CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Steve "Fuzzysteve" Ronuken: CSM X

First post
Author
New Eden Trading Company.
#41 - 2014-12-16 17:39:13 UTC
Probably the best representative highsec industrialists have ever had in the history of the CSM.

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM

#42 - 2014-12-22 11:26:38 UTC
Alekseyev Karrde wrote:
Probably the best representative highsec industrialists have ever had in the history of the CSM.
Seconded, not to mention the support for third party development, which pretty much everyone uses in one way or another.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

#43 - 2014-12-23 17:16:37 UTC
Hi Steve -

In response to Angrod Losshelin running for the CSM with a platform that includes "Multiboxer Representation" what do you feel about the current voting mechanics?

Should the voting mechanics be restricted to one vote per person? If owning another account is enough justification to earn an individual another vote towards the CSM, would you support allowing another vote to those who use multi-character training on a single account?

Thanks in advance.

Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#44 - 2014-12-23 18:22:16 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Hi Steve -

In response to Angrod Losshelin running for the CSM with a platform that includes "Multiboxer Representation" what do you feel about the current voting mechanics?

Should the voting mechanics be restricted to one vote per person? If owning another account is enough justification to earn an individual another vote towards the CSM, would you support allowing another vote to those who use multi-character training on a single account?

Thanks in advance.



Would it be nice to limit to one vote per actual person? Yes.

Is it viable? No.

Not worth talking about any more.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Gallente Federation
#45 - 2015-01-05 18:11:46 UTC
Over the last year we've seen the most progress on the API in a long time. For ensuring that continues, I expect Steve to place well on my ballot for another year.

Soraya Xel - Council of Planetary Management 1 - soraya@biomassed.net

#46 - 2015-01-06 20:30:48 UTC
You got my vote Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#47 - 2015-01-21 21:34:15 UTC
To preempt a question, asked in another thread:

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.


Yes, with a caveat. (yes, he said no equivocation. But as with most things, yes or no is too simplistic)

The caveat is: You have to look at the conflict from a holistic perspective. For example: Removing Concord would increase conflict. For a time. But long term, it would kill Highsec, driving players away, and thus reducing conflict over time.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#48 - 2015-01-26 09:55:36 UTC
It's been interesting talking to alliance members as to why I endorse you being on the CSM.

I took a poll as to how many CODE. people have used your tools and it was surprisingly large. Whether it's us building Light Neutron Blaster IIs, or getting tags for highsec legality, even we use them a lot.

Nonetheless, I did take the liberty of getting alliance leadership to throw in a wardec toward you.

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#49 - 2015-01-26 12:22:48 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Nonetheless, I did take the liberty of getting alliance leadership to throw in a wardec toward you.


[sarcasm]Yay.[/sarcasm]

Guess it's time to shift transport to redfrog/push. And get some fittings for the small stockpile of cyclones (The price didn't change as much as I hoped)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#50 - 2015-01-26 13:09:39 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
To preempt a question, asked in another thread:

Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote:

I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.


Yes, with a caveat. (yes, he said no equivocation. But as with most things, yes or no is too simplistic)

The caveat is: You have to look at the conflict from a holistic perspective. For example: Removing Concord would increase conflict. For a time. But long term, it would kill Highsec, driving players away, and thus reducing conflict over time.


I would be interested to hear your opinion on dec dodging, as well as any thoughts you might have on making CONCORD less of a binary, un-interactive mechanic.

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

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#51 - 2015-01-26 19:01:37 UTC
Concord exists to define High-sec. Unlike other NPCs, they are the embodiment of a mechanic. That Mechanic exists to stop newbies, and people who prefer to play the game in a more solo/casual fashion being strangled on the vine.


Note, Solo doesn't mean "doesn't interact with people". It's "doesn't want to have to depend on other people" and "doesn't want to have people depending on them".

I'm fairly happy with where it exists at the moment. We've seen in the past what happens when it's less than absolute (See, Siege of Yulai.)

War-decs are a complicated subject. There needs to be a way to force conflict in highsec, so, for example, moons can change hands. Dec-doging indicates that the corporation had nothing to hold the players in it. That's something I'd like to change. A benefit to staying with an established corporation, rather than disbanding and reforming. Any other approach will lead to people just not playing. Which is less than ideal. It happens even now. People get decced, then don't log on for a week, until the wardec goes away. This sucks, both from a gameplay perspective, and from a business perspective.

You can't 'force' someone to fight. You can only make it worth their time. (and then you run into the situation where the war deccer wants to fight. So may maintain a wardec, if the target fights back. Which makes the optimal route to hide)


As I said, a complicated subject. No 'simple' fix for it.

(as an aside, Grrr! You're a bad person Sabriz, forcing me to fight the POS system, to get defences online)

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#52 - 2015-01-28 03:39:30 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
Concord exists to define High-sec. Unlike other NPCs, they are the embodiment of a mechanic. That Mechanic exists to stop newbies, and people who prefer to play the game in a more solo/casual fashion being strangled on the vine.


Note, Solo doesn't mean "doesn't interact with people". It's "doesn't want to have to depend on other people" and "doesn't want to have people depending on them".

I'm fairly happy with where it exists at the moment. We've seen in the past what happens when it's less than absolute (See, Siege of Yulai.)

War-decs are a complicated subject. There needs to be a way to force conflict in highsec, so, for example, moons can change hands. Dec-doging indicates that the corporation had nothing to hold the players in it. That's something I'd like to change. A benefit to staying with an established corporation, rather than disbanding and reforming. Any other approach will lead to people just not playing. Which is less than ideal. It happens even now. People get decced, then don't log on for a week, until the wardec goes away. This sucks, both from a gameplay perspective, and from a business perspective.

You can't 'force' someone to fight. You can only make it worth their time. (and then you run into the situation where the war deccer wants to fight. So may maintain a wardec, if the target fights back. Which makes the optimal route to hide)


As I said, a complicated subject. No 'simple' fix for it.

(as an aside, Grrr! You're a bad person Sabriz, forcing me to fight the POS system, to get defences online)



I'm going to take that last line as a compliment.

I'd be interested in discussing ideas about rewarding staying in a corp when it suffers setbacks/attacks etc, as I have some ideas that I think you might agree with. EVEmail me if you are interested in discussing them on Skype or Teamspeak, with a view to recording the conversation and releasing it. (I am AU TZ so there may be logistical challenges).

I support the New Order and CODE. alliance. www.minerbumping.com

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#53 - 2015-01-30 12:50:06 UTC
http://capstable.net/2015/01/30/steve-ronuken/ Smile Hopefully, this won't damage my chances of election.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Minmatar Republic
#54 - 2015-01-30 17:41:16 UTC
Ahoy Steve.

You are a hero of the New Eden peoples and we thank you for your efforts thus far on the CSM.

Here is what I would like to ask about in regards to the next term:

In your Capstable interview you were questioned briefly about npsi groups and their access to in-game communication tools. I thought the answer given to this was good, but can you comment on how external third party development could benefit these communities? If you agree that currently there is room for it to do so.

Overall what has been your biggest disappointment on CCP's end whilst serving on the CSM this last year?

Also what is your stance on the present state of "boosters" in the game? Both in respect to their actual usage as well as creation. Is this an area that could benefit from an overhaul?

Lastly, you find yourself in an ice cream parlour on a hot summers day. Sadly there are only two flavours of ice-cream left over. Chocolate & Tutti Frutti.

Which flavour do you choose?

Thanks.







Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#55 - 2015-01-30 18:07:45 UTC
In turn:

NPSI:
External tools can, certainly, help organise the NPSI community. Fleetup, for example, does wonders for sharing fits, and its use of SSO makes the speed bump of registration minimal. One of the biggest problems (that I see. I may be a touch blinkered) is discoverability. The communities exist, but getting them into the hands of new players is more difficult. Ideally a search function would be possible, both in and out of game, which can make finding them easier. And then also the basic management tools online, so you can accept members, kick them, send messages to them, and so on, from outside the client, which means that you can spend your online in client time on what's really important (shooting people in the face) Being able to automate bits of it would also be handy.


Disappointments:

This is a difficult one to answer. I'd have liked to see more happen with CREST, but I can understand why it didn't (have to be careful with access to TQ.) Ditto with alliance logos (bah, lawyers. Sad) While there were some communications problems, and some things going out to the community, before we'd had much of a chance to review them, again, I can understand why it happened.

And while you didn't ask, my biggest disappointment with myself, is the initial freighter rework, with rigs. I should have caught that. I just ran the stats, and completely forgot about how expensive the rigs actually are.

Boosters:
I've not done much with boosters, but I don't think they're in a particularly good place right now. They deserve an overhaul, both for use, and for creation. (ditto with reactions. Those are painful to setup). Something I'd really like to see is more use of Synth. Possibly as part of the NPE. Just to introduce players to them, rather than depending on other players to learn about them. Possibly have some agents give it out too (in limited numbers). Just to give people their first taste. Oh, and have them able to be contracted ('just' mark courier contracts as containing illegal goods)

I would probably go with Chocolate. Tutti Frutti has so many variations.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#56 - 2015-02-09 14:17:48 UTC
Quick note to say thank you for the work over the last year and to say you have my vote for this year.
Mercenary Coalition
#57 - 2015-02-12 00:21:03 UTC
What is your opinion on the new state of industry throughout the regions of high, low, and null? Are there still changes you want to see and if yes what direction would you like to see?
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#58 - 2015-02-12 00:37:58 UTC
Rowells wrote:
What is your opinion on the new state of industry throughout the regions of high, low, and null? Are there still changes you want to see and if yes what direction would you like to see?



There are a few minor tweaks to industry itself, that I'd like to see (Mostly tweaking the build time of T2 back up a bit. Right now it's pretty easy for a single producer to tank a module by over producing it)

Industry, itself, is in a pretty good shape. I do want to see changes with structures, but those are coming. That's around the support infrastructure for industry.

Then you have resource gathering. I think there's work to be done there. Not taking away the current action of mining (which a bunch of people like, because it's relaxing) but by adding alternate options, which are self limiting (so you can't just shift a big mining fleet over, and making much more isk, over a long time. But you could shift, and make more in less time, at the cost of more activity). And adding more game play around /finding/ sites to mine. Once you have them, you can just lock on strips and keep going. But you have to find them (or have someone find them) first. Something longer lasting than the current belts and sites.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

#59 - 2015-02-12 12:39:07 UTC
Here is your ad. If you need or want something changed let me know and we can work it out. Good luck with our CSM campaign.
It Must Be Jelly Cause Jam Don't Shake
#60 - 2015-02-13 15:26:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Zosius
Steve, you get mine (and all my alts) vote. You've been a great asset to EVE community. Keep it up!
Forum Jump