CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
9 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM 9

First post First post
Author
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#1 - 2014-02-14 15:55:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
Do what my alliance name tells you to do!

Oh, you want reasons to do it? Bah. Some people are just never satisfied.

I guess I should start with an introduction. I'm a High-sec industrialist, who dabbles in Faction Warfare, and who has been going on the Ganked roams for a while. I'm also a third party developer, who runs https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ and http://evebloggers.com/

I ran for election last year, and was only stopped from being elected by the fact that CCP stole the position from me, by not having the CSM being 18 people Blink


You may have run into a number of the applications which I've written, such as https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/blueprints/ and https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/lpstore/ . There are a bunch of other tools on the site, and a bunch more that I have rattling round my head, but can't implement until CCP get round to releasing first SSO and then authenticated CREST. They have the potential to be real game changers with the metagame. CREST has to be managed carefully, to stop it from being used for bots, and other nefarious purposes. As a developer who works on tools for the general community, and as an active member of developer community, I'd say I'm in a good position to act as advocate and watch dog for it.

The rest of this post will be a series of statements, to give you insight into how I think. As the CSM is a lobbying body and a sounding board for proposed changes, an idea of how I'll react to things is valuabe. I might suggest changes, but I make no promises on them, as anyone that does, is lying to you.


The majority of my ISK is made by manufacturing Tech 2 things in a highsec POS. My RSI is crying out for changes to how the process runs. Not complete automation, as that would destroy the play style, but work to smooth it out and reduce the clicks. I've a few thoughts on fairly significant changes, such as pushing it to a more process based style, where you can set up a chain of activities and as long as you keep it fed, it just ticks over, but changing the chain costs time and possibly resources.

The core of Mining shouldn't change. The 'Target an asteroid, and let the mining lasers cycle' isn't a bad mechanic at its core. Not particularly fun, but sometimes relaxing to let run, much like ship spinning. If you want the frantic pace of PvP, well, you'd be blowing someone up. However, I'd like to see more structure built up around it. To be frank, respawning asteroid belts offend me. I'd like to see some kind of prospecting mechanism to find a good asteroid field to mine, and some kind of claim system for good rocks; mine a claimed roid, go suspect. For casual miners, I'd like to see them sub contracting to the major (npc) mining corporations, giving a cut of their proper ore but keeping the rest.
Edit for clarity: Prospecting would create sites, so it wouldn't be possible for bad actors to claim them all for the lulz. sub-contracting is another word for 'doing mining missions with real ore' Smile

I'd like to see jump bridging done away with, replaced with the ability to carry ships along with you, when you jump. This would be for carriers, super carriers, Titans and Black Ops. (A carrier/blops can jump a squad, Super carrier a wing, titan a fleet? probably more complicated than that)

I'd like to see a Modular Freighter, where you can swap out large blocks (like subsystems) to change the stats. Not giving them slots for regular modules as that'd be really hard to balance. But the choice between fitting all cargo modules, or fitting one cargo module and the rest as defensive ones. Or warp speed ones for when you don't want your brain to ooze between your ears.

CREST. Oh so much CREST. I want the game to be playable without requiring an external third party client to do anything. But a third party client might make things easier, or give extra capabilities. Like letting a fleet commander get his people to register, then have it give them a plan of who to put where, and what fleet doctrines can be flown. Removing the requirement for the grey area of cache scraping for market data would also be wonderful. (Yes, I know that's not all cache scraping is used for. I'm not forgetting you, people who write fitting tools)

NPC corporations need tweaked. I'd like to see there be more benefits for not being in them. Sometimes that's requiring a small nerf. Sometimes that's not giving NPC corp members new abilities. https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2014/02/07/csm-npc-corporations/ goes into more detail.

I've not had to suffer through Sov warfare. I'm really grateful for this. Now, large fleet fights have their place, and I'm aware that people like them. That's all find and good. But the large fleet fight shouldn't be the base unit of sov warfare. So, I'd like to see more small gang targets for the sov grind. Rate limited so huge corporations can't just steam roller in an off timezone, but meaningful. The huge throwdowns should be a riskier event, but one with a bigger pay out. ( https://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/2013/01/23/making-sov-more-fun/ is an older post. Not entirely valid now, but you can get the main thrust)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#2 - 2014-02-14 15:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
I like Dust. I'd like the link to be more meaningful though. A tie to the smaller targets in Sov Warfare, perhaps. And some coop PvE would be good.

Local. I'm not advocating the removal of local. I'd prefer replacing it with a proper intelligence system, that starts off at pretty much nothing in 0.0, but can be upgraded (and hence attacked) with player effort. It'd be nice to be able to scan someone's ship, and make the details available to other friendlies in system, without the need for a third party system. To use something like the ESS to flag people entering.

Edited for clarity: Cloaks.
AFK cloaking is bad gameplay. Not because a single cloaky is much of a problem (see WH space) but because of the power projection which is possible with said cloaky firing up a cyno after they come back after five hours of being cloaked up. So, it should be possible to locate, with time and effort, someone who is cloaked. Have cloaked ships appear on dscan and on combat probes, but when warping to their signature, you end up within 30(ish) km. dscan can't give you a distance, but it can give you a rough vector (if you cut down the arc). Multiple soundings gives you a vague location to try and decloak them in. Give people the ability to shut down their engines to reduce their signature, and if cloaked, become a real hole in space (falling off intel), but being unable to move off their current grid.



Corporation management is a crying shame at the moment. This is a place CREST could do wonders, if it's reworked to being a decent, nested, granular permissions model. Grant permissions on specific things, to specific groups, which you can add people to. That would solve most problems people have with it.


Low-Sec needs a draw for people who don't live there. Victims, as they're often called. The first thing that comes to mind for that is something lucrative, but which you can't do that often a day. So you have a reason to risk your skin in Low-Sec, but can't just farm it.

If you have any questions, ask away. I'll try and answer any question. Even if it might be "I don't know".

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#3 - 2014-02-14 15:59:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Steve Ronuken
#4 - 2014-02-14 16:52:34 UTC
One thing about you that I know, you're willing to work hard on all things EVE. This is evident by how quickly you turn out the SDE conversions and the work you put into your tools. I like this and will give you serious consideration as one of my top choices.

Go beyond the edge of space... Explore

#5 - 2014-02-14 17:17:44 UTC
If CCP would ask you to choose one part of UI they should tweak / fix / improve / revamp ASAP what would you say? And why that one?

Invalid signature format

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#6 - 2014-02-14 17:27:54 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
If CCP would ask you to choose one part of UI they should tweak / fix / improve / revamp ASAP what would you say? And why that one?



Ack, nasty nasty question. Smile So potentially loaded.

From a purely selfish point of view, I'd have to point at industry. specifically job entry. Doing invention involves doing pretty much exactly the same thing many many times, with around 6 clicks per job, in varying places on the screen. Being able to do the same job again, going into the next free slot in an array would help a great deal. (Being able to put in multiple at the same time would help more)

From a less selfish POV, I'd like to be able to, probably on hover, see how much time is left on a module cycling. Ideally modified by the current ti-di.

So you know that, going siege red, it's going to take another 20 minutes real time to have it switch off.

Actual numbers are useful, rather than the 'that's about two thirds through a cycle which takes Y seconds, and I'm in 23% tidi'

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

HYDRA RELOADED
#7 - 2014-02-14 17:29:03 UTC
I will be voting for steve.

As a 3rd party dev myself I think it's very important to have someone on the CSM who brings that viewpoint to the table, who knows what CREST is, and what it potentially could mean and who can give CCP great feedback on what the 3rd party community needs and wants.
#8 - 2014-02-14 18:02:00 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ack, nasty nasty question. Smile So potentially loaded.


I will take it as a compliment :)

I agree with you on module cycle timers, they need to be brought in line and improved to properly function in nowadays Eve environment. Not to mention cool down timers on mods like cloaks or MJD. Click to check is not exactly great UI.

I know nothing about industry but I can see very often complains about UI almost working against you instead of for you so I guess it is not only your selfish POV.

Would you say that industry should be revamped as a whole to make it more attractive to players that now don't really feel, let's say "desire" towards it? Or you think any change to make more players go into that activity would just end up with equivalent of "exploration" pushing sites into our faces, loot spew and other silly things that would stripped veil of exclusiveness out of it and plummet income of those who can bear current inconveniences and problems?

Invalid signature format

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#9 - 2014-02-14 18:19:22 UTC
Schmata Bastanold wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Ack, nasty nasty question. Smile So potentially loaded.


I will take it as a compliment :)

I agree with you on module cycle timers, they need to be brought in line and improved to properly function in nowadays Eve environment. Not to mention cool down timers on mods like cloaks or MJD. Click to check is not exactly great UI.

I know nothing about industry but I can see very often complains about UI almost working against you instead of for you so I guess it is not only your selfish POV.

Would you say that industry should be revamped as a whole to make it more attractive to players that now don't really feel, let's say "desire" towards it? Or you think any change to make more players go into that activity would just end up with equivalent of "exploration" pushing sites into our faces, loot spew and other silly things that would stripped veil of exclusiveness out of it and plummet income of those who can bear current inconveniences and problems?


The exclusiveness of industry shouldn't be down to fighting with the interface. It's down to the logistics. Running the numbers to make sure that what you're doing is profitable, and a good use of your time.

I'm fairly comfortable with that were it is. There are tools out of game to help, or you can do your own sheets.

I'd like to see reductions in the number of high-sec industry slots, with a lower barrier to entry on getting slots in space. And the ability to anonymously rent slots out to people (use an NPC to ship the materials to the structure in space)

Throw in limits on how many slots you're allowed to use in stations, and you provide a slightly more level playing field against nullsec, and reasons to have Manufacturers in PC corps, while not impacting new bros too much.

It's not a quick and easy change though.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Pandemic Legion
#10 - 2014-02-14 18:24:50 UTC
Steve has my vote! His fuzzwork apps have been so much help to more people than probably realize it in EVE.

+10 votes
#11 - 2014-02-14 18:30:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Akrasjel Lanate
Steve Ronuken wrote:

Cloaks. AFK cloaking is bad gameplay. I'd like to see the ability to shut down your ship, and fall off scan, but if you just cloak, you can be, with effort, traced and decloaked at range. If you're there, you can move to avoid it. If you're not, you're at risk. Don't want to be found? Turn your ship 'off', to become a whole in space, with no chance of being scanned down. Do it with a cloak, in a place you expect people to turn up, and you can set up a hot drop.

Cloaks =/= AFK cloaking Blink

Anyway what do you think about changes to power projection ?
Also further nerf of afk gameplay similar to drone assist nerf, that would be changing the "anchoring" mechanic ?

Akrasjel Lanate

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#12 - 2014-02-14 19:13:28 UTC
Akrasjel Lanate wrote:
Steve Ronuken wrote:

Cloaks. AFK cloaking is bad gameplay. I'd like to see the ability to shut down your ship, and fall off scan, but if you just cloak, you can be, with effort, traced and decloaked at range. If you're there, you can move to avoid it. If you're not, you're at risk. Don't want to be found? Turn your ship 'off', to become a whole in space, with no chance of being scanned down. Do it with a cloak, in a place you expect people to turn up, and you can set up a hot drop.

Cloaks =/= AFK cloaking Blink

Anyway what do you think about changes to power projection ?
Also further nerf of afk gameplay similar to drone assist nerf, that would be changing the "anchoring" mechanic ?



I know AFK cloaking isn't all use of cloaks Smile That's why I'm not suggesting a decloak mechanic. The idea is:

  • you can scan down the grid someone cloaked is on. So they're /somewhere/ within 150km of where you land.
  • Using dscan, you can get an idea of their direction.
  • If they're not moving erratically, you can eventually work out where they are.


So someone there won't be cause. Someone who isn't will be found.

The AFK cloaker isn't a problem. Right up to the point they come back, and cease being afk. There's no difference from the outside.



Anyway, power projection.

Right now, having Titans gives you subcap superiority in terms of power projection, with the use of bridging. And you don't need to risk the titan. As mentioned, I'd like to give carriers the ability to bring ships in with them (Be carriers in fact, rather than big drone boats). Titans at that point, are just carriers writ large (with DDs) No bridging. So the ships have to be risked. A cool down for jumping may also be in order, but I'll leave that to people with a better grasp of Null sec warfare. I'm an outsider looking in.

As for anchoring, I have fewer problems with it. If the anchor is taken out, you can end up with a significantly worse situation. Such as the case of the interceptors that ran into Ganked 103. They were approaching their anchor. When it went pop (Brimaried by a bunch of Rifters) Everyone came to a halt. And got slapped for it.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Goonswarm Federation
#13 - 2014-02-14 20:29:45 UTC
what is your stance on
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#14 - 2014-02-14 21:01:01 UTC
HVAC Repairman wrote:
what is your stance on



I'm entirely against it. People who are for it are idiots who should be neutered for the sake of humanity.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Gallente Federation
#15 - 2014-02-14 23:23:59 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
HVAC Repairman wrote:
what is your stance on



I'm entirely against it. People who are for it are idiots who should be neutered for the sake of humanity.


softy, neutering allows the possibility of cloning

But I agree with the stand against

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

RvB - RED Federation
#16 - 2014-02-14 23:32:59 UTC
+1 top bloke supported

o7
Drac
#17 - 2014-02-15 03:19:36 UTC
I voted for you last year and I'll vote for you this year.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.

#18 - 2014-02-15 04:36:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Dersen Lowery
CCP looks to be concentrating on industry somewhat this year, so you have my vote again this year.

If I could ask one thing: I've done invention enough to realize that the user interface was designed to build SQL statements to traverse a set of tables. In other words, the user interface isn't designed at all, it's just an extension of the model. I know that you can't ~demand~ anything, but can you urge CCP to allow the UI designers free rein in actually designing the interface from a user perspective, and leave any translation to the database to the controller which (presumably!) sits between the model and the view?

Failing that, could you politely insist that they implement MVC? ;-)

Thanks, and good luck!

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Spectre Fleet Alliance
#19 - 2014-02-15 14:00:57 UTC
Will trade beers in vegas for votes.

Glad to see you running Steve! - Id say again, but you never stopped!
#20 - 2014-02-16 11:35:12 UTC
You have both of my votes as a thank you for the tools you have made us.

GL
9 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump