113
#32 - 2015-12-22 03:47:58 UTC
Liam Inkuras wrote:
What is your opinion on the popular F R I G A T E conspiracy surrounding CCP?


I think the evidence speaks for itself.

Also, memes melt steel beams.
Globby
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#33 - 2015-12-22 03:55:25 UTC
+24 votes
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#34 - 2015-12-22 04:25:31 UTC
I approve this message. End the F R I G A T E menace!

Let it be known, ships larger than destroyers exist.
Dectoris
Carpe Noctem.
Pandemic Legion
#35 - 2015-12-22 04:39:32 UTC
A wonderful guy and an easy vote. I have no doubt he would do wonders for the player base on the CSM. He already inspires tons of people to get into the game and stay for the long haul. +1
Jousake Hiroshi
Hoover Inc.
Pandemic Legion
#36 - 2015-12-22 04:43:57 UTC
HYDE 2016

I'm black hi, nice to meet you

Shank Ronuken
TURN LEFT
HYDRA RELOADED
#37 - 2015-12-22 05:33:21 UTC
What is your plan for making Thera great again?

How will you combat the hordes of illegal Volta pouring into Paleo by the day?

Will we ever see you fit a nanofiber again?
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2015-12-22 06:31:43 UTC
Mr Hyde113 wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I don't need to see a platform, more a reaction to how you will deal with specific issues. So if they decided to spend time on assault frigates to bring them up to survivable again what stand would you take?

m



Understandable, and expected since that is the way for you to get a sense of where my head is on the issues. However, I have to say that the CSM in many ways isn't about CCP saying, "hey guys, this needs fixing, fix it", but rather "we were thinking this, what do you think".


I think that T3ds really put AFs in a terrible place, since before their introduction, AFs were pretty cost effective for what they did. Many would like to just see buffs to AFs, but I don't think letting the power creep train run in terms of increasing DPS/Tank stats is the way to go. You see this similar dynamic between HACs (except the ishtar, but that has been fixed mostly) and T3 Cruisers. The introduction of T3s really made HACs not as viable by comparison, but not bad before.

A big part of the solution will be toning T3Ds down (to more of the hecate's level of power), among other nerfs, which I believe CCP is working on with a focus group. Apart from that, we've seen a lot of willingness from CCP in coming up with unique roles and role bonuses: Intys are interdiction immune, BCs got projection bonuses. Right now AFs have: 50% reduction in MWD sig radius penalty, which honestly isnt that great. Perhaps replacing this with an EWAR resistance bonus (something CCP has mentioned is possible soon), could be cool since it would let AFs be good against all the new navy ewar frigs and EAFs.

Still highly dependent on how much T3Ds get nerfed though.


well done and well said. Yoou show the maturity to accept the external conditions, the wisdom to avoid power creep.

you have a slot on my ballot unless you step on your . . .tongue between now and the election

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Bisu Deckryder
Definitely Not Cloaked LLC
Initiative Mercenaries
#39 - 2015-12-22 07:25:51 UTC
Hyde 2016 make solo great again
big miker
NANO CONSPIRACY
Thermodynamics
#40 - 2015-12-22 09:26:22 UTC
This might ectually be the first time ever i'll be voting for someone.
Very cool seeing you apply for CSM. Since we share alot of experience pvp wise i'll gladly help out or discuss certain aspects of the game! I want to see the game healthy again pvp wise l.

Good luck on the campaign!