Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

22 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Kelduum Revaan - Running for CSM7

Jump to first DEV post
Author
#1 Posted: 2012.02.08 01:09  |  Edited by: Kelduum Revaan
After it being suggested for some years now, I've finally decided to run for CSM7.


Who Am I?

For those who don’t know me, I am Kelduum Revaan, CEO of EVE University for the past two years, and director for more than three years before that. For those not familiar with E-UNI, we are the most successful training corp in EVE and one of the few truly altruistic groups. We provide an assortment of resources to the EVE community, including education and training on various subjects as well as the UniWiki. We are funded primarily from donations from the community, both in time (none of our staff are paid) and other more tangible resources, and our members may stay as long as they want before they move on to other corporations while remaining a part of our community.

During my time with the Uni, I have seen the corp go from a handful of players to over 2,000 active members, and have seen tens of thousands of characters pass through our doors - going on to be everything from alliance leaders to fleet commanders, wormhole dwellers, pirates and industrialists, as well as more than a few well known members of the EVE community.

Personally, I of course started out as a regular newbie, and soon moved to Director of Diplomacy for E-UNI, dealing with more than a few interesting situations; then to Director of Operations, where I took over the leadership reins of the Uni, helping it grow and dealing with many issues at every imaginable level; and finally to CEO, where I continue to lead the Uni to new strengths.

Outside of EVE I work as a ‘problem solver’ for a small internet provider in the UK, and use my significant experience in both programing and reverse engineering to resolve complex issues, which coupled with many years gaming experience, gives me further insight into how various mechanics interact within EVE.


Why Am I Running For CSM?

This is obviously the popular question. I believe the CSM needs an experienced yet neutral voice to help ensure balance and prevent control of the council from moving to push the agendas of any one player group to the detriment of the rest of the player base.

As it stands, CCPs recent refocusing on ‘Flying In Space’ and solving long older problems is a massive improvement over how things were this time last year, but it is important to ensure they continue on this path in a way that is even and balanced, maintaining and improving on existing systems in a way that benefits all players of all play-styles.

What makes EVE special is its community, which makes the universe both harsh and unforgiving, where the far side of every gate could see you in a new clone; whilst also being a catalyst for events like FanFest and other player meet-ups where bitter enemies can swap stories over a drink. However this community has a fragile balance which risks being disrupted if the CSM is populated by single-focus candidates.

With my experience and knowledge of the underlying mechanics of EVE, years of practice dealing with vastly differing viewpoints and a commitment to hear all sides before making any decisions, technical background, not to mention the thousands of alumni throughout the community who stay in contact with us, I feel I have the experience to be a valuable member of the CSM and serve the greater EVE community.


Why Should You Vote For Me?

  • I represent a neutral and balanced power, with nothing for myself or my corporation to gain from shifting the balance in EVE.
  • I have a proven track record of dispute resolution with hostile parties, collating all available information before making a decision.
  • I understand existing game systems very well, including the lesser understood and more complex ones such as corporation mechanics.
  • You think that overall EVE is not terminally ‘broken’ barring a few areas, and feel that CCP should continue iterating on existing mechanics and improving them, rather than diversifying into different systems which spread their focus.




If you have any other questions, please feel free to post them here and I will answer them, or alternatively you can use my Formspring account to ask anonymously and I will post them here.
Kelduum Revaan
CEO, EVE University (Retired)
The Honda Accord
#2 Posted: 2012.02.08 01:12
Eve Uni needs a voice in the CSM and I have no doubt you'll gain a seat!

Congratulations on your anouncement and eventual success in the CSM 7 elections!

Issler Dainze
CSM 7 Candidate
Gallente Federation
#3 Posted: 2012.02.08 01:44
I support Kelduum's move from Shadow CSM to CSM.
Gallente Federation
#4 Posted: 2012.02.08 02:23
Dedicated awesome EVE player and epic noobie helper. He'll help balancing the hi, low, null, and W-Space traffics and mechanics with his awesome ideas. :)
#5 Posted: 2012.02.08 02:57  |  Edited by: Poetic Stanziel
I thought you were representing everyone.

http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com/2012/02/csm7-i-represent-eve-university.html

I don't represent EVE University. Obviously. Kelduum, as part of his CSM7 platform, has stated he represents everybody. I called bullshit on that earlier.

I'd like to point out a few of his public comments concerning his platform which give way to the lie that he represents anybody other than EVE University. He wants to see changes implemented that benefit his organization (hard to fault him for that, I'm sure The Mittani wants to benefit Goonswarm).

We'll start off with some of his comments made on the EVE Online forums, specifically where I ask him a few questions.
Quote:
Q: Would you push for a special designation (e.g. training corporation) for EVE University, to exempt them from a war declaration system?

A: Believe it or not, if CCP offered me some kind of 'special designation' tomorrow, I would very likely say no.
The answer seems fine on the surface. It is curious he didn't outright say "No," but qualified his answer with a "very likely". I wonder what offer might be made that would change a "very likely no" into a "yes."

Specifically on war declaration mechanics:
Quote:
Q: What methods would you suggest to CCP for defenders to end wardecs?

A: A moderately expensive structure, which projects a 'bubble of nullsec' around it (and can't be anchored too near anything like gates/belts etc), can optionally be fuelled to increase its EHP, and must be online to keep the war running, but at less cost.

However being in nullsec anyone (for example, mercenaries or even someone who doesn't like the aggressors) could get involved and help kill/repair/defend it, increasing options for interaction between players.
Here's where we start getting into the suggestions that benefit nobody in highsec except for EVE University. He suggests a structure that can be destroyed. Destroy it before the normal timed ending to a war, the war ends early. Exactly who does this benefit except a corporation that can quickly field a fleet of 50-200 ships to smash the structure in record time? It certainly wouldn't benefit small corporations and alliances. But a corporation well-known for its blob warfare, they could end wars within hours of them beginning. This is a suggestion meant to benefit any corporation or alliance that can bring massive numbers to bear quickly. No thought is given at all to small and medium alliances. Certainly not a component of a platform of someone aiming to represent everyone.

Now let's grab something he wrote over on the EVE University forums, a head-ups on his CSM agenda to his prime constituency.
Quote:
The wardec systems clearly need a rewrite, both eliminate the existing loopholes in them as well as encourage PvP against groups who can/will fight.
The important aspect of this comment is the part where he wants to "encourage PvP against groups who can/will fight." Basically, he wants to encourage a war declaration system that will not include corporations and alliances not interested in non-consensual PvP. In other words, he's looking for a war declaration system that encourages consensual PvP. EVE University is the biggest detractor of the current war declaration system (before CCP started allowing exploits to be used), and has never enjoyed going to war unless it was a) mutual, and b) arranged. It should be little surprise that Kelduum aims to champion a system that will keep EVE University free of conflict that is not of its choosing.

This final bit, from his official announcement for candidacy is a lol.
Quote:
I believe the CSM needs an experienced yet neutral voice to help ensure balance and prevent control of the council from moving to push the agendas of any one player group to the detriment of the rest of the player base.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com
Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
#6 Posted: 2012.02.08 03:10
Awesome first massive attack of the race. Congrats
Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
#7 Posted: 2012.02.08 05:05  |  Edited by: Shazzam Vokanavom
Problem is Poetic Stanza's main points are based around manipulating the scemantics with supposition of her interpretations as opposed to any real concrete evidence.



Case and point, the idea that a person is capable of representing more than in his own turf on the CSM is the very premise of his campaign as he has stated. Other CSM candidates have stated their limited interests.

Also just because other elements of the CSM have demonstrated selfish interests, which PS seems to also want to confirm, doesn't mean you can equally judge someone else by the same standard or use it as a rule of thumb for other candidates. That's just engineering the truth for all candidates yet to demonstrate their stance.

So just because a candidate wishes to exercise philanthrophy and sees this as a sufficiently fair stance to adopt that is mutually beneficial to all thereby including his own constituents. I actually see it as very refreshing that a canidate is actually looking at CCPs original intentions for the CSM in the way it was intended.

CSM Constitutional wrote:
The key question that council members must consider before casting their vote is whether or not the issue at hand has the potential to improve or otherwise benefit the entire EVE society, and not just a select group within the community that was successful in bringing attention to their unique case. Seeing the big picture—in this case, the needs of a society with over 300.000 individuals—is the primary responsibility of a CSM Representative, and reconciling that view with the interests that won them the election is the greatest challenge they will face in this implementation.




This is again seen in the interpretation of the point about war decs.

Quote:
The wardec systems clearly need a rewrite, both eliminate the existing loopholes in them as well as encourage PvP against groups who can/will fight.


Of which PS wishes to make people see this as a move to introduce a consensual system.

And yet the very definition of a loophole is "an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system." So if he is trying to eliminate these rules that prevent PvP, why would he push for consensual PvP as desirable."

Whereas if you look at the derivation of why PS makes this ill founded conclusion its due to the "can/will" in the encouragement of PvP part. Could be easily interpretable as "I dont wish to prescribe how people choose their tactics to fight, but if loopholes are removed, it will encourage fighting for those who wish to undock and engage". I'll let Kelduum confirm of course, but just shows how it can be "sensibly" interpreted. Which when you look at the "complete" point made as opposed to just the sub focussed text provided for the argument in context it makes a lot more sense:

Quote:
Assuming the mechanics are pretty robust, DecShields wouldn't be possible no, but they wouldn't be as needed.

Believe it or not, if CCP offered me some kind of 'special designation' tomorrow, I would very likely say no. While recognition is nice, E-UNI is very much proud of its independence, and updated wardec mechanics (broadly) as described above would resolve the problems we have with the current setup. Similarly, if we wanted to be exempt from the wardec system, we could have closed the corp many years ago, and become something akin to Project Halibut, retaining the forums, wiki etc, but no corp as such.


Key part being that he doesn't want to be exempt from the war dec system, ergo, not a consensual preference.



I have to admit however that the "Bubble" mechanic likley needs some work for Guerilla tactics to be represented. But the balance of power relating to small organisations war deccing larger ones isn't really going to be favourable for them anyway. Or shouldn't in theory. To be honest my personal view of any "capture the flag" type mechanics shouldn't really be the enforcement to offical hostilities and needs to be less geographically orientated or requireing a "placed" or "fixed" presence. Of course SoV capturing is a little different to high sec mechanics with specific objects in space needeing to be overcome and owned as a result so it could be something to introduce alongside those for null sec wars. It would be interesting to see the point in full context as it may have been a topic relating to SoV warfare.


So PS other than you "dont believe" it all, what real evidence is there? Nothing, its just pure conjecture, but actually, your only really making yourself look like an idiot as a "straw man" as a result.
#8 Posted: 2012.02.08 06:44
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Of which PS wishes to make people see this as a move to introduce a consensual system.
There is Kelduum's history to back up my interpretations. All you have is wishful thinking.

For instance, on the day that CCP allowed corps to set-up multi-corp decshields (E-Uni's is 19 corporations strong), Kelduum let out a cheer on the forums. Kelduum has NEVER liked non-consensual PvP, he feels it is disruptive to the University. Every wardec suggestion he puts forth is to limit the ability of others to force the University into fights it just doesn't want to be part of.

The Uni will only be part of PvP on its own terms. That is the mission statement of Kelduum, and that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members. They know he's going to go into the CSM and fight hard for a very particular type of war declaration mechanic, one that keeps the University at peace for exceptionally long periods of time.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com
Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
#9 Posted: 2012.02.08 06:49  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Quote:
Similarly, if we wanted to be exempt from the wardec system, we could have closed the corp many years ago, and become something akin to Project Halibut, retaining the forums, wiki etc, but no corp as such.
Key part being that he doesn't want to be exempt from the war dec system, ergo, not a consensual preference.
Nobody will be exempt from any war declaration system, but the sorts of mechanics he'll fight for, it will be exceptionally hard to pull certain corporations and alliances into an extended war.

For instance, using Kelduum's Capture the Flag idea. Sure, you can wardec the Uni under that system (i.e., they are not exempt), but they can crush the structure hours into any war. So, yeah, under Kelduum;s proposed plan, one can wardec the University for hours at a time. Sounds to me that, for all practical purposes, they would be exempt from war.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com
Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
#10 Posted: 2012.02.08 07:42
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Of which PS wishes to make people see this as a move to introduce a consensual system.
There is Kelduum's history to back up my interpretations. All you have is wishful thinking.

For instance, on the day that CCP allowed corps to set-up multi-corp decshields (E-Uni's is 19 corporations strong), Kelduum let out a cheer on the forums. Kelduum has NEVER liked non-consensual PvP, he feels it is disruptive to the University. Every wardec suggestion he puts forth is to limit the ability of others to force the University into fights it just doesn't want to be part of.

The Uni will only be part of PvP on its own terms. That is the mission statement of Kelduum, and that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members. They know he's going to go into the CSM and fight hard for a very particular type of war declaration mechanic, one that keeps the University at peace for exceptionally long periods of time.


Big difference between making things difficult for others to war dec EvE-Uni and a view of wanting sensible consensual war dec mechanics.

As i understand it, EvE Uni have set up a large number of their own alliance corporation members to war dec the Uni on an ongoing basis to make it expensive for anyone external to do so.

This is due to the fact that the majority of new players who are interested in learning the game should be afforded a sensible umbrella and not be exploited by numerous other organisations. Or do others simply want to prey on easy targets less than a week old into their EvE experience? As given what EvE Uni represents it is the "recognised" sensible first step for new players, easpecially when alternative larger corps are mostly inaccesable due to SP requirements.

As such EvE Uni is paying significant sums to afford this umbrella, so hats off to them in doing so. But it is in no way preventative of anyone war deccing them if they really wanted to. Nor does it advocate a consensual PvP model as a result, its simply paying for a significant defence stratergy that seems helpfull for the Uni's purposes.

Its not like they are using a dec shield to simply shirk off wars, or droping members or corp hoping as others do to avoid conflict like most griefers. And personally I think its only griefers who want a lazy time in war deccing new players straight out of boot camp in large numbers that is the problem here. Perhaps this is the real agenda?

"that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members" - or your consistant view of what you want to believe it more like and twist things around because you have a personal beef that a large alliance pays for protection to new players from lazy griefer types like yourself.

To be honest if CCP said to EvE - UNI do you want the status where you can neither start a war or be war decced in return, I'd personally be happy for them to have it as at least it affords a reasonable start for newer players to get used to things in a social environment and at least get some understanding and at least a few skill points under their belt before being exposed to certain harsh realities. The only stipulation would be that members who don't hold an offical office position would require to leave or be placed after a certain period of time, SP points or graduation. (This is "MY" personal take on things however and should not be manipulated as EvE Uni views, before you start)

So in short I think your manipulation of certain views here is reallu unjustified, as I believe them to be in conflict with your need for lazy kill board padding etc. (Moreso relevant when you look at your failure of a KB which unsuprisingly has a history of losses to EvE Uni players, maybe some personal motivation due to failure as a pilot here?).

Needless to say, your points are still speculative. You appear to potentially have an alteria personal motive that might be clouding judgement. I still have to call "straw man" simply based on the kinds of claims you are consistantly fabricating.
Caldari State
#11 Posted: 2012.02.08 08:00  |  Edited by: CCP Phantom
For what it's worth, i like Kelduum at least he seems like he cares enough to at least take a look at the problems of people other than himself or his own corporation.

Edit: Off topic posts removed, CCP Phantom.
#12 Posted: 2012.02.08 08:08
I'll cover some of Mr. Stanziel's claims here:

1. If CCP offered me 5 million dollars to make E-UNI into an NPC corp, or an other equally implausible situation, then I may say yes. Apart from that, theres little we would benefit from barring the recognition, and some times is far more advantageous to remain independent.

2. I would support a rework of the wardec mechanics which would put a little power to end the conflict in the hands of the 'defender', however this should not be without significant cost and/or danger. Similarly, the ability of mercenaries to get involved in ongoing conflicts without the normal warmup timers its something that is sorely missing at the moment.

3. If I wanted EVE University to become 'unwardecable' then I would have dissolved the actual corporation some time ago. The vast majority of what we do doesn't explicitly require the corporation structure itself, and could fairly easy be moved to a series of chat channels or similar. Clearly, this isn't the case.


Finally, this may be worth a read, posted by Poetic a few months ago:
"Poetic Stanziel" wrote:
I just play on Kelduum's relationship with CCP strongly . . . Or I take what other Uni's accidentally say and make it into something larger. I connect dots. What I write is true at the basic level . . . , and then magnify it tenfold. Just generally working to trash their rep.
(source)
Kelduum Revaan
CEO, EVE University (Retired)
Margin of Silence
#13 Posted: 2012.02.08 09:29
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Of which PS wishes to make people see this as a move to introduce a consensual system.
There is Kelduum's history to back up my interpretations. All you have is wishful thinking.

For instance, on the day that CCP allowed corps to set-up multi-corp decshields (E-Uni's is 19 corporations strong), Kelduum let out a cheer on the forums. Kelduum has NEVER liked non-consensual PvP, he feels it is disruptive to the University. Every wardec suggestion he puts forth is to limit the ability of others to force the University into fights it just doesn't want to be part of.

The Uni will only be part of PvP on its own terms. That is the mission statement of Kelduum, and that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members. They know he's going to go into the CSM and fight hard for a very particular type of war declaration mechanic, one that keeps the University at peace for exceptionally long periods of time.


Big difference between making things difficult for others to war dec EvE-Uni and a view of wanting sensible consensual war dec mechanics.

As i understand it, EvE Uni have set up a large number of their own alliance corporation members to war dec the Uni on an ongoing basis to make it expensive for anyone external to do so.

This is due to the fact that the majority of new players who are interested in learning the game should be afforded a sensible umbrella and not be exploited by numerous other organisations. Or do others simply want to prey on easy targets less than a week old into their EvE experience? As given what EvE Uni represents it is the "recognised" sensible first step for new players, easpecially when alternative larger corps are mostly inaccesable due to SP requirements.

As such EvE Uni is paying significant sums to afford this umbrella, so hats off to them in doing so. But it is in no way preventative of anyone war deccing them if they really wanted to. Nor does it advocate a consensual PvP model as a result, its simply paying for a significant defence stratergy that seems helpfull for the Uni's purposes.

Its not like they are using a dec shield to simply shirk off wars, or droping members or corp hoping as others do to avoid conflict like most griefers. And personally I think its only griefers who want a lazy time in war deccing new players straight out of boot camp in large numbers that is the problem here. Perhaps this is the real agenda?

"that is the unspoken promise he makes to EVE University members" - or your consistant view of what you want to believe it more like and twist things around because you have a personal beef that a large alliance pays for protection to new players from lazy griefer types like yourself.

To be honest if CCP said to EvE - UNI do you want the status where you can neither start a war or be war decced in return, I'd personally be happy for them to have it as at least it affords a reasonable start for newer players to get used to things in a social environment and at least get some understanding and at least a few skill points under their belt before being exposed to certain harsh realities. The only stipulation would be that members who don't hold an offical office position would require to leave or be placed after a certain period of time, SP points or graduation. (This is "MY" personal take on things however and should not be manipulated as EvE Uni views, before you start)

So in short I think your manipulation of certain views here is reallu unjustified, as I believe them to be in conflict with your need for lazy kill board padding etc. (Moreso relevant when you look at your failure of a KB which unsuprisingly has a history of losses to EvE Uni players, maybe some personal motivation due to failure as a pilot here?).

Needless to say, your points are still speculative. You appear to potentially have an alteria personal motive that might be clouding judgement. I still have to call "straw man" simply based on the kinds of claims you are consistantly fabricating.

Hell no.

Eve Uni is JUST ANOTHER CORP/ALLIANCE

Their direction is about teaching noobs. That is fine. Other corps focus on pvp or living in a wormhole. Other focus on incursions or missions. Some ever mine. A person signs up to a corp because it offers them something they wish to share in.

At the end of the day though, what makes Eve unique and therefore "EvE" is that everyone has to play by the same set of rules. The uni can field low sec roam blobs like few else can due to their size. They should be able to steamrole by weight of numbers. However that requires ORGANISATION and leadership, the same as any other corp requires to survive a PvP engagement in Eve.

Will they lose the odd ship to 2 man war deccers? Yes. But so what - it will teach the noob far more then living in a bubble ever will.

A University in the real world does not protect their students. They challenge them, force them to to excel and most importantly, how to think and learn for themselves. That is what the Uni should be doing.
<Insert witty comment here>
#14 Posted: 2012.02.08 09:56
Har Harrison wrote:
A University in the real world does not protect their students. They challenge them, force them to to excel and most importantly, how to think and learn for themselves. That is what the Uni should be doing.


Somewhat off topic (this is CSM stuff really), but I do hope that's what we are already doing in E-UNI, at least to the extent possible in EVE.

If not (and this goes for everyone), drop me an EVEmail with why you think this isn't the case, and I will address any concerns you may have.
Kelduum Revaan
CEO, EVE University (Retired)
#15 Posted: 2012.02.08 12:51
Flay, that is truly an awesome eagle. +1 Internets for you.

For those of you wondering abut the DecShield, it only makes wars more expensive, and doesn't prevent them as all in aim noted at the end of last year.

Despite the DecShield, Mangala Solaris of Red vs Blue contacted us and we recently had a load of fun with them over the weekend, and much explosions were had by all, and if anyone else wants to arrange something similar, let us know.

Not to mention of course that if you had the resources and knowledge to dissuade people from making silly mistakes, would you not use them?
Kelduum Revaan
CEO, EVE University (Retired)
#16 Posted: 2012.02.08 13:45
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Big difference between making things difficult for others to war dec EvE-Uni and a view of wanting sensible consensual war dec mechanics.

There is no such thing as a SENSIBLE consensual war dec mechanic.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com
Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
#17 Posted: 2012.02.08 13:46
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Despite the DecShield, Mangala Solaris of Red vs Blue contacted us and we recently had a load of fun with them over the weekend, and much explosions were had by all, and if anyone else wants to arrange something similar, let us know.

Arranged, consensual wars and/or 1B ISK war declarations ... this is the FUTURE Kelduum Revaan promises for EVE Online players.
Amarr Militia - Fweddit - http://fweddit.com
Poetic Discourse - http://poeticstanziel.blogspot.com
#18 Posted: 2012.02.08 14:23  |  Edited by: Kelduum Revaan
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Kelduum Revaan wrote:
Despite the DecShield, Mangala Solaris of Red vs Blue contacted us and we recently had a load of fun with them over the weekend, and much explosions were had by all, and if anyone else wants to arrange something similar, let us know.

Arranged, consensual wars and/or 1B ISK war declarations ... this is the FUTURE Kelduum Revaan promises for EVE Online players.

Again, Poetic, please provide some proof to back up your claims.

Seriously, you should go back to being a journalist - it made you look much less crazy. The Multiple posts don't help much either.


Also, a big long post (or series of posts depending on character count) detailing my viewpoints on various gameplay options in EVE, coming this evening when I can tidy them up and post them properly.

Edit: Posted here
Kelduum Revaan
CEO, EVE University (Retired)
#19 Posted: 2012.02.08 14:46
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Shazzam Vokanavom wrote:
Big difference between making things difficult for others to war dec EvE-Uni and a view of wanting sensible consensual war dec mechanics.

There is no such thing as a SENSIBLE consensual war dec mechanic.


Exactly, but this is the false projection "you" are wanting to convey against the reality that EvE Uni are only paying to make things diffcult, hence why expressed it as such.

Twist meaning much? Oh wait, we already established that.
Late Night Alliance
#20 Posted: 2012.02.08 15:19
Kelduum Revaan wrote:

Somewhat off topic (this is CSM stuff really), but I do hope that's what we are already doing in E-UNI, at least to the extent possible in EVE.


Well, I can give you my perspective. I won't pretend to know exactly what kind of classes you teach, but literally every single time I've encountered an EvE Uni fleet "in the wild" its been in the form of a hideously massive blob that steamrolls through sections of lowsec or null sec looking for fights.

The problem is, you can't take a massive group tour-bus style and roam in low sec and hope to get fights. First of all, no one will engage you, if they know they can't match the numbers. How will the students learn to fight if you put them in situations where no one will fight them? Secondly, even if you do find a fight, large class sizes make for less individual student attention - this is the same problem we have in RL education systems.

Low sec combat pilots are a different breed than most. A lot of the militia troops I know actually apologize when they accidently blob a lone enemy - the overwhelming force is so unchallenging we have a "survivor's guilt" sort of complex where we wish we had worked harder for the kill. We pride ourselves on hard-earned kills, plain and simple. It's one of the many mentalities that seperates low sec culture, from null sec culture.

It's also why I've explained that the Mittani's "hate fuels war in 0.0" philosophy, while likely true, is a psychological element that is completely alien to low sec culture. It's also why the plans he repeatedly endorses for linking the FW sovereignty systems with 0.0 sovereignty systems are functionally D.O.A. in terms of being anything that will actually benefit Faction Warfare.

For CCP, linking the two is about laziness when it comes to development time. For The Mittani, it's about making sure if anything breaks, it happens to the FW crowd and not to his players in 0.0 space.

But I digress.

Just wanted to pass along the advice, from a veteran PvP pilot. Kill the giant class sizes - they won't teach your pilots much except maybe how to shut up on comms and how to align and warp. (Important skills, but only the beginning).

You really should know that most PvP pilots in the game (everyone I've talked to in low, and null alike) considers EvE Uni kind of a joke in terms of combat training. I'm not saying that to be mean, its just something you should know, so you can adapt your training program to more closely simulate "realistic" combat situations. If you want to be taken seriously as an educational system, make sure your combat training program is actually respected by real combat pilots. Otherwise, you lead new players into a false sense that they actually are preparing themselves for life beyond high sec.

Take some small gangs out (10 or less) in rifters. Roam them as far into low sec as you can go and kill whatever you can before you all die. Than reship and do it again. And again. You'll teach them a lot more than staying "safe" by hiding in the blob.
CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
22 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump