CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
4 PagesPrevious page1234Next page
 

Psianh Auvyander for CSM 9

First post
Author
No Not Believing
#21 - 2014-02-24 23:30:13 UTC
As a CEO for a training corp, Psianh also brings new player focus with a pro-PVP bent and a knowledge of corp management issues.

"Alekseyev Karrde: mercenary of my heart." -Arydanika, Voices from the Void

Hero of the CSM Noir./Noir. Academy Recruiting: www.noirmercs.com

Hello Monument Visitor
#22 - 2014-02-25 15:53:25 UTC
Hello Psianh

I like your manifesto. It certainly strikes a chord with me.

In the interests of clarity, could you please define what you mean by small scale and medium scale? Some people have wildly varying definitions of these.

You appear to understand the role of the CSM quite well, which is good. Do you think you'll have the time and energy to fully commit to CSM duties? Almost without exception, newly elected CSM delegates are surprised at how much time & effort is required in order to make a good impact and be a successful player representative.
No Not Believing
#23 - 2014-02-25 23:23:25 UTC
Hello Monument Visitor wrote:
Hello Psianh

I like your manifesto. It certainly strikes a chord with me.

In the interests of clarity, could you please define what you mean by small scale and medium scale? Some people have wildly varying definitions of these.

You appear to understand the role of the CSM quite well, which is good. Do you think you'll have the time and energy to fully commit to CSM duties? Almost without exception, newly elected CSM delegates are surprised at how much time & effort is required in order to make a good impact and be a successful player representative.


Thanks for your support HMV!

I define small scale warfare by 10 or less people in a fleet. Medium scale warfare is 10 to 40 or so. It's semi flexible, but that's just to give an idea.

I have the capability, time, and energy to commit to CSM duties, yes. I'm sure that I too will be surprised by the duties, but I am fully aware of the commitment I am making by even running. I'm not completely inexperienced to this type of work as I've been a community manager for various projects - some of them quite demanding due to poor launches.
#24 - 2014-02-26 01:26:27 UTC
Hello everyone,

You can find Psianh Auvyander's interview which he had with me at the following link:

Mp3 Download Link:
http://www.legacyofacapsuleer.com/mp3/CSM9_interview_01_Psianh_Auvyander.mp3

Watch It On YouTube At:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-pvXQnLHkY

Hope you guys enjoy the interview and I hope you get to know Psianh Auvyander a bit better.

Greetz & thanks,

Tyrant Scorn
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2014-02-26 11:49:24 UTC
Do you think having two CSM representatives from one alliance might cause any problems on the CSM? Even though you are both awesome people?
I don't believe this has been done in the past quite often.
No Not Believing
#26 - 2014-02-26 13:46:56 UTC
Crazey Monkey wrote:
Do you think having two CSM representatives from one alliance might cause any problems on the CSM? Even though you are both awesome people?
I don't believe this has been done in the past quite often.


Not at all! Ali and I work very well together and get along famously. Furthermore, our focus is slightly different. While we're both very big proponents of transparency and communication, I'm focusing on the small and medium sized warfare in EVE. With this in mind, we should compliment one another quite well for the benefit of EVE as a whole.
Snuggle Society.
#27 - 2014-02-26 23:33:02 UTC
I support this.

I am just here to snuggle.

Suddenly Spaceships.
#28 - 2014-02-27 23:56:35 UTC
I'm support Psi here, did some amazing write-ups about mercs and supporting the mercenary and small/med gang lifestyle that CCP are so widely ignoring.

+1 Psi, vote for this guy!
-Buhhd
No Not Believing
#29 - 2014-02-28 03:16:20 UTC
As I stated earlier, you have my vote. However, We should stir up a little discussion here to push some fence sitters over the edge (hopefully) in the right direction.


Let's talk about your views on Link alts/ Off grid(or on) boosting. It's a very important mechanic for the livelihood of small gangs dunkin' gangs they should otherwise have no business fighting. How did you like the previous changes made to links and command ships and if CCP came to you saying "Psianh, over the next 6 months how should warfare links be handled?" How would you reply?
No Not Believing
#30 - 2014-02-28 03:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Psianh Auvyander
Fayral wrote:
As I stated earlier, you have my vote. However, We should stir up a little discussion here to push some fence sitters over the edge (hopefully) in the right direction.


Let's talk about your views on Link alts/ Off grid(or on) boosting. It's a very important mechanic for the livelihood of small gangs dunkin' gangs they should otherwise have no business fighting. How did you like the previous changes made to links and command ships and if CCP came to you saying "Psianh, over the next 6 months how should warfare links be handled?" How would you reply?


The command ship changes were a nice step, especially links not working inside POS shields. I'm a big advocate for on-grid boosting, but I'm aware that there may be some significant hurdles, code-wise, that may prevent this.

It's important that EVE always gives with the one hand while taking with the other. If something has a powerful advantage, it must have a strong disadvantage. Using a boosting ship offgrid gives a very powerful benefit with too small of a downside, and I'd be very much in favor of incentives for players to use their boosting ships in the fight.

If it were up to me and there were no limitations simply requiring boosts to be on grid would be my solution. Facing reality, we'd have to get outside of the box, such as having the effectiveness of links increase with the amount of ships that are in a certain radius, starting from a very low amount and rising to a ceiling - just as an example.

Again, it's important to balance positives with interesting negatives while offering incentives for players to take action, to actually play. I very strongly feel that encouraging people to DO things, to play EVE, is a healthy path for the future.
No Not Believing
#31 - 2014-03-02 03:13:13 UTC
I don't always vote for CSM reps.. But when I do I vote for Psianh Auvyander.
Diplomatic Immunity.
#32 - 2014-03-03 08:22:34 UTC
Good luck Psianh.

You certainly have a focus that my group of guys are very interested in.

I'd be interested in the null candidates opinions of perhaps lowering the hit points of station services to say POCO level hp to give the smaller gangs some a realistic way to skirmish

Resident forum troll and fashion consultant

#33 - 2014-03-03 09:09:30 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Psianh Auvyander wrote:

The "farms and fields" concept has some merit. It's one of the better suggestions that's made headway in the community in the last few years, and it's something that I'd definitely like to pursue. The overarching idea, that smaller, sub-capital fleets can disrupt the income and manufacturing of larger alliances is something we desperately need in EVE right now.


While it's not without controversy, I feel like I have to point out that the ESS is a pretty perfect example of both necessary sides of farms & fields - not merely giving smaller groups or even solo pilots tools to disrupt their foes, but giving the 'farmers' tools with which to cultivate their living space (which then, of course, those small groups or solo pilots can come along and steal or break!)


In it's current form? Arguably yes.

In it's orginally intended form? ************** no.

Anyway, +1 to the OP, Noir are good bros.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Affirmative.
#34 - 2014-03-03 09:41:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Sephira Galamore
Psianh Auvyander wrote:
If it were up to me and there were no limitations simply requiring boosts to be on grid would be my solution. Facing reality, we'd have to get outside of the box, such as having the effectiveness of links increase with the amount of ships that are in a certain radius, starting from a very low amount and rising to a ceiling - just as an example.


I generally agree and found it even nice to have the booster on grid occasionally since I finally got around training his gunnery skills.
But how would you deal with Orcs, Rorquals and mining links?
No Not Believing
#35 - 2014-03-03 13:16:47 UTC
Sith1s Spectre wrote:
Good luck Psianh.

You certainly have a focus that my group of guys are very interested in.

I'd be interested in the null candidates opinions of perhaps lowering the hit points of station services to say POCO level hp to give the smaller gangs some a realistic way to skirmish



I assume we're talking about the platforms here, and this is something I could get behind. It's not enough, and frankly I feel that tweaking hit points is a poor approach, but it's true that this is a way that smaller groups could effect the owner of a system if that smaller group is unable to go toe to toe.

But this sort of thing on its own would just end up with small groups being blobbed out by the larger alliances, similarly to what we're seeing now. This idea in itself wouldn't change anything, and in fact we'd probably see very little actual fighting over this objective in the real world. What we need are methods that encourage that very large blob to split its forces, methods that are organic and natural rather than mechanical.

If EVE could reach a place where we achieve that, then giving smaller groups another way to hit hard may be just the thing.
No Not Believing
#36 - 2014-03-03 13:23:50 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Psianh Auvyander wrote:
If it were up to me and there were no limitations simply requiring boosts to be on grid would be my solution. Facing reality, we'd have to get outside of the box, such as having the effectiveness of links increase with the amount of ships that are in a certain radius, starting from a very low amount and rising to a ceiling - just as an example.


I generally agree and found it even nice to have the booster on grid occasionally since I finally got around training his gunnery skills.
But how would you deal with Orcs, Rorquals and mining links?


I understand why people would want to keep their Orcas (hull cost: 600M) and Rorquals (hull cost 2B) away from danger, and that's a legitimate concern. I'm not informed enough on mining procedures to speculate on what kind of effect we'd see on the market if we had less mining links active.

Regardless, on grid boosting impacting the way people would use their mining links is a bridge I'd love to cross. My gut reaction is that if we're going to force people to put very expensive ships at risk for the mining link advantage, we'd simply have to give them a fair compensation for their risk. I'm sure there are many people who would scoff at the idea of placing their 2B ISK ship in danger, but that's what EVE is, at its core - increasing risk for increasing reward. This mindset can be applied to nearly every aspect of EVE.
Affirmative.
#37 - 2014-03-03 14:02:55 UTC
Psianh Auvyander wrote:
I understand why people would want to keep their Orcas (hull cost: 600M) and Rorquals (hull cost 2B) away from danger, and that's a legitimate concern. I'm not informed enough on mining procedures to speculate on what kind of effect we'd see on the market if we had less mining links active.

Regardless, on grid boosting impacting the way people would use their mining links is a bridge I'd love to cross. My gut reaction is that if we're going to force people to put very expensive ships at risk for the mining link advantage, we'd simply have to give them a fair compensation for their risk. I'm sure there are many people who would scoff at the idea of placing their 2B ISK ship in danger, but that's what EVE is, at its core - increasing risk for increasing reward. This mindset can be applied to nearly every aspect of EVE.

It will be hard to balance those advantages. Having an Orca on grid in HS is notably less risky than anywhere else.

Maybe you know, but since you mentioned that you are not well informed on mining... The Rorqual actually has to be in deployed mode to apply his full boosts. That means Heavy Water consumption and 5 minutes of immobility. With ore sites showing up on the system scanner this makes them an incredibly easy and expensive target - and that would propably mean they'd need a _considerable_ boost.
No Not Believing
#38 - 2014-03-03 14:24:37 UTC
Sephira Galamore wrote:
Psianh Auvyander wrote:
I understand why people would want to keep their Orcas (hull cost: 600M) and Rorquals (hull cost 2B) away from danger, and that's a legitimate concern. I'm not informed enough on mining procedures to speculate on what kind of effect we'd see on the market if we had less mining links active.

Regardless, on grid boosting impacting the way people would use their mining links is a bridge I'd love to cross. My gut reaction is that if we're going to force people to put very expensive ships at risk for the mining link advantage, we'd simply have to give them a fair compensation for their risk. I'm sure there are many people who would scoff at the idea of placing their 2B ISK ship in danger, but that's what EVE is, at its core - increasing risk for increasing reward. This mindset can be applied to nearly every aspect of EVE.

It will be hard to balance those advantages. Having an Orca on grid in HS is notably less risky than anywhere else.

Maybe you know, but since you mentioned that you are not well informed on mining... The Rorqual actually has to be in deployed mode to apply his full boosts. That means Heavy Water consumption and 5 minutes of immobility. With ore sites showing up on the system scanner this makes them an incredibly easy and expensive target - and that would propably mean they'd need a _considerable_ boost.


Yeah, I'm aware the mining links and combat links are really two different beasts. Changing all links to being on grid really changes the way mining links work, at its core. I'd be absolutely thrilled to hear ideas from people who are more knowledgeable than me on this subject, but as I stated, it's my understanding that on grid boosting isn't something that CCP is able or willing to do at this time, and we'll need to come up with better solutions.

If I'm elected as a CSM candidate my focus will remain on ensuring that small and medium scale warfare has an important and lively place in EVE Online. If you're looking to vote for an idea man on mining, I encourage you to look at our other candidates. However, if you're looking for a candidate who you can share your ideas with, no matter their focus, and trust that those ideas are considered, discussed, and relayed to the appropriate people in a timely manner, I encourage you to place me on your ballet. I want to open the channels between you, the community, and myself as wide as possible, and I want to ensure that legitimate concerns are being heard by CCP, that the thoughts of the community have a voice.
No Not Believing
#39 - 2014-03-03 14:54:15 UTC
Hey, I found a better question to ask :)

What feature over the past year do you see as the biggest failure, and either:
1) how would you change it to achieve similar objectives while avoiding the pitfalls in the present solution?
or
2) why is the problem it addresses not a problem or not worth solving?

http://warp-to-sun.tumblr.com -- my blog

No Not Believing
#40 - 2014-03-03 20:30:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Psianh Auvyander
Ali Aras wrote:
Hey, I found a better question to ask :)

What feature over the past year do you see as the biggest failure, and either:
1) how would you change it to achieve similar objectives while avoiding the pitfalls in the present solution?
or
2) why is the problem it addresses not a problem or not worth solving?


Siphons. Siphons have had the biggest potential with the largest failure in execution that we've seen over the last year. The idea of siphons is cool - no matter how large your alliance is, no matter how much space you own, guerrilla tactics can still have an impact on your production and income with siphons. Unfortunately, the game play is a complete flop, consisting of log in -> check for siphon -> if siphon, shoot -> else log off -> repeat tomorrow. Even the other side of the coin is uninteresting. Place siphon -> check later -> if siphon exists, take loot -> else place siphon.

Notice that there's no real connection between the people involved. That's the real issue; the idea is solid, the execution needs work. To change that, I'd like to give the two sides, the Defender (someone in the corporation who owns the POS) and the Attacker (someone looking to take the loot - note, this doesn't necessarily mean the person who put the siphon down) more interaction and competition.

As a Defender, you still must be diligent in your defensive watch. The first step is noticing the siphon, after all, but from there we diverge. A Defender must hack the siphon. A successful hack starts a reinforcement timer on the siphon, locking down all goods and stopping any siphoning. Both the Attacker and Defender are notified of this timer. An unsuccessful hack results in the siphon continuing as normal and no more hacking attempts may be attempted for a smallish amount of time.

Once the siphon exits its reinforcement timer, the Attacker and Defender must vie against one another in a tug-of-war hacking minigame - winner takes all.

This keeps the focus on small, gueirilla warfare - your 10,000 man alliance doesn't matter here! This is between you and me, mano y mano! - but gives both the attacker and defender more to do, more interaction with one another. An EVE where people don't need to come together, for or against one another, is an EVE that seems very boring indeed.
4 PagesPrevious page1234Next page
Forum Jump