CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
22 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Conflict. Opportunity. Destruction. Excitement.... Sabriz for CSM10

First post First post
Author
#1 - 2014-11-24 23:55:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
“World by world, we would build an empire. Reach heights that were once unimaginable. But the spread of influence takes an iron will. Your interests might align with some, and with others... collide with the force of suns.” - Tyrannis trailer, 2010

An enemy is just a friend that you knife in the front.


I'm announcing my candidacy for CSM10, as one of the many people involved in bringing conflict, opportunity, destruction and excitement to high security space. You can vote for me at https://community.eveonline.com/community/csm/vote/?utm_source=community&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=csmxvote_en&utm_campaign=csmx and you will need to log in again

This is a long post and will be updated as needed throughout the campaign period. It is my campaign platform.


Philosophy
EVE is unique in gaming as it is a game where every interaction between players is competitive. This is the game's sole appeal. Players don't play the game for the thrill of scanning and running a solo Serpentis 8/10 site solo or with their static group for the fifteenth time – if that experience was what players sought, they'd load up the test server and get their fix there. Instead they play on a server where their actions matter, and so do those of their rivals.

It's conflict that makes EVE worth playing.

Conflict is expressed when a miner bribes pirates to leave them alone and to instead attack their competition.
It is a trader acquiring Skiffs to sell in a region that has been ravaged by gankers.
It is a level 5 mission runner trying to keep their carrier away from predators.
It is a nullsec 'ninja explorer' shortcutting through wormholes to get their precious A-type goods and pirate battleship BPCs to market.
It is an alliance logistician trying to stockpile a thousand Oneiros hulls without allowing their rivals intel on their fleet compositions.
Every interaction in EVE is about conflict.

EVE is at its best when wealth generating activities – mining, ratting, exploration, trading and others – are balanced in ways that drive player conflict, and that incentivise players to take calculated risks. This creates conflict and excitement, but also the destruction that fuels EVE's economy, and opportunity for players to find unique niches in the universe.


My EVE history
Prior to EVE I played a few cooperative online 'gear grinding' games. World of Warcraft where I was a nobody, and Dungeons and Dragons Online where I was a well known community member and semi-competitive raid leader.

Initially I approached EVE with the mindset learned from those games, “I need to level up, then I can PVP when I hit the endgame”. I joined a highsec player corp that I was a poor fit for, and was on my way to “levelling up my Dominix” when something interesting happened.

My corp was AWOXed. A corp director irritated someone, who hired a mercenary to infiltrate the corp and blow up that director's mission battleship. It wasn't a big loss – I've lost more expensive Ishtars to rats – and I wasn't online when it happened, but it was all everyone was talking about in corp.

Hearing the story opened up my eyes to what EVE could be, and I started taking risks, like running wormhole PVE sites and roaming solo looking for fights. Once I won my first 2v1 (as the 1) I was hooked on the game.

A person I knew from other games then linked me what they termed 'the greatest rant in internet gaming history', which was, of course, James 315's second Manifesto. I read it and (once I stopped laughing) realised that I agreed with his key points. This would result in me contacting the Minerbumping community, which has been my primary home in EVE.

I was one of the earlier people in the Minerbumping community to investigate ways to gank using my main character, and became our market analyst, keeping an eye on trends in the pricing of ganking equipment and precursor components, evaluating its impact on our operations, and intervening in the market to reduce our costs.

I've always lived in highsec, although I'm comfortable in lowsec.

To some people, highsec is a training area you look to leave. To me, that isn't all that it offers. The competitive gameplay that makes EVE unique can be found in highsec, through wardeccing (my present pasttime), suicide ganking, contract scamming, market manipulation, mission invasion, AWOXing, bumping ransoms and many other avenues.

Just as highsec is defined by having the most restrictive rules governing aggression against players, it is also defined by having the most target-rich environment in EVE. In lowsec you are safe when local is empty – in highsec, there's always a number of neutrals that might be peacefully mining, or might be probing you down or laying a trap for you.



Other community involvement:
I'm extremely active on the New Player Questions and Answers section of the EVE official forums, answering factual questions, offering help in choosing short term goals for skills, and most importantly, offering new players guidance toward becoming predators or (if they choose to remain prey) how to make sure they aren't the ones culled from the herd.

I'm also active in the Market Discussions forum, where I comment on the state of the game economy and intervene into it, and I may even have alts (on untraceable accounts) that have run scams there.

Despite all of the rumors of my alliance being a front for Goonswarm to project influence into highsec, I'm neutral with respect to nullsec wars, and will happily build guns and sell them to both sides. I don't care who wins wars over sovereign null, but I want those wars to happen and to be destructive.

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

#2 - 2014-11-24 23:55:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
The 'Carebear' issue
There's definitely people that want to see highsec made safer, and for it to become an area where players can safely generate wealth, sometimes even totally AFK, that they can either hoard or use in fights in lowsec or nullsec. I utterly reject this idea.

These 'carebears' claim that they mind their own business. This isn't true. A multiboxer running 10 Skiffs stripping asteroid belts floods the market, undermining the ability of regular miners to generate income. A mission blitzer running Sisters missions in safety in their shiny Paladin directly harms the value of every other player's Sisters probe launchers. And an incursion farmer pumps tens of billions of ISK into the economy each month, increasing the PLEX to ISK conversion ratio and devaluing the CONCORD LPs owned by other players.

These actions are every bit as much a form of PVP as shooting someone's spaceship.

I want to see players able to set the level of risk they are comfortable with within some limits, and obtain very low rewards for putting low value assets at low risk, medium rewards for putting high value assets into low risk situations or low value assets into high risk situations, and high rewards for (sensibly) putting high value assets at high risk.

I would strongly advocate rebalancing those parts of EVE that provide high income at minimal risk. Sometimes I would advocate direct nerfs (for example, to the liquid ISK paid out for incursion sites) and other times I would favor indirect nerfs (for example, providing more Sisters level 4 mission agents in lowsec and introducing level 5 ones).

In addition I would lobby for in-game rewards for highsec miners to join player corporations of at least a few people, and actively defend themselves from any predators that come after them – or to outsource this protection work to others. Presently miners are encouraged strongly by game mechanics to remain in NPC corps or to form one player corporations; changing this will generate conflict, opportunity, destruction and excitement.

A series of changes over the last few years to highsec combat mechanics – from the increases to wardec fees in Inferno, to the replacement of 'can flipping' with the much harsher suspect flag, the banning of the 'Boomerang' strategy, removal of insurance on CONCORDOOKEN losses and the tolerance by CCP of wardec avoidance (which was once declared an exploit) have made ‘carebears’ safer and made it harder for new players to have the sorts of experiences that broke me from the “level up your Dominix until you quit EVE” path.

The thing that has kept highsec competitive gameplay alive has been the increasing organisation and seriousness of our community. It's a problem that this is necessary, as it adds a barrier to entry for rookie gankers, mission invaders and wardeccers.

The 50 million ISK minimum fee to carry out a wardec is one of the most destructive of these changes, as it forces wardeccers to band together into large alliances to reduce costs. Small groups of newbies should be able to experiment with wardeccing more cheaply, rather than having to join a larger group like CODE., Marmites or the like.



New Players

I want to ensure new players – both trial accounts and subscribers – are exposed to what makes EVE great, not just to level 2 and 3 security missions.

The first half of the ship Tiericide initiative was a mixed bag – it made new players more powerful in PVP engagements in frigates and cruisers (a positive), but it also increased cruiser build cost significantly and made it much more crippling for a new player to lose a ship. This is a significant issue – when I was a rookie, a Vexor cost 6 million ISK, or about 3 hours of running level 2 missions with low skills and little game knowledge. Now it’s 11 million, or about 5 hours, despite the mineral price index being about the same.

I want to see changes that soften the blow of losing a ship for rookies, so that rookies get into the mindset of seeing ships as consumables early in their career.

Whether elected or not, I intend to make a series of video tutorials oriented at rookies explaining things like the basics of tracking and why this makes small ships more than just a stepping stone toward larger ships; basic fitting and the various effective types of tanks; refitting ships for specific purposes; avoiding predators in highsec and lowsec; and suggestions for skill training.
I also intend to include advice on getting into predatory play as a newbie.

Most of all, I want to teach new players that they can be effective in the game *right now*. This isn’t World of Warcraft where you need to get to 2 or 3 levels below the level cap before you can even scratch a veteran player. I have known new players that have destroyed missioning battleships solo before their character has a quarter million skillpoints, and two hour old characters that have earned ransoms of a quarter billion ISK.

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

#3 - 2014-11-24 23:56:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Sovereign Nullsec

I’m aware that CSM 10 will deal with a lot of built up issues related to the stagnation of sovereignty mechanics. My CSM pitch on this issue is simple. I’ll let the experts do the talking.

Members of sovereign null blocks that have the support of their respective alliances will likely comprise 30-70% of the CSM. These people understand these issues better than me, and I will listen to their expertise, offer any suggestions that I think might be a brainwave, and not push the point if the experts tell me I’m wrong.

CCP’s attempts to fix sov null will probably be the most important single issue the CSM discusses this year. This doesn’t mean that every person on the CSM needs to be an expert in it.



My suggested voting platform:


1: Sabriz Adoudel
2: Tora Bushido
3: Steve Ronuken
4-14: Fill all of these out with candidates of your choice that are not Mike Azariah. If you do not have enough candidates you care about, pick ones at random or pick ones you think have a chance of being elected but that you feel are unremarkable.

The reasoning:

Ideally I'd like to get voted up on my own rights. However, if I am not elected, under STV a 1 Sabriz 2 Tora vote is (almost) equivalent to a 1 Tora vote. I feel Tora is the second best highsec predator candidate and would be a huge asset to the CSM whether I am elected or not, and if preferences flow as I hope and I am eliminated from contention, my voters might help put Tora over the line.

Steve R probably doesn't need help getting over the line but I don't think this should be left to chance. The CSM needs someone with his unique skillset. He's also not a carebear but an industrialist who understands how to defend himself.

Mike Azariah was instrumental in providing feedback that led to incursion changes. While he presented these changes as 'quality of life' changes, they have been major balance changes that have further damaged the (already seriously bad) risk to reward imbalance present in highsec incursion farming. EVE was made actively worse by these changes. Regardless of any positive qualities Mike may have as a person or organizer, EVE would be better if his feedback on game balance issues is marginalized or ignored.

It may seem that his feedback is irrelevant if you do not participate in incursions yourself, but the enormous amounts of liquid ISK poured into the economy by incursions transforms the game economy considerably. This is true of nullsec ratters as well, but null ratters do at least drive small gang fights and occasionally larger conflicts.

Under STV, it is an optimal voting strategy to fill your ballot with candidates that have a fringe chance of being elected if you wish to reduce one particular candidate's chance of getting elected.

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

#4 - 2014-11-24 23:57:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Here's my candidate interview with Cap Stable podcast. http://capstable.net/2015/01/21/sabriz-adoudel/


On December 8th, I hosted an informal chat with a few people about questions related to wardecs. This isn't edited but may interest some people. Everyone involved in the discussion was 100% fine with being recorded, and the participants were 3 people in the New Order community and one person that considers themselves 'neutral'.

It gets off topic after about 27 minutes but may still interest people.

https://soundcloud.com/sabriz-adoudel/wardecs



Summary:

- There should be more incentives for corporations that don't see themselves as PVP corps to actively defend against a predatory wardec.
- The price to initiate a wardec should scale with the size of the aggressor entity, not the size of the defender entity.
- Defender entities should receive incentives for inflicting damage upon their aggressors, similar to bounties.
- Defender entities need more resources on what wardecs mean, including advice on how to resist them. They have the option of laying low, moving their operations or fighting back, and those options should be explained better to them.
- We get off topic and start talking about gate and station guns, NPSI roams with newbies, newbie income streams, the cost of getting your feet wet into PVP as a newbie

I also realised that I wasn't recording when talking about unilateral surrender conditions, which I support existing in some form.


On December 20th, I hosted an 'Ask Me Anything' that attracted a couple of what I'd term 'competitive carebears' (i.e. people that generally seek to avoid starship combat but that recognise that the other carebears are their rivals, not their brethren). It can be found here: https://soundcloud.com/sabriz-adoudel/qanda

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

#5 - 2014-11-24 23:58:43 UTC
You have my votes!

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

A Band Apart.
#6 - 2014-11-25 01:51:23 UTC
Oh cool.

I'm with ya.
#7 - 2014-11-25 03:10:37 UTC
I fully and enthusiastically endorse this candidate. A vote for Sabriz is a vote for chaos and conflict in the universe. It is a vote to embrace the values upon which this game has its foundation.

www.everevolutionaryfront.blogspot.com

Vote Sabriz Adoudel and Tora Bushido for CSMX. Keep the Evil in EVE!

Test Alliance Please Ignore
#8 - 2014-11-25 07:11:11 UTC
may seem a bit silly but there are 2 sides to the coin of the position you put forth. I wonder if you could perhaps provide some clarification?

You spend a lot of time talking about care bears and risk versus reward. While I do tend to agree with you that the rewards of high sec are in some was disproportionately high when compared to the risk's of highsec straight up nerfs often tend to be a poor method of changing the balance, though in some cases necessary. I have seen CCP with the nerf hammer before, they often hit far to hard, and miss the true problems. It would be a bit of a shame to see the robust incursion communities die when the nerf hammer hits much like it contracted significantly before. I remember after years off null sec taking a break to run some incursions and it being a breath fresh air that reinvigorated me and many in my corp in the game due mostly to its unique mechanics and community.

You speak prominently of the issues surrounding war dec avoidance, cases of ISboxing/multiboxing and the plight of newer players and while this may be unfair your own alliance operates in some ways that is discouraging to newer pilots who operate in highsec. While granted the highsec freightor pilot who flies through udema is likely not the most intelligent individual or even particularly new the fact that he is often ganked with nothing in his cargohold suggests that maybe risk vs reward is in fact not very in balance in both directions.

Additionally along the same token, while 'carebears' are certainly guilty of wardec avoidance the same often apply to wardeccers who use a variety of mechanics to skirt the boundries of wardecs such as neutral repairs, boosts, scouts ect. I have heard that some of the wardec groups are even in agreement to not dec each other as that would introduce to much risk into their trade. Also to be considered is (correct me if im wrong) a wardec can be maintained particularly against a small entity pretty much indefinitely.

I know im takeing awhiel to get to the point, but the basis of the examples im providing is essentially how do you propose to balance both sides of the risk versus reward equation in highsec from the agressors point of view and the defenders point of view. As while I agree that isk generation in highsec is not particularly balanced neither is the PVP side.

Hope that was understandable, just found myself reading on here and decided to ask questions from the view of an outsider who does not have much involvement in highsec.
#9 - 2014-11-25 09:42:06 UTC
Vigilanta. In response to your questions.

Leaving incursions as-is undermines a whole raft of other activities.

Why put a 1-3 billion ISK ship at significant risk to run level 5 missions when you can earn better ISK by grinding highsec incursions in a budget incursion fleet?
Why risk a 50 billion ISK capital fleet to fight over control of a C6 wormhole when the in-game rewards for doing so are only marginally better than fielding a 15 billion semi-blinged incursion fleet in highsec?

I want to see highsec incursions pay out in a way that accurately reflects the level of risk involved. If I were a game designer, I'd change the reward scheme for highsec incursions to be primarily LP based with little liquid ISK, and keep the liquid ISK payouts in dangerous space.

When the Tengu was (unquestionably) overpowered, it was nerfed because the existance of an overpowered option invalidated other options. Players felt obliged to train into the Tengu whether they wanted to fly one or not. This is happening with incursions - there are people running them that actively enjoy running them, and there are people running them because the ISK added to the economy by incursions (and also nullsec ratting) affects the purchasing power of the ISK they earn via other means. Drop incursion ISK somewhat, and some of the present incursion runners will take their PVE skills into wormholes, level 5 missions, nullsec exploration and pirate faction level 4 missions, while those that enjoy incursions will continue running them. This will add to the conflict that makes EVE fun.

It will indeed disrupt existing communities, but the status quo does that too, as nullsec residents or wormholers spend time on their 'incursion alt' in preference to playing in the space they lay claim to.

On the later points.

Newbies and wardecs. Newbies cannot fly freighters or afford them (anyone with those SP and resources is not a newb). Our primary targets are exhumers (a month to train into), Orcas and freighters (multiple months), and mining barges as a low priority (which still require more SP to sit in than battleships).

Newbies occasionally lose ships to us, but of the roughly one trillion ISK in damage we do a month, I'd estimate five billion maximum is to rookies. I generally provide any newer or obviously clueless player that I blow up tips - I had one just last night that lost a ship and pod but learned how to use their overview and gather intel from the local chat channel to protect themselves.

A small swarm of newbies in frigates is *terrifyingly effective* against predatory wardecs if they realise it and mobilize. I prefer to provide them with tips and training so that they can fight for themselves - which is what any corp CEO should do when facing a wardec.

With respect to the wardec tricks - neutral reps don't work well (try it). Neutral boosts and scouting are universal in EVE and this is a consequence of how powerful warfare links and intel are. There is definitely not peace in the wardeccing community - my alliance is presently at war with Marmites, Pursuit of Happiness and probably a few others. As for maintaining wardecs - it's a minimum fee of 50m per week, which hurts to maintain long term.

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

Gallente Federation
#10 - 2014-11-25 09:52:16 UTC
admiral root wrote:
You have my votes!


And my Gila!
#11 - 2014-11-25 09:54:46 UTC
Alana Charen-Teng wrote:
admiral root wrote:
You have my votes!


And my Gila!


You are paying me a Gila to run? I accept your bribe... I mean donation to my campaign expenses fund.

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

#12 - 2014-11-25 19:32:04 UTC
Thank you for running for the CSM.

As a fellow Candidate, exploring High Sec issues, what do you think could be done to improve the lot of the War Deccing player?

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Pirate Coalition
#13 - 2014-11-25 19:41:37 UTC
I fully support Sabriz during this campaign and all of my accounts will be putting Sabriz as #1!

Vote Sabriz! Vote for action! Vote for an Eve universe worth living in!

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Sasha Nyemtsov
#14 - 2014-11-25 21:03:59 UTC
Hi Sabriz,

Thanks for donning the cape of the PvP crusader.

Your manifesto was a thought-provoking read for me, and it wasn't long after I finished reading it that I realised why this and my other accounts will be supporting your candidacy for CSM 10.

EVE is about PvP. All of it. The division of the gameworld into Low, Null, WH and Highsec space is as irrelevant as it gets, because wherever you live, PvP is what the game is about. A candidate who not only realises that but also commits to preserving and extending it, gets my votes.

On a personal note, you have helped me with game mechanics and other questions I threw at you. I trust you, and your advice has never missed the mark. That James 315 included your 'Vexor Ganking' guide within his own article on ganking is proof-positive of the respect you've already garnered within our own community. Now you have the opportunity to represent the PvPers of the rest of New Eden and to bring to the CSM/CCP table your experience in other areas too (Wormhole life, for example).

I wish you success!

#15 - 2014-11-25 23:04:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Sabriz Adoudel
Responsing quickly to Sasha: I don't pretend to know much about wormhole life. I know enough to use W-space to support my K-space operations (for instance, using W-space to get access to nullsec bypassing camped stargates, or using W-space to hide some of my forces when FCing a fight) but I've never lived there. In particular I have little to no experience with the system effects in WHs.

I do follow WH politics somewhat, however, and follow the bigger fights that occur there.

So if I've appeared to you as a WH expert, I'm not.


Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Thank you for running for the CSM.

As a fellow Candidate, exploring High Sec issues, what do you think could be done to improve the lot of the War Deccing player?



I'll assume from your question you are only talking about highsec wardecs. Wars have some uses for lowsec residents too, letting you shoot first under gate/station guns, but I'm only responding in relation to highsec.

Firstly I feel that the ability to dissolve and reform a corporation with no consequence (for a corp without a POS) or merely moderate inconvenience (for a corp with a POS) is the single biggest issue facing wardeccers.

Wardec avoidance by corp shedding encourages people to wardec anyone and everyone, in the hope that a quarter of those wars will result in fights, and the cost of doing this requires wardeccers to form huge alliances whether they want to or not. Adding carrots for defending your corporation, and/or a stick for not doing so, will thus be the focus of my answer.

Secondly, excluding people that use POS services, mission runners are the only highsec dwellers that receive any clear benefit for remaining in a player corp. Incursion runners and miners in particular are actively encouraged to be in NPC corps by game mechanics.

As for concrete suggestions:

- Apply the NPC corp tax rate to the ISK component (not the LP component) of incursion payouts. This gives incursion runners a reason to join a corp and (combined with the next suggestion) to actively fight off anyone that wardecs them rather than merely surrendering.
- Apply the NPC corp tax rate to members of very new corporations (ones that are less than 7 days old). This seriously discourages jumping ship and reforming corporations.
- Find some way to incentivise miners joining and remaining loyal to a player corporation. I don't have the answers here - perhaps a POS module that provides a 3% mining yield boost to corporation members within its system.
- Scale the cost to declare war differently. It should be based upon the size of the aggressor corporation, not the defender, and it should scale more slowly than linearly as the aggressor corp increases. One possible formula would be X^0.5 * 10 million ISK, where X is the number of members in the aggressor corp/alliance and the total cost is capped at 200m (for an aggressor entity of 400 people or more).
- Consider having the NPC corp tax rate be on a sliding scale. Currently the tax is 11% of any taxable event equal to or exceeding 100k ISK and 0% for taxable events under 100k ISK; and a taxable event is an agent mission payment, agent mission 'fast completion' bonus payment, or a bounty 'tick'. I'd be interested to see the result of changing that formula to be MIN(0, 0.2*(X-300000)) for taxable events of X ISK. This would make the tax smaller on newbies running level 3 security missions slowly, and larger on veterans blitzing L4s.

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

#16 - 2014-11-26 03:35:10 UTC
Finally, a candidate I feel strongly about supporting! Thank you for doing this Sabriz.


You have my Vote, my Support, and my Axe.. if we had axes.. which we don't.. but imagine we do.. and you have mine.


A vote for Sabriz Adoudel is a vote for keeping the true spirit of Eve Online alive.

o7

Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?

Sasha Nyemtsov
#17 - 2014-11-26 06:20:30 UTC
Sabriz Adoudel wrote:
Responsing quickly to Sasha: I don't pretend to know much about wormhole life. I know enough to use W-space to support my K-space operations (for instance, using W-space to get access to nullsec bypassing camped stargates, or using W-space to hide some of my forces when FCing a fight) but I've never lived there. In particular I have little to no experience with the system effects in WHs.

I do follow WH politics somewhat, however, and follow the bigger fights that occur there.

So if I've appeared to you as a WH expert, I'm not.



Hi Sabriz,

It's clear I've confounded you with someone else! I suspect it was Malcolm Shinhwa, who did abide in a hole for quite some time.

Thanks for correcting that error!


#18 - 2014-11-26 07:56:59 UTC
Is it voting season already?

You've convinced me to keep my second account subbed.

A professional astro-bastard was not available so they sent me.

#19 - 2014-11-26 10:08:57 UTC
Sabriz, your campaign seems to have the momentum of a runaway freight train. Why are you so popular?

More seriously, your understanding of what Eve is, and your ideas of what Eve could be, make you an excellent candidate for the CSM. The amount of time you have spent helping new players understand how to play the game shows you clearly care about Eve, and have a deep understanding of game mechanics.

You have my endorsement. I believe you would be an excellent representative for highsec players of all stripes, not just the content creators that live there.
Templis CALSF
#20 - 2014-11-27 01:10:11 UTC
Oh this...makes me smile. Big smile

Want to talk? Join my channel in game: House Forelli

Titan's Lament

22 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump