These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Capri Sun KraftFoods - CSM XII

First post
Author
Aram Kachaturian
Aram Pleasure Hub Holding
#21 - 2017-01-25 11:24:11 UTC
High quality candidacy. Good looking despite pleb background.

Free in the mind, thug in the heart, reminds me my youth years.

Would follow to whatever end.

Servant of the Secret League, Wielder of the Monocle Clubhouse Flame.

Seraph IX Basarab
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#22 - 2017-01-27 20:36:55 UTC
What are some of the main changes you would propose?
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#23 - 2017-01-27 20:47:21 UTC
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
What are some of the main changes you would propose?


I'm not really going in with a wishlist of stuff I want CCP to do because like I said in my OP, that isn't how the CSM works. It's a sounding board. In terms of key points I'd like to see more rollbacks from Phoebe, and the entire Entosis mechanic removed and replaced with something else.
Seraph IX Basarab
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#24 - 2017-01-27 22:28:35 UTC
Rolled back how?

What about the sov mechanics would you want changed?
Rosewalker
Khumaak Flying Circus
#25 - 2017-01-29 22:25:56 UTC
I just have a few questions I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering.

1. In your time with Black Legion, you mention you helped out with a lot of tasks. Could you give some examples so we know more about your experience in EVE?

2. Given that you are in both Hard Knocks and Adversity., which area of space do you think needs more attention from CCP, null sec or w-space? Why?

3. Looking at your posting history on Reddit, you seem to have some experience working with CREST and the APIs. What do you think about CCP’s move to ESI and their implementation so far?

4. Recently you stated that EVE is not a game for those looking for a good PvE experience. What in your opinion makes for a good PvE experience?

5. You stated that most of your concerns over structures have been alleviated. What concerns do you still have?

Thank you

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#26 - 2017-02-01 18:33:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Capri Sun KraftFoods
Rosewalker wrote:
I just have a few questions I wonder if you wouldn't mind answering.

1. In your time with Black Legion, you mention you helped out with a lot of tasks. Could you give some examples so we know more about your experience in EVE?



  • Recruited a few corps
  • Did virtually all market stocking for at least a year
  • Did a large amount of the JFing
  • Placed strategic JC ship caches around
  • Had about 15 cyno alts all over EVE in an alt corp with offices everywhere pre-phoebe to get us anywhere
  • ^ Generally just did any cyno chain with some help from a corp mate we needed for an op
  • Was acting CEO for the last few months before it disbanded
  • Handled all the logistics of owning SOV in Fountain
  • FC'd several supercap ops
  • Generally just backup FC'd


Basically just the main "useful people" type dude for the time I was there. If you're not familiar with how larger PVP focused groups work, the best comparison I could give is Doug Stamper's character in House of Cards. Logistics > Support Roles in Fleets > Backup FC in that order roughly.

Quote:
2. Given that you are in both Hard Knocks and Adversity., which area of space do you think needs more attention from CCP, null sec or w-space? Why?


They both need attention, but I'd say null sec needs it more urgently. Null sec has had a complete overhaul in the last year and a bit, those changes now need review and iteration as there are some major glaring issues. Citadel changed a lot in W-space, but it seems to have settled. What W-space needs is mostly QoL improvements and minor-ish tweaks to get more people into them.

CCP has various teams that work on different areas of the game so in reality it's not an "either/or" situation. For example there's a team that focuses in widescale game mechanics like Sovereignty and Faction Warfare (who's name I can't seem to remember), and there's the recently formed Team Phenomenon who work on PVE. Null sec needs changes to the sov system and a lot of the main gripes in W-space are about PVE. They can deal with both at the same time.

Quote:
3. Looking at your posting history on Reddit, you seem to have some experience working with CREST and the APIs. What do you think about CCP’s move to ESI and their implementation so far?


It's a pretty unfortunate situation with no particularly great option. Right now we have an enormous amount of code and tools written on top of the XML API that we can be pretty confident aren't going to get rewritten for ESI as the people who wrote them don't play EVE anymore. For example, Evething (a sort of web-based evemon that's more focused towards handling a lot of characters and assets rather than just skill queues). That's a shame and as a community we'll all be worse off for it.

I can also understand the decision to deprecate CREST since there's apparently a lot of messy backend to it.

What I do think CCP fails to realise is the effect this is going to have on developer confidence long term. The major tools like zkillboard, evemon, pyfa/eft, will all get updated no problem, but for smaller projects like the various alliance auth systems, my own tools, etc, it severely dents our confidence in CCP to build a coherent, long term and backward compatible API system. The direct comparison I'd draw would be that to Microsoft switching their direction for GUI applications every few years and leaving all code written for the old one totally in the dirt.

The one criticism I'd have of the ESI API is it cuts up information way to broadly. This is inconvenient for developers and also creates a straw for this own back. For example the location API you call to get a player's current system has 2 seperate calls. One for the location and one for the ship. Why? There's tons of examples like this.

As long as CCP stick with ESI, it's a good system. The only major issue is a lack of confidence they won't.

Quote:
4. Recently you stated that EVE is not a game for those looking for a good PvE experience. What in your opinion makes for a good PvE experience?


Just speaking personally that's an area I'd have to defer to others. I've been been a big fan of primarily PVE games. Online multiplayer is what has always attracted me to every game I've played, so I feel like this is probably the one area I don't have much to contribute. I'm sort of okay with the current situation where it's basically risk/reward poker, but I can see why others wouldn't be and I'd be all for any improvements that still allowed me to spend the majority of time engaging with other players rather than red crosses.
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#27 - 2017-02-01 18:37:01 UTC
Quote:
5. You stated that most of your concerns over structures have been alleviated. What concerns do you still have?


Well if you remember the open letter I wrote, there were 3 main concerns I had.

1) They won't generate large scale content as capitals wouldn't be required to hit them.
2) ^ This would also leave capitals without any real role in the game.
3) Moon Mining is huge top down source of income that funds the activities for a large number of alliances.

The first concern has been alleviated, to be quite frank, because I overestimated the average player. I'd spent a lot of time pitting individual or very small groups of capitals against optimally fit Astrahuses and Fortizars. Primarily because a well fit Astrahus, and especially fort have no problem killing a cheaply fit dread or carrier. Also the fact the Standup Void Bombs are pretty blatently overpowered. The vast, vast majority of citadels in the game seem to badly or entirely unfit and can't do this. Against more experienced groups, it seems like you can just drop more capitals than are really required and write off any losses as just the cost of doing business. The fight is usually decided before the fight even starts.

To the second concern, I'd simply refer you to this blog post I wrote a few weeks ago. The tl;dr would be that capitals now have a fleet role that allows them to be directly effective against subcaps meaning they are now just another step in the Cruiser > BC > BS > Carrier > etc progression.

To the third concern, we've still not seem Drilling Platforms yet so there's not much to comment on. I would note however that the prices of r64 materials has absolutely plummeted over the last year, reducing their value immensely. I'd say that's definitely a bad thing, but the effect of it is that we've largely lost r64s as a content generator anyway regardless of what CCP do with Drilling Platforms.
Seraph IX Basarab
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#28 - 2017-02-01 21:50:35 UTC
"They both need attention, but I'd say null sec needs it more urgently. Null sec has had a complete overhaul in the last year and a bit, those changes now need review and iteration as there are some major glaring issues. "

Like what specifically?
Mr Hyde113
#29 - 2017-02-06 09:01:54 UTC
I wholeheartedly support Capri for CSM 12. He is a level-headed and articulate player who will be able to build upon the successes of CSM 11 had in restoring productive relations with CCP. He has two of the most important skills for any successful CSM candidate: (1) Understanding the real role of the CSM and how council members should behave; and (2) proving well-written constructive feedback on the game without letting things get hostile.

It is easy to complain - the playerbase is very good at that. It is an entirely different thing to be able to find the root of a problem, and propose a well-thought-out solution or change that benefits the game as a whole. I am confident Capri will be a valuable addition to the CSM team, and will be able to bring his particular subject-matter expertise to bear while also supporting other areas such as game balance and small/solo pvp. Best of luck on your campaign.
Apothne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2017-02-17 07:38:31 UTC
I will be voting for Capri, you should too.
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#31 - 2017-02-28 18:06:30 UTC
https://soundcloud.com/mt-erall/tis-lounge-csm-series-capri-sun-kraftfoods My interview with Matterall for anyone who'd like to listen. Talked mainly about my history in the game.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2017-03-02 14:39:40 UTC
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC
Cochise Chiricahua
The Inglourious Bastards
Astral Battles
#33 - 2017-03-08 06:16:53 UTC
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#34 - 2017-03-08 16:00:30 UTC  |  Edited by: Capri Sun KraftFoods
edit wtf happened there delete this plz mods
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#35 - 2017-03-08 16:05:18 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


I think NPC standings as they currently pertain to anything besides agents is just an enormous inconvenience without adding any real flavour to the game. For example once being exposed to it, the vast majority of people liked the removal of the need to have 8.0 faction standings to use jump clone services in an NPC station. I'd like to see faction police removed for much the same reasons. If you spent a few months in Faction Warfare or maybe running null sec level 4s, they're just a hassle that'll follow you round for the rest of your EVE career unless you put a bunch of effort into fixing them. For someone like me who has a ton of alts it's not really a big deal, but I can imagine knowing the repercussions of this would put a lot of newer players off from trying out those otherwise fun activities.
DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2017-03-08 23:25:32 UTC
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


I think NPC standings as they currently pertain to anything besides agents is just an enormous inconvenience without adding any real flavour to the game. For example once being exposed to it, the vast majority of people liked the removal of the need to have 8.0 faction standings to use jump clone services in an NPC station. I'd like to see faction police removed for much the same reasons. If you spent a few months in Faction Warfare or maybe running null sec level 4s, they're just a hassle that'll follow you round for the rest of your EVE career unless you put a bunch of effort into fixing them. For someone like me who has a ton of alts it's not really a big deal, but I can imagine knowing the repercussions of this would put a lot of newer players off from trying out those otherwise fun activities.

Thanks for the reply.

Personally I think Faction standings should have a more meaningful impact on game play, especially since Eve Online is based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences'. That's what makes this game great. In the past characters were accountable for their actions, now most everything is being dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

In my opinion CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have positive Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. Having that requirement made Faction standings mean something more instead of just a way to access Agents or to get lower Broker fees.

Now I would love to see more content pertaining to positive Faction standings be added to the game. However at this time my inquiry is based on the negative effects of Faction standings to the playerbase. Since it takes time for players to ruin their Faction standings then it should also take some time to repair those standings. Unfortunately that info is basically nonexistent in-game when it should actually be readily available and easily understood by players.

I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase on the forums back in 2010. Over the past 7 years it has helped countless amount of players to rectify what seemed like an unsolvable issue. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in that guide. In fact most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life.

There's a lot of players in-game who don't read the forums and don't know that guide exists. They've basically accepted the fact they're cut off from engaging in available content due to negative Faction standings. Repairing negative standings is a big task even for experienced players who are familiar with 'The Plan'. New players who haven't learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings without even knowing it right from the start, resulting in no access to half of Empire space.

Anyway, I think all players should have the option in-game to gain Diplomatic Immunity with the Empire Factions. The fact that the info pertaining to Faction standing repair is hidden from players in-game is the reason for my post. After 7 years of helping players in the forums to repair negative Faction standings, I just wanted to provide some feedback through the CSM for CCP to consider.

I believe these options would definitely help all players in-game.

Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game and be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
Changes to Faction standings will notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
Actions that would cause negative Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning informing players those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
Implement Tags for Empire Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security.
Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

Once again good luck with the upcoming election.


DMC
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#37 - 2017-03-09 17:27:58 UTC
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.


Just to clarify where I'm coming from on this, I actually flew for Red Frog very early on in my EVE Career and I've made money for most of it through JFing. I've also lost a JF to suicide ganking, and come very close a couple more times.

As you say, suicide ganking is a pretty valid playstyle. A lot of people have fun doing it, and it's hard to say they aren't putting in the effort to get that reward.

What I would say is wrong however is the bumping mechanic. A bumping machariel properly piloted is as good if not better than a Warp disruptor (since you can't just reapproach the gate). I'd like to see CCP finally implement the always-warp-after-3-minutes change they talked about doing a while ago. If they did that, I really wouldn't have a problem at all with ganking.
Cade Windstalker
#38 - 2017-03-09 22:08:39 UTC
Hi Capri,

I have a somewhat more meta question for you that I haven't found answered yet so far. Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere, I honestly didn't look *that* hard.

What's your general approach to a disagreement? Either with CCP, with a player offering you feedback to pass along or just their own experiences, or with a fellow CSM?

You say you believe the CSM should be a sounding board for CCP, and I agree, but what's your approach if you and another CSM are giving contradictory information or testimony?

Regards,

-Cade
Capri Sun KraftFoods
Adversity.
Psychotic Tendencies.
#39 - 2017-03-10 16:32:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Capri Sun KraftFoods
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Hi Capri,

I have a somewhat more meta question for you that I haven't found answered yet so far. Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere, I honestly didn't look *that* hard.

What's your general approach to a disagreement? Either with CCP, with a player offering you feedback to pass along or just their own experiences, or with a fellow CSM?

You say you believe the CSM should be a sounding board for CCP, and I agree, but what's your approach if you and another CSM are giving contradictory information or testimony?

Regards,

-Cade


I'm a big fan of the Dialectic. In short, I really enjoy arguing and debating because I'm quite good at not becoming emotionally invested in any particular position. Basically I believe that there is always a right answer and if you disagree with someone, the best way for both of you to get there is by comparing notes on how you ended up at your different positions. Usually someone will be "more right" than the other, but even if someone is completely wrong, hearing them out and finding out why they think that allows you to incorporate a sensitivity towards that position into your own. It's possible to believe the wrong thing for the right reasons.

If it came to a point where myself and another CSM disagreed on something, or even a CCP employee, I'd be quite happy laying out in detail why I think what I think and letting it stand on its own.

At the end of the day, there's no reason to fall out with someone just because you disagree on a few issues.
Cade Windstalker
#40 - 2017-03-10 21:04:17 UTC
Capri Sun KraftFoods wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Hi Capri,

I have a somewhat more meta question for you that I haven't found answered yet so far. Forgive me if this has been answered somewhere, I honestly didn't look *that* hard.

What's your general approach to a disagreement? Either with CCP, with a player offering you feedback to pass along or just their own experiences, or with a fellow CSM?

You say you believe the CSM should be a sounding board for CCP, and I agree, but what's your approach if you and another CSM are giving contradictory information or testimony?

Regards,

-Cade


I'm a big fan of the Dialectic. In short, I really enjoy arguing and debating because I'm quite good at not becoming emotionally invested in any particular position. Basically I believe that there is always a right answer and if you disagree with someone, the best way for both of you to get there is by comparing notes on how you ended up at your different positions. Usually someone will be "more right" than the other, but even if someone is completely wrong, hearing them out and finding out why they think that allows you to incorporate a sensitivity towards that position into your own. It's possible to believe the wrong thing for the right reasons.

If it came to a point where myself and another CSM disagreed on something, or even a CCP employee, I'd be quite happy laying out in detail why I think what I think and letting it stand on its own.

At the end of the day, there's no reason to fall out with someone just because you disagree on a few issues.


Love this answer, I think you just earned yourself a spot on my ballot Big smile
Previous page12