CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
11 PagesFirst pagePrevious page91011
 

Jayne for CSMX - ELECTED! - Thank you for your support!

First post First post
Author
#201 - 2015-02-12 18:35:13 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
This year I'm starting to have a look at the running CSM candidates in a bit more depth, and I've written a short review of your campaign, which can be found here.
Lucas! Thank you for the kind words. I initially saw your blog when it was posted in the #eveblogs channel on tweetfleet, and was pleasantly surprised to find that you'd chosen to write about me, as well as mike. How many of these do you plan on completing?

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

#202 - 2015-02-12 18:59:37 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
Lucas Kell wrote:
This year I'm starting to have a look at the running CSM candidates in a bit more depth, and I've written a short review of your campaign, which can be found here.
Lucas! Thank you for the kind words. I initially saw your blog when it was posted in the #eveblogs channel on tweetfleet, and was pleasantly surprised to find that you'd chosen to write about me, as well as mike. How many of these do you plan on completing?
You're very welcome, thanks for running. At this point I'm just going to chug on through as many as I can before the voting concludes. I'm aiming to do a minimum of 10 though.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

#203 - 2015-02-12 19:01:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Jayne Fillon
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Garbage. CSM is not just a stand in. They're suppose to help CCP by presenting possible solutions and ideas because they're suppose to have first hand experience on the subject. A CSM should do more than say "Hey CCP, X demographic is complaining about Y issue." They're suppose to communicate possible ideas, and suggest solutions.
Ask a dozen people "What is the CSM?" or "What is the role of the CSM?" and you'll get a dozen different answers.

That being said, I think your statement here is way off the mark. At no point has the CSM ever been about peddling your own ideas to CCP in order to get specific changes implemented. The CSM has never operated that way, nor has it operated as a mouthpiece for whomever complains the loudest. Suggest specific ideas? Don't know about you, but I don't have a coding background, and I would wager that 90% of the sitting CSM doesn't either. I don't know what is physically within the realm of possibility and I don't know what CCP's current development focus is, either. Without a conversation with CCP, nothing productive is going to get done. If it was just about communicating ideas and suggesting solutions, I'm sure we could keep on keepin' on with nothing more than F&I threads and crowdsourced solutions.

The CSM-CCP interaction is a two way street, it's as simple as that.

This year, I'm fortunate enough to have my interests in game perfectly aligned with the development roadmap that CCP has already laid out. My expertise can help CCP redesign a portion of the game which needs work, an aspect of the game that CCP has already begun tackling. I don't want to suggest or design all-encompassing features - there's simply no point. That's what the actual employees of CCP are paid to do. As CSM I want to make sure that CCP gets it right, I want to make sure that they have the best information and perspective possible in order to design and implement the best product. That's how I can help.

If you don't believe in my vision of the CSM-CCP interaction, well, I don't really care...

This is almost exactly what's written in the white paper.

Quote:
Council Representatives are expected to be ready and able to make themselves available for online meetings
with CCP, and vice versa, given an appropriate timeframe. The Council Representatives will also be expected to be available for formal feedback on ‘work in progress’ matters by CCP – where the Representatives will be among other CCP entities giving comments.
Key section: "be available for formal feedback on 'work in progress' matters"

Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
"CCP's idea of corp-lite sounds neat! I should be voted based on this even though I didn't contribute anything new to the idea!"
I may not have been the only person responsible for having crafted these ideas, but I'll tell you one thing - CCP didn't come up with the societies proposal on their own. We've been tooting that horn for a long time - way before the minutes were released. It's nice to finally see the fruits of our labour, from all of us (both on and off the CSM) who have contributed to the proposal.

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

#204 - 2015-02-12 19:08:11 UTC
Tommas, I read your post and I appreciate the kind words.

I'll reply to your question soonTM but I'm going to take my time and answer it in full. You'll probably have to wait for the weekend before I can give your question the attention it truly deserves. There are a lot of good points I'd like to touch on.

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

#205 - 2015-02-12 19:17:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Lucas Kell
Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Garbage. CSM is not just a stand in. They're suppose to help CCP by presenting possible solutions and ideas because they're suppose to have first hand experience on the subject. A CSM should do more than say "Hey CCP, X demographic is complaining about Y issue." They're suppose to communicate possible ideas, and suggest solutions.
Presenting ideas, yes. Coming up with their own ideas, not so much. Sure, if they can think of a good idea that solves a problem, great! Primarily they are there to give feedback on what CCP is doing before the playerbase is allowed to see it. I certainly don't expect CSM to churn out ideas like they are living in F&I.

Seraph IX Basarab wrote:
Of course it struck a chord with you. Not surprising. But here's the big point: You shouldn't be able to run industry nilly willy without conflict. So yes if you want to run JUST a PvE Indy corp, you shouldn't be able to. You need to HTFU and be prepared to defend yourself. Plenty of highsec corps do exist and simply being ignorant of that fact doesn't necessarily mean we need to turn highsec into WoW styled Candy Land.
Except I already do run industry "nilly willy without conflict", I just sit in NPC corps, run solo corps and outsource to other solo players. And at the same time, why should Industry players be forced into being targets of wardeccers for what amounts to pocket change if they want to form anything beyond a handful of players? Why should you be able to make JUST a PvP corp, but not JUST a PvE corp?

And yeah, there's plenty of highsec corps, just very few BIG highsec corps. Big highsec corps and alliances are generally wardeccers or pure PvP groups. It's not just useless to attempt to run a large highsec industry corp, it's shockingly less efficient. Even if NPC corps didn't exist, running everything as solo corps would be far safer than piling together industrial characters, because the moment you get past a certain size you get permadecced by a group who PvP all day every day. I agree that conflict is required, but the current wardec mechanic is fatally flawed because it doesn't promote conflict, it promotes antisocial risk aversion. It would be far better if the mechanics for highsec promoted players to need to work against each other, both with PvP combat and with economics. It doesn't though, right now it simply acts as a way for PvP players to turn off concord so they can farm easy kills.

That all said however the fact that you refer to it as turning "highsec into WoW styled Candy Land" suggests that you have no interest in a serious discussion over it. You want to reject it out of hand because you assume that the suggestion is "get rid of fighting in highsec" even though both I and Jayne have explicitly stated that to not be the case.

The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.

Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.

Solyaris Chtonium
#206 - 2015-02-12 21:26:39 UTC
No problem Jayne, whenever you get a chance to answer, I’m just glad it wasn’t lost in the other dialog. Smile

Now I’ll take a stab at the at the wardec discussion a bit. What about rethinking the highsec as a whole. 1.0 systems are supposed to be the “safest” systems where CONCORD polices them with the best response time, etc. What if CONCORD determine that 1.0 systems are considered a “peace zone” and a War Dec does not include 1.0 systems. 1.0 systems are deemed neutral zones for corporations. 1.0 systems aren’t all that profitable for PVE’er’s but it still gives them a safe area during war time. It doesn’t really hurt PVP War Dec corps all that much because in order to get in and out of 1.0 systems the war targets still have to go through 0.9 and below space. They just have to gate camp the 1.0 system and it’s basically business as usual. One could argue the possibility that 0.9 systems should be exempt from war dec’s as well but I wouldn’t go any further than that. Now these “neutral” systems wouldn’t be completely exempt from PVP. I wouldn’t stop the normal ganking, can baiting, etc.
#207 - 2015-02-13 23:11:02 UTC
As you know Marlona Sky has quit eve but before he quit he left behind what I still believe is a good proposal for high sec war dec changes, what do you think of what Marlona proposes Jayne?

https://marlonasky.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/bridging-the-gap-war-mechanics-2/
#208 - 2015-02-14 14:08:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Bellak Hark
Your ad is here. Good luck.
Pandemic Legion
#209 - 2015-02-14 15:30:20 UTC
Stoseph Stuarts wrote:
As you know Marlona Sky has quit eve but before he quit he left behind what I still believe is a good proposal for high sec war dec changes, what do you think of what Marlona proposes Jayne?

https://marlonasky.wordpress.com/2014/06/08/bridging-the-gap-war-mechanics-2/



I do enjoy this bit..

"They are too cowardly to look for combat in low sec or even faction warfare, because they might actually be shot at. Essentially, in my opinion, a cancer to the game. A cancer because every action they take with that mindset does a tremendous amount of damage to the game without ever adding anything positive to it. Again, cancerous cowards."
#210 - 2015-02-15 15:44:54 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.


27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

The-Culture
#211 - 2015-02-15 19:57:03 UTC
Jayne Fillon wrote:
That being said, I think your statement here is way off the mark. At no point has the CSM ever been about peddling your own ideas to CCP in order to get specific changes implemented. The CSM has never operated that way, nor has it operated as a mouthpiece for whomever complains the loudest.


No where did I say that as a CSM you should "peddle your own ideas to get specific changes implemented" or to be a "mouthpieace for whomever complains the loudest." I clearly stated that as a CSM you should have concepts and ideas that you can suggest in order to solve certain issues. Previous CSM members have done so.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
Suggest specific ideas? Don't know about you, but I don't have a coding background, and I would wager that 90% of the sitting CSM doesn't either. I don't know what is physically within the realm of possibility and I don't know what CCP's current development focus is, either. Without a conversation with CCP, nothing productive is going to get done. If it was just about communicating ideas and suggesting solutions, I'm sure we could keep on keepin' on with nothing more than F&I threads and crowdsourced solutions.


You don't need to be a coder to suggest for example that the bounty system needs to be improved, or to come up with ideas that would improve combat boosters, or hey even ideas on how to introduce more small gang pvp in nullsec Blink. Blink If you don't come to the table to do anything, then what are you? Just a talking head for/to CCP? It's this sort of passive do nothing style notion that brings the largest about of criticism toward the CSM by players. No you aren't suppose to code and create aspects of the game, but you should be part of the process in a meaningful way.


Jayne Fillon wrote:
This year, I'm fortunate enough to have my interests in game perfectly aligned with the development roadmap that CCP has already laid out. My expertise can help CCP redesign a portion of the game which needs work, an aspect of the game that CCP has already begun tackling. I don't want to suggest or design all-encompassing features - there's simply no point. That's what the actual employees of CCP are paid to do. As CSM I want to make sure that CCP gets it right, I want to make sure that they have the best information and perspective possible in order to design and implement the best product. That's how I can help.


Nobody said that you should "design an all-encompassing feature" for the game. I talked about you actually having relevant input in the process. Right now I don't see that as a possibility. You may be a nice guy to chat with but the CSM needs more than that.
The-Culture
#212 - 2015-02-15 19:57:54 UTC
Lucas Kell wrote:
Presenting ideas, yes. Coming up with their own ideas, not so much. Sure, if they can think of a good idea that solves a problem, great! Primarily they are there to give feedback on what CCP is doing before the playerbase is allowed to see it. I certainly don't expect CSM to churn out ideas like they are living in F&I.


And in order to do that you must be able to provide relevant feedback which sometimes include solutions.


Lucas Kell wrote:
Except I already do run industry "nilly willy without conflict", I just sit in NPC corps, run solo corps and outsource to other solo players. And at the same time, why should Industry players be forced into being targets of wardeccers for what amounts to pocket change if they want to form anything beyond a handful of players? Why should you be able to make JUST a PvP corp, but not JUST a PvE corp?


There is no division between "just a pvp" corp and "just a pve corp." They're not rival or competing factions or playstyles. Eve is a social game and anything that you try to accomplish works better in groups through the corp mechanics. If it made no difference, you wouldn't be having issues with wardecs. But I digress. Here's the beautiful thing about Eve...if someone does something to you, you can do it right back to them. Someone fights you, you can fight them. That's balance.

Balance doesn't exist when a hulk can fight off a gila. Balance exists when you yourself can fit up a gila as well (or a ship to counter the gila) and go fight them.


Lucas Kell wrote:
And yeah, there's plenty of highsec corps, just very few BIG highsec corps. Big highsec corps and alliances are generally wardeccers or pure PvP groups. It's not just useless to attempt to run a large highsec industry corp, it's shockingly less efficient. Even if NPC corps didn't exist, running everything as solo corps would be far safer than piling together industrial characters, because the moment you get past a certain size you get permadecced by a group who PvP all day every day. I agree that conflict is required, but the current wardec mechanic is fatally flawed because it doesn't promote conflict, it promotes antisocial risk aversion. It would be far better if the mechanics for highsec promoted players to need to work against each other, both with PvP combat and with economics. It doesn't though, right now it simply acts as a way for PvP players to turn off concord so they can farm easy kills.


The problem is that you are trying to run a "pure industry" corp or alliance which is about as intuitive as trying to have a china shop in 5th century Germania. Eve is a violent brutal game and your ability to be violent to your enemies is what will ensure your security, not a sense of entitlement. And there are large corps/alliances in highsec that do industry, but most of them once they reach a large enough player base tend to migrate to more profitable areas of Eve such as lowsec, nullsec or wh space. If the defenders are being farmed easily and are socially averse, that's the problem on their end because they refuse to play the game and fight. They're free to do that, but don't punish the people that actually want to play the game in its full manner pvp and all.
Amarr Empire
#213 - 2015-02-16 04:51:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nonnak Severin
Jayne is a rare breed: someone who commands on grid and commands respect off grid.

While the CFC does not implicitly benefit from NPSI groups other than content provided via fights, the 'societies' model proposed for non-corporate groupings is something that our structure already enjoys via substantial dedication of resources outside the game. Based on the benefits it provides us, I can see the appeal for incursion communities, NPSI communities, and anyone part of a group with aligned interests to get on board with this change.

Whether it's stepping into the arena by delivering an EVE event speech (unlike many in CSM threads) or fleeting up to defend an excellent small gang record versus CCP at EVE events, Jayne is one of the few people in EVE who is worth interacting with offline.
#214 - 2015-02-24 11:28:11 UTC
Tommas Crowbarius wrote:
I have a question that hasn't really been addressed but I believe could be a concern for others who are interested in being a part of the NPSI community. I spent a long time in the game doing a lot of PVE stuff and frankly it became boring, I was about ready to leave the game when I found Spectre Fleet [...] The NPSI community revitalized my interest in EvE Online and I love how in the community I can jump on several different fleets a day depending on my mood with any of the NPSI communities and still feel at home. It’s great how all these communities cross over and there’s no sense of hard feelings if you flew in a Bombers Bar fleet with the same guy in the morning and in the afternoon killed him when you were in a Spectre Fleet and they were with one of the other public fleets. It’s NPSI, everyone laughs about it and you'll fly with them as friends the next day.

My problem started when I joined a corporation that was part of a large SOV holding alliance. At first it was great and I looked forward to even more PvP where I could either join the SOV battles and experience that aspect of the game, or if nothing was going on or I was in the mood I could hop into an NPSI fleet. I thought I could have my cake and eat it too. Unfortunately I was surprised to find there’s a lot of butthurt about this nonsensical blue thing. The worst part for me was when I’d join an NPSI fleet I'd run into a ton of “Blues” out there and you'd either waste several hours on a fleet when the NPSI FC Blops’d a blue carrier while you sat on your hands, or you'd have to make a decision to throw away your good name and awox.

Instead of having my cake and eating it by getting on all the PvP I could handle, I ended up frustrated and disappointed because 50% of the ships the NPSI fleet would see were blue SOV alliance members. A lot of my other corp members who were NPSI pilots found this a problem as well, which culminated in a number of them leaving the corp or “messing up” and shooting blue. Eventually I left the corp and alliance as well because at heart I'm an NPSI player, but I do wish there was a way to do both NPSI and fight in the larger SOV battles without drama. For the most part it was inferred to me that I had to either choose the SOV alliance and quit NPSI or choose NPSI and quit the SOV alliance.

While your club idea is interesting on some levels it doesn’t address this sort of issue. Is there a way to have my cake and eat it too? Is there a way to be in SOV alliance but have them not get all bent out of shape because I decided to join an NPSI fleet one slow afternoon? Someone in a club would still have the problems I had.
This is a fairly common problem, and unfortunately isn't one that has any clear solution. Personally, I've found a happy middle ground through the way my corporation is run. The members of my corporation are almost all heavily involved in NPSI groups, either as FCs or devoted line members. As a corp, we don't maintain any blues - blues offer us nothing, and in return, decreases our number of potential targets. I've called members of my corporation as primary on multiple occasions, but we are all well aware of how NPSI "works" and what the rules of engagement are even if you see a green star in local.

NPSI as a playstyle is still relatively new; there are still a lot of people who haven't heard of it, let alone actually flown in an NPSI fleet. In the sov world, in contrast to the NPSI world, blues do have purpose. They help you win wars, they are paying to use space, or maybe they're just alts of your friends. A member who views blues as a potential target depending on their daily disposition can be considered a liability to the entire alliance. When we talk about blue-on-blue occurrences, there are many shades to how involved or "at fault" a person can be. Are you one of a hundred bombers killing a target during a hot drop? Well, guns away, he was going to die anyway. Were you the hunter killer who found your friend through unscrupulous means, and lit the cyno for a hundred bombers to come kill him? Well.... then maybe your alliance has reason to be upset.

When we're talking about ways to engage those who you are normally friendly with, both circumstances have to be considered. The most popular suggestion to combat this problem is the introduction of fleet standings, where the member of a fleet has the option to inherit the standings set by the FC. Ignoring ~legacy code~ problems, this should have to have restrictions so that it couldn't be easily abused, such as switching from blue to red mere second before landing tackle on a shiny target. Forcing a member to be docked before standings could be swapped is one practical fix that would encourage using it for the intended purpose. That being said - and as I alluded to above - even with the proper tag marking you as a valid target, the core of the problem is as simple as conflicting desires and loyalties.

The groups that you are flying with under the guise of a "proper" corporation and alliance have goals, and desires, and their way to enjoy the game. The NPSI fleets that you fly with on occasion have their desires and goal as well, although mostly short term goals in the pursuit of fun and content. As much as I'd love implement fleet standings as a way to broadcast intentions, no change in mechanic is going to prevent someone from judging you for participating with an organization outside of their own.

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

#215 - 2015-02-24 11:31:52 UTC
Tommas Crowbarius wrote:
Now I'll take a stab at the at the wardec discussion a bit. What about rethinking the highsec as a whole. 1.0 systems are supposed to be the “safest” systems where CONCORD polices them with the best response time, etc. What if CONCORD determine that 1.0 systems are considered a “peace zone” and a War Dec does not include 1.0 systems. 1.0 systems are deemed neutral zones for corporations. 1.0 systems aren't all that profitable for PVE’er’s but it still gives them a safe area during war time. It doesn't really hurt PvP War Dec corps all that much because in order to get in and out of 1.0 systems the war targets still have to go through 0.9 and below space. They just have to gate camp the 1.0 system and it’s basically business as usual. One could argue the possibility that 0.9 systems should be exempt from war dec’s as well but I wouldn't go any further than that. Now these “neutral” systems wouldn’t be completely exempt from PvP. I wouldn’t stop the normal ganking, can baiting, etc.
The problem with this idea is that there are still structures and POCOs in 1.0 systems which require wardecs to be destroyed and change hands. I'm all for channeling wardecs into more purposeful aggression, but blanket restrictions aren't going to make the mechanic more enjoyable for aggressor or defender.

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

#216 - 2015-02-24 21:59:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Kalo Askold
You had my vote as soon as I read about no off grid boosting on the "Align yourself with a candidate" page; then stole my heart at pirate faction warfare.
#217 - 2015-03-19 18:30:01 UTC
Thank you for your support!

Here's to a successful year on CSMX~

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

11 PagesFirst pagePrevious page91011
Forum Jump