CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Vote for change!!! Soelent the mega-diplo for CSM X

Author
Northern Coalition.
#1 - 2015-02-05 18:53:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Eirwen
Well that being said I am a slight latecomer to the CSM runnings.. lots of rhetoric, lots of old arguments, lots of regurgitated facts about how life is living in nullsec, or high sec, or in between, is and how it should be fixed.... or what is broken and what is working just fine (usually for the person running for CSM i might add).

Loads of comments about how "i added loads of people to eve" probably most of whom just simply burned out after 2 weeks and never played again, but this is a bigger issue, these issues are ones that affect all of the regular accounts, old or new, that log onto eve, not just new players, not just null high sec, not just ratters or scanners...


Who am i? in game I am Soelent, I have played eve on and off for the last 10 years or so, i had an account back in the days of bob and was even involved in the beta at one stage but that email, and sadly that account, were lost a long long time ago (How upset i was at the fact that my piece of steve that i had from BOB era wars was devalued so greatly. I am also the only member of the CCP Guard Appreciation Society, but couldn't get anywhere to print his face on a TShirt for Eve_NT this weekend.

Outside of game? I am Mike. 30 year old science teacher in one of the most difficult areas of South Wales in the UK.


Eve for me is more than a game. First and foremost i log on to eve to socialise with my friends, and as i am sure you can all relate to, i end up spinning a ship whilst i am doing work for work or marking or otherwise being busy with other non-eve-related things.

The game has allowed me to build up solid, multinational, country friendships all over the world.

Most importantly the game allows me to Explode things, whether this is a rat, another player in PvP, an asteroid or isk from my wallet replacing the stupidly expensive ships i just warped into a gatecamp with, there is no other game that requires this level of skill, and/or planning at "my" point in the game, as with any others.



Why CSM
Well, i did ask myself this, and then when i thought about it and the conversations myself and alliance mates, and corp mates and friends had had it turns out that actually our ideas aren't to far different.

So why not. Why would any person NOT want to take the opportunity to contribute positively to a spectacular game that has so much more potential than it already has. I want to see eve fresh for the next 10 years.. its been going strong for over 10, why not another.


Without trying to sound arrogant or egotistical, I feel i am pretty good at sorting problems out and actually enjoy it. I have an inherent ability to look at a situation and see what is most often the simplest or most appropriate solution to it, I am good at it.

Combined with my passion for this game i think i would be pretty good at this and representing the interests and needs of the players

Of course I have my own personal ideas and agenda for the game which are probably shared with a lot of other players. Who wouldn't want it slightly different in some areas if asked? and i am sure people would all have their own way of doing things if they had creative control. BUT BUT BUT that is not what i feel being a CSM is about. Being a CSM is not about one's self, it's about representing my "people" (to be read corp, alliance and eve-mates in no particular order) for the best possible outcome for everybody after all pro's and con's of suggestions have been weighed and all affected parties accounted for.

One of the greatest challenges facing eve is New players. Not one CSM candidate, veteran, or even CCP dev can agree otherwise. I have been playing solidly (after i returned) for the last 3 years. i am competing with players who have 150+ million skillpoints and i feel the pain as a reasonably well equipped, well off and skilled pilot.

It is difficult for even veteran players to easily train into a different skillset, let alone a new pilot starting the game with no vision or idea of where to go.

they are 10 years behind. 100million skillpoints under and simply cannot compete in a lot of areas. This needs to be addressed.
Northern Coalition.
#2 - 2015-02-05 18:54:37 UTC
My Ideas and suggestions - Well, when i say mine, i mean the ideas of the people whom i play eve with as much as my own.

I appreciate its not new players that will be voting in the CSM elections.. but Starting areas, Starting quests, and a return to the race, Bloodline and ancestry based bonuses i feel could be looked at.

Currently you start as a new player and are thrust into this astronomically complicated world as i mentioned above. Elite Dangerous has a lovely set of offline tutorials which would be so beneficial to new players in eve it cannot be ignored. You would get the game and spend the first 2 weeks or so playing through these tutorials, online of course, racking up skill points for rewards, learning the crafts and piloting skills and forming a solid basis in eve. the idea being that when you leave, you would be a freshly trained and knowlegable pilot with a little bit of isk, enough skills to be a viable character starting out wherever you may choose and enough knowledge of the game to be able to make reasonably informed decisions about where to go and what to do.

The skillpoints would not be allocatable until the completion of the tutorial (say a total of 5million or so if you played through the whole lot) and a set of cheaper implants. A small token of appreciation would be a ship of your choice (up to say, a T1 cruiser) with fittings of your choice to float you out into the universe.

Also, and in addition to that, a lot of pilots, including myself, trained some skills with no particular vision or direction and are, for the most part, completely useless (how many of you have a small tangent of trading skills or mining skills on your PVP pilot etc) We get a yearly reset of attributes. Why not a yearly reset of one or two skills to relinquish the skill points from said skills to be reallocated elsewhere as we see fit. - certain skills would be exempt from this, for example Combat ship skills,

===

Station dockable supers - now dont get me wrong the station is a finite resource. But the ultimate end game in Eve is a supercarrier and titan for a lot of pilots. As soon as you get into one, that is effectively it for that pilot. you are locked in, Now, most are kept with holding toons, and/or on a specific "super" toon and require huge efforts on an alliance and sometimes individual scale to build, and then fly. They are the reserve of the rediculously rich, and/or the well catered for alliances.

Why not change the station mechanics slightly to allow a limited number of supers to dock on the outside of the station and become a feature of that station itself - Imagine a marina with 5 or 6 huge yachts docked up along side and then replace that image with a station with 5 or 6 supers It serves a number of purposes. the first, it allows people to utilise super toons outside of actually flying the super, and second it would serve to spread a corp or alliances supers out around sovereignty within eve.


===

Interceptors and frigates vs battleships? A lot of my corp, alliance and people chat to generally feel this needs a bit of a rebalance. Lets put this into perspective, I LOVE flying my interceptor, and frigates around, but if i, and a group of friends were running around as soldiers in real life, and came upon a tank (i.e. battleship) and pull out their pistols it isn't even going to scratch the armour let alone blow the thing up.


There is no reason an interceptor, frigate or otherwise shouldn't be able to pin that battleship down.. none at all that i can see, even start to eat away at the shields but considering the battleships would have shield generators the size of half the fleet it should be near impossible for something that small to explode it. That's what cruisers and destroyers and battle-cruisers are for.

Now, the simplest approach we came up with was having a damage modifier on weapon size vs sig radius. Ie, if you are shooting a battleship with a frigate size weapon it will reduce the damage accordingly
Northern Coalition.
#3 - 2015-02-05 18:55:51 UTC
There will of course be much more to follow.. I can always be reached in game if i am on just chuck me a question. If you want to mail me thats great too, or just post in this here topic and i will reply ASAP.




I am an open, blank paged book guys and girls, I have my own ideas but they are unimportant so ask away.
Of Sound Mind
#4 - 2015-02-05 20:48:42 UTC
Soelent wrote:
[new players] are 10 years behind. 100million skillpoints under and simply cannot compete in a lot of areas. This needs to be addressed.

Quote:
it should be near impossible for something that small [a frigate] to explode [a battleship]

Can you explain how these two ideas are remotely in agreement with each other?

I fight for the freedom of my people.

Northern Coalition.
#5 - 2015-02-05 22:16:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Eirwen
June Ting wrote:
Soelent wrote:
[new players] are 10 years behind. 100million skillpoints under and simply cannot compete in a lot of areas. This needs to be addressed.

Quote:
it should be near impossible for something that small [a frigate] to explode [a battleship]

Can you explain how these two ideas are remotely in agreement with each other?



Absolutely:

these are mutually exclusive statements however and that should be born in mind.

A new player should be able to join a fleet and be of benefit to that fleet with the skills he has. Tackle, small support, DPS against appropriately sized targets, More importantly with the abilities he has gained from the training changes if any.

New player progression should not however be restricted to being linear.. if a new player wants to rock out in a battleship they are more than welcome,

nothing is stopping a new player training directly into a battleship, as the training is in no way linear (Aside from a few prerequesite skills, it still takes abotu 10 days to be able to sit in any race' battleship)



with regards to the damage scaling. ..

i regularly witness groups of 5 or 6 interceptors and/or frigates taking out battleships with ease, which shouldnt be the case, there is no issue with the tackle.. and no issue with specialised gang fleets (ie an interceptor or 2 with a bomber fleet as bombers and torps are inherently anti-battleship weapons) but this small change would introduce a mechanic that.

A. made battleships viable fleet weapon platforms again
B. increased diversity in PVP, more cruisers, more variation in fleet composiiton etc.

i am not saying that ALL utility of interceptors or frigates is taken away. but their roles potentially streamlined.. an interceptor is for intercepting/dog fighting with other small, fast ships. destroyers for heavy DPS applications, Cruisers for larger ships with more punch. and then leave the niché ships (Bombers) more or less as they are.

this, in my mind could me implimented as a straight Weapon size vs hull size penalties (small weapons lack the penetrating power, and hence dont do the damage to the 3200mm of armor plate however larger weapons would)

in terms of damage

Frigates = 100% frigates, 100% destoryers, 85% cruisers, 75% battlecruisers 65% battleships
Cruisers = 85% to frigates 90% Destroyers, 100% Cruisers, 100% Battlecruisers, 95% to battleships
and so on and so forth.

With regards to ishtars., only change that needs to be made to those if any is to remove the bonuses from sentry drones and apply them to heavy drones only, they retain mobility and DPS but sacrifice the ability to apply that DPS with such impunity (easier to kill heavy drones for example)
Of Sound Mind
#6 - 2015-02-06 04:43:07 UTC
I'll go so far to agree with you that interceptors online do not make for fun gameplay, especially that particularly nasty bout of nothing-but-crows-running-away-from-more-crows meta the game had going on a year ago, but the solution isn't to penalize all frigates. #notallfrigates etc

I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything else you said. In fact, I'll flip it right back around - if you're annoyed that your battleship gets ripped apart by frigates, maybe you should get a caracal to sit with you instead of wishing your ship were immune to frigates. Having support and involving more people in gameplay is a good thing, rather than making it impossible for people to interact unless they are This Tall.

Also, have you tried including battlecruisers in a roam comp lately? I have. It's ugly.

I fight for the freedom of my people.

#7 - 2015-02-06 09:10:31 UTC
Soelent wrote:
weekend.

Outside of game? I am Mike. 30 year old science teacher in one of the most difficult areas of South Wales in the UK.

.


They're all difficult. I tip my hat to you, I worked in Pembrokeshire taking school groups climbing for a year and it nearly killed me. Deprived would be an understatement to describe many areas in South Wales. I'm sure the skills you need for dealing with 30 unruly Welsh kids and their parents will put you in good stead for the CSM.
Caldari State
#8 - 2015-02-06 13:13:14 UTC
fcon's rent is past due. please forward this to your leadership.
Northern Coalition.
#9 - 2015-02-06 14:54:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Eirwen
June Ting wrote:
I'll go so far to agree with you that interceptors online do not make for fun gameplay, especially that particularly nasty bout of nothing-but-crows-running-away-from-more-crows meta the game had going on a year ago, but the solution isn't to penalize all frigates. #notallfrigates etc

I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything else you said. In fact, I'll flip it right back around - if you're annoyed that your battleship gets ripped apart by frigates, maybe you should get a caracal to sit with you instead of wishing your ship were immune to frigates. Having support and involving more people in gameplay is a good thing, rather than making it impossible for people to interact unless they are This Tall.

Also, have you tried including battlecruisers in a roam comp lately? I have. It's ugly.



Its not personal, but the general feeling is that battleships are no longer a viable choice.. as with battlecruisers


Flavour of the month at the moment is ishtars, and the more i see ishtar fleets countering everything and anything thrown at them, the more i see the only counter is to run more ishtars vs them with the same fit.

doesnt really make for a decent game either "oh another ishtar fleet.. lets get the ishtars out again" gameplay gets boring after a while.




With regards to immunity, no. not immune, less vulnerable to... i appreciate if someone rocks through with 30 frigates its gonna make for a small gang of hurt, but that is not what i am talking about, and i am not suggesting that you could sit there for 4 months and hit a battleship with a group of 10 and it never even start to crack, BUT i feel there should be limitations of each ship with regards to what, and how, they interact with other ships. Much like real military ships.

Frigates for fast support, scouting and tackle,
Cruisers for more damage and some ancilliary support
Battlecruisers for the real meat, and then battleships and carriers on up

in essence to make a successful fleet, you would be looking at targetting specific classes of ships you would have to make the fleet with those targets in mind and/or take a nice rounded fleet.

These roles need to be more clearly defined in the game and hence the suggestion for limiting weapon size damage vs hull sig radius.


I want to be able to PVP in battleships again. I want the frigates to play just as important a role in PVP as they do now but without the ability to nuke down a 3billion isk omnitanked PVP battleship with little or no ability to counter them without reshipping or have a counter fleet.. Losses should be relative.


one suggestion that was made was point defense weapon slots (ie a module that isnt low mid or high that gave specific defense vs certian types of weapons/systems) etc.. there are many ways to broach these problems and its about finding the best one that fits best into the gameplay mechanics at hand and the needs and wishes of the populous. in some respects its a square peg for a round hole... itll need a little shaping and pushing to get it through but it can and will go through.
Northern Coalition.
#10 - 2015-02-08 15:02:06 UTC
My first post : here details who i am and what i do, as well as an introduction to a few things to stand for.

this post is more in depth, comprehensive list of just a handful of the issues i feel worth campaigning for to make the game better


So... my manifesto list of stuff that needs to be fixed (or that people think needs to be fixed).. After attending #Eve_NT (SPECTACULAR event btw, if you are in the UK and Nashh Kadavr (see his blog here) is doing an event PLEASE come along it was great (stay tuned for his next one)). i had a chance to speak with some real life people (they do exist outside of eve) and with that in mind chat about some CSMy type stuff.. so i now have a better, more comprehensive list of stuff to campaign for.

this is in no particular order (except the new player thing thats TOP TOP TOP of my list of things that needs to be sorted)

Offgrid boosting for combat boosts reduction and or sorting (ie no off grid boosting.. the command ship should be in the battle or at least give reduced off grid boosts if it is done with impunity)- we have all been there.. small gang rocks through, the first scout, then a cloaky nullified, stabbed loki with full halo set and oversized AB or MWD... making it unscannable and/or uncatchable if you do manage to scan it down.. and giving that group of interceptors 50-100% boosts depending on how its set up.. I think this has been on the Developement timetable for some time as Fozzie and some others hate the idea of offgrid boosting (why have immunity for your boosts???)


Ishtar rebalance this is a difficult one, as mentioned above, but it does need to be looked at seriously as aside from machariel and or some other extremely expensive ship the only really effective counter for ishtars is more ishtars,

The biggest problem facing eve - starting out the learning "cliff" as some described it as is is one of the biggest threats to the playerbase that eve has.. people sign up, play for a week, cant really figure out how or what to do and never convert from trial to full game.. As CCP guard said at the weekend, the eve playerbase is THE best marketing tool, the highest figures have been seen for trials after battles like that in asakai, and BR5. but the conversions from trial to account remains low. This is my top most priority as this will keep the game alive for the next 10 years potentially further[/]

Dockable supers talked about in my first post, a limited number of expensive slots for supercarriers to be able to dock at station. (5 per station total and only able to utilise if you have an office in that station)

Refundable skills Similar to an attribute remap, once a year (two extra for new accounts as a "bonus") the ability to refund the skillpoints from a particular skill or two PROVIDED that it isnt a required skill to another skill. and limited to certian skills only (ie no ship skill refunds for combat ships such as gallente battleship)

a modification to the training queue For anyone who has played dust, regardless of whether you have a skill in training or not your skill points accumilate into a pool (similar to the unallocated skill points that we all got back when learning tree was removed from the game). This would be good for eveonline. so if you finished a skill you could allocate the excess at a standard rate.

Obviously picking a skill and placing it in the training queue would gain the attribute bonus to training time so the incentive is still to fill up your queue, but this would allow a little more flexibility in terms of training specific skills where a required skill falls outside of your normal play time (say 2am etc)

Removal of jita... No just kidding, but the introduction of a system that tracks and deals with some of the "isk doubling service" type spambots - you all know the ones - that populate most of hte high-sec tradehubs would be nice. (i am NOT saying that the practice and art of scamming should be made illegal under the games TOU, but you would have to physically have to be at the system playing the game to do it so no more AFK making millions).

The introduction of a player submitted content system Not game mods like in say, Skyrim or UI/game improvements as in wow addons etc, but if there is a really solid, really well thought out and careful lore based storyline or event that it is feasible to introduce into game but would need CCP help, then a formal way to get this to the CCP devteam so that they can discuss this further and possibly impliment the storyline/event/thing in game.

Homeworld style colouring of ships For those of you old enough to remember homeworld, and additionally, those of you who have played Pirates of the burning sea, you will remember you had a large element of control over how the ships colours were represented in game. If we take the Vexor for example, it has grey panels, Blueish panels and some logos around the ship. Homeworld 1 and 2, and PoTBS both allowed you to select a colour for each of these parts of the ship from an RGB based colour list. IF for example i wanted to have a black hull with yellow details and bright pink decals i could have. and i could do this for every one of my ships individually.

With the changes to the way ships are skinned in game i think this would be a spectacular opportunity to be able to fly in "line colours" with your alliance or corporation in a doctrine ship.

[b] Higher res, better corp logos Additionally, in addition to being able to change colours of panels/sections of ship skins, have the ability to apply your corp and/or alliance logo to your ships.

this list isnt exhaustive, but contains a top list of some of the things i would love to see in eve.
Caldari State
#11 - 2015-02-09 02:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Woo Glin
delete this one and try again
WAFFLES.
#12 - 2015-02-09 04:37:39 UTC
Soelent wrote:
June Ting wrote:
I'll go so far to agree with you that interceptors online do not make for fun gameplay, especially that particularly nasty bout of nothing-but-crows-running-away-from-more-crows meta the game had going on a year ago, but the solution isn't to penalize all frigates. #notallfrigates etc

I respectfully disagree with pretty much everything else you said. In fact, I'll flip it right back around - if you're annoyed that your battleship gets ripped apart by frigates, maybe you should get a caracal to sit with you instead of wishing your ship were immune to frigates. Having support and involving more people in gameplay is a good thing, rather than making it impossible for people to interact unless they are This Tall.

Also, have you tried including battlecruisers in a roam comp lately? I have. It's ugly.



Its not personal, but the general feeling is that battleships are no longer a viable choice.. as with battlecruisers


Flavour of the month at the moment is ishtars, and the more i see ishtar fleets countering everything and anything thrown at them, the more i see the only counter is to run more ishtars vs them with the same fit.

doesnt really make for a decent game either "oh another ishtar fleet.. lets get the ishtars out again" gameplay gets boring after a while.


Frigates for fast support, scouting and tackle,
Cruisers for more damage and some ancilliary support
Battlecruisers for the real meat, and then battleships and carriers on up

in essence to make a successful fleet, you would be looking at targetting specific classes of ships you would have to make the fleet with those targets in mind and/or take a nice rounded fleet.

These roles need to be more clearly defined in the game and hence the suggestion for limiting weapon size damage vs hull sig radius.

Battleships are underpowered but nerfing frigates is not the solution. The real problem is that HACs and T3s outperform battleships in nearly every way.
Northern Coalition.
#13 - 2015-02-09 18:01:57 UTC
Whichever way is best the battleship situation still needs to be addressed, as with all others as viability. whether battleships feature some form of point defense, and/or frigates/interceptors are weaker (in terms of damage) VS battleships, that is to be discussed.


either way they need sorting.
#14 - 2015-02-09 18:38:18 UTC
Soelent wrote:
Whichever way is best the battleship situation still needs to be addressed, as with all others as viability. whether battleships feature some form of point defense, and/or frigates/interceptors are weaker (in terms of damage) VS battleships, that is to be discussed.


either way they need sorting.


How comfortable are you with math? Because it seems that the problem is that there is a pivot point beyond which sig radius becomes especially punitive, and battleships are on the wrong side of that pivot point coming and going: their vast footprints make them easy targets for bombs and all weapon types south of doomsdays, and their weapons can't hit anything with a small sig radius. Battlecruisers are in a similar place, except that they use the same weapon systems that cruisers do except that they die to everything; so there's not really any reason to prefer them to cruisers. Then you bring HACs and T3s and attack battlecruisers into the discussion, and the discussion is over.

Would you feel comfortable contributing to a discussion involving what amounts to a complex geometry problem? Or would you prefer to state a preferred outcome and leave the math to others?

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

Northern Coalition.
#15 - 2015-02-09 21:35:50 UTC
Dersen Lowery wrote:
Soelent wrote:
Whichever way is best the battleship situation still needs to be addressed, as with all others as viability. whether battleships feature some form of point defense, and/or frigates/interceptors are weaker (in terms of damage) VS battleships, that is to be discussed.


either way they need sorting.


How comfortable are you with math? Because it seems that the problem is that there is a pivot point beyond which sig radius becomes especially punitive, and battleships are on the wrong side of that pivot point coming and going: their vast footprints make them easy targets for bombs and all weapon types south of doomsdays, and their weapons can't hit anything with a small sig radius. Battlecruisers are in a similar place, except that they use the same weapon systems that cruisers do except that they die to everything; so there's not really any reason to prefer them to cruisers. Then you bring HACs and T3s and attack battlecruisers into the discussion, and the discussion is over.

Would you feel comfortable contributing to a discussion involving what amounts to a complex geometry problem? Or would you prefer to state a preferred outcome and leave the math to others?




when i said i was a science teacher, i could have been more specific, i teach physics to 11-18 year olds, 16-18 would be a level which is advanced "requirement" for entry to most universities, so having a look at the signature radii of the different ships would be something i would be interested in.

if that offers a potential fix for a problem without reducing the utility of other ships elsewhere, or alternatively making other ships more massively powerful, then i am all for every avenue..

We stopped using BCs a while ago in nullsec, , bubble, kill the anchor, 6 bombs.. fleet dead! might as well lose 200 DPS and take ishtars, tengus or torp bombers!
Northern Coalition.
#16 - 2015-02-13 10:31:24 UTC
I had a bashers at this and the idea is definitely workable. Although I would need to learn the more complex relationship between sit and damage as I know it's not a nice linear relationship.

More to follow when I get the workings out for the suggestion finalised and a few answers that I feel I need to refine it to a point that it becomes workable.
#17 - 2015-02-13 16:09:14 UTC
Soelent wrote:
Dersen Lowery wrote:
How comfortable are you with math?


i teach physics to 11-18 year olds, 16-18 would be a level which is advanced "requirement" for entry to most universities


So you clearly hate math and have no facility with it whatsoever. P

Excellent answer, thank you!

Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.

I voted in CSM X!

#18 - 2015-02-19 13:17:50 UTC
Forum Jump