CSM Campaigns

 
2 Pages12Next page
 

Fawlty7 for CSM XII

Author
Tactical Supremacy
#1 - 2017-02-05 12:07:13 UTC
Hello there, I'm Fawlty7, CEO of Tactically Challenged the corp and Tactical Supremacy the alliance. You may also know me as the eternal birthday boy.

A bit about me:

I began playing EVE in 2009 at the age of 14. I am now 22 and haven't taken a single break yet. I have played this game through the period of life where peoples' personalities are developed and they are shaped into who they grow up to be. I feel like this gives me an interesting perspective of how much a game like EVE can shape someones life, especially younger players. I also hail from Australia, that desolate timezone that is AUTZ where for the past 8 years where I have had to create content out of a very quiet and much more barren EVE.

In the time I have been playing I have lived in highsec, lowsec and nullsec. I've done mining, ratting, exploration, pvp, fleet commanding, fleet coordination, logistics work, pos work, sov mechanics, capital warfare and many other aspects of the game. My skills and expertise reside in fleet command and organisation as well as general pvp and sov mechanics and the things that go with them such as citadels, towers, entosising etc. I have also organised and attended many real life player meet ups and events, including venturing to Iceland in 2014.

My position:

In the time I have been a fleet commander the meta for the game has changed more times than I can count and the nerf bat has been used so brazenly that leaves players with their last 3 months of training no longer viable. Skill extractors help to alleviate this but it is not a great solution to this issue. When one meta rises above the rest, the creation of potential counter plays is a more ideal outcome rather than the nerf bat approach.

Since starting and running a corporation and alliance it is clear that the alliance system especially needs an overhaul. As a leader I feel like there is very limited options available that come with that power. There are no real options or hard coded game mechanics that the alliance executor can push onto member corporations, it is all done outside the base mechanics. An expansion on options such as voting to force tax rates alliance wide or direct taxing from the alliance to corporations. These are several potential changes that could shake up alliance mechanics.

While the current state of sovereignty mechanics does make it easier for small alliances to potentially get a foot in the door, the current mechanics still make it easy for a much larger entity to push a smaller one out. I believe there needs to be more defensive bonuses for alliances holding sovereignty, it makes sense that people should have to fight tooth and nail to push long standing residents out of an area. Citadels are also an emerging mechanic that has presented potential issues, especially for smaller alliances and their ability to counter them being placed by hostiles within owned space and their subsequent removal. Obviously I understand this is a new set of features but I believe it is important to develop them correctly as soon as possible.

Those are the primary topics I feel strongly about and believe I have the experience to contribute positively to the CSM with. I am more than happy to answer questions about anything people are curious about my views on. Lastly the CSM is a communication line, not a place for my personal wishes to be granted, so while I feel strongly about these topics it's not about forcing this at them, more about representing how these changes can benefit the game overall and enhance players experiences.

I can be contacted in-game on Fawlty7 or on the following mediums:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/fawlty8 (Not a typo it really is @fawlty8)
Discord: Fawlty7#8214
Tactical Supremacy
#2 - 2017-02-05 12:07:24 UTC
Reserved for stuff.
Northern Coalition.
#3 - 2017-02-05 12:30:00 UTC
I've known Fawlty for years and he's been one of the most dedicated and prolific content creators in the AUTZ. He's respected by all sides in any conflict and although he's young he's already got a better head on his shoulders than most people I know who are much older. He's a seasoned EVE player, too, having handled more responsibility and gained more experience than the vast majority of EVE players ever will.

I'm happy to endorse Fawlty and he'll probably be #1 on my ticket.

P.S. Happy birthday.

EVE Down Under - a community for players in the AUTZ

In-game channel: evedownunder // Twitter: @evedownunder

https://www.facebook.com/evedownunder

Ghost Legion.
#4 - 2017-02-05 12:37:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Otto Bismarck
I've been holding back on my endorsements on CSM candidates a little bit just to see who is definately running. This being said, without reservation, I also endorse Fawlty7 as a candidate for the CSM. To be put bluntly, Fawlty is known for calling a spade a spade and will do wonders for both the community and the game.


This being said, Fawlty, How do you feel about Timezone tanking?

Secondly, do you feel that your pre-listed responsibilities will negatively impact your ability to do the CSM job, or conversely do you think that being a CSM will have a negative impact on your CEO duties/fleet commanding?

Thirdly, do you think that DT tanking, or doing stuff with respect to DT, because you know its a get out of jail free card, can and should be addressed?

(edited for 3rd question)

Twitter: @ottobismarckEVE

EVE Down Under - a community for players in the AUTZ

In-game channel: evedownunder

Twitter: @evedownunder

https://www.facebook.com/evedownunder

Tactical Supremacy
#5 - 2017-02-05 12:57:18 UTC
Otto Bismarck wrote:
I've been holding back on my endorsements on CSM candidates a little bit just to see who is definately running. This being said, without reservation, I also endorse Fawlty7 as a candidate for the CSM. To be put bluntly, Fawlty is known for calling a spade a spade and will do wonders for both the community and the game.


This being said, Fawlty, How do you feel about Timezone tanking?

Secondly, do you feel that your pre-listed responsibilities will negatively impact your ability to do the CSM job, or conversely do you think that being a CSM will have a negative impact on your CEO duties/fleet commanding?

Thirdly, do you think that DT tanking, or doing stuff with respect to DT, because you know its a get out of jail free card, can and should be addressed?

(edited for 3rd question)


<3 for the endorsement man, means a lot.

Timezone tanking from my perspective has 2 points, direct and indirect. For example, my alliance is 99% AUTZ, therefore we play outside the majority of the games time. Simply by playing in our timezone we are "timezone tanking", in that case it isn't deliberate so much as its unavoidable.

On the flip side, there is always the option for groups to time their structures or sov based on their enemies prime time. This leads to interesting situations and opportunities. A lot of groups love to time their stuff for, funny enough, AUTZ because it's so dead. It provides people playing in that timezone opportunities to have something to do. Overall I don't think there's anything wrong with making your enemy come up with new ways to counter your actions.

My current responsibilities are what give me the experience to run for CSM in the first place. If elected I would have to take a step back from some of them but the ones that I am passionate about and what keep me wanting to login and run for CSM in the first place will still be very much a part of my game time.

Compared to timezone tanking, DT tanking is a much more deliberate use of a specific mechanic. Especially for us in the AUTZ DT tanking has removed so many possibilities for content and possible chances of changing the landscape of regional power bases. So many groups use the safety net of DT to get away with actions that within any other timezone would end terribly. I feel that at the very least, DT tanking completely removes that timezone's ability to have a major impact in certain situations. I feel that a change of some form should be introduced that at least reduces the removal of risk for anyone attempting to use DT as a safety net. Be that the addition of persistent aggression timers or removal of DT entirely.
Tactical Supremacy
#6 - 2017-02-05 13:10:02 UTC
I have known Fawlty7 since late 2010, he is an immensely talented individual who has a very deep understanding of the game, most notably in 0.0, and though our paths have diverged over the years I have no hesitation in saying that he would make an excellent member of the CSM, he was certainly mature beyond his years and has really experienced Eve at a high level and is passionate about it, I would have no hesitation in putting my votes his way on matters pertaining to 0.0 and for looking at things honestly.

In terms of hisec I think he would at least listen which makes him far better than most others I have seen.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin

The Initiative.
#7 - 2017-02-06 01:47:24 UTC
Bam Stroker wrote:
I've known Fawlty for years and he's been one of the most dedicated and prolific content creators in the AUTZ. He's respected by all sides in any conflict and although he's young he's already got a better head on his shoulders than most people I know who are much older. He's a seasoned EVE player, too, having handled more responsibility and gained more experience than the vast majority of EVE players ever will.

I'm happy to endorse Fawlty and he'll probably be #1 on my ticket.

P.S. Happy birthday.



+1

Agreed on all accounts Vote Fawlty
Pandemic Legion
#8 - 2017-02-06 01:58:30 UTC
Fawlty would make an excellent CSM member, and it would be great to get some AUTZ representation, so +1.

What are your thoughts on how the server comes back up after downtime? It it better for it to be online quickly with some elements still offline (systems, markets, contracts) or slowly with everything working as it should?
Tactical Supremacy
#9 - 2017-02-06 02:32:03 UTC
I like Fawlty7 he is a p.good dude.
Tactical Supremacy
#10 - 2017-02-06 02:47:50 UTC
Krios42 wrote:
Fawlty would make an excellent CSM member, and it would be great to get some AUTZ representation, so +1.

What are your thoughts on how the server comes back up after downtime? It it better for it to be online quickly with some elements still offline (systems, markets, contracts) or slowly with everything working as it should?


Downtime has come leaps and bounds in the past few years. In its current form it is bearable but definitely needs work. The fact that downtime usually ends fairly quickly but with several services lacking, considering the progress that has been made over the recent years, is a small price to pay. However the overall goal should be the complete removal of downtime.
Northern Coalition.
#11 - 2017-02-06 03:31:33 UTC
Having known of, then met Fawlty many times, I am confident in his ability to confront issues head on, and be frank, open and honest when it comes to addressing any and all issues.
For some of you who may have known Fawlty years ago and have had no interaction with him since - his experience (both within eve and without) have given him a unique and wise perspective.
That is to say, he has grown immensely in leaps and bounds into the level headed man he is today.

Fawlty would make an excellent addition and valued contributions to the CSM, and you, as a voter, would miss out if Fawlty were not a part of the CSM.
BHE 3AKOHA.
#12 - 2017-02-06 07:10:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Old Miner Ecilopp
Мало конкретики.
Я не понимаю о каком именно нерфе идет речь (приведите примеры нерфа и дайте конкретные решения). Пока что Вы боритесь с ветрянными мельницами. Ваши тезисы пустышки.

Альянсовое голосование это действительно удобно, улучшит механику, позволит документально принимать решения, улучшит ролеплей и т.д. Но не стоит ограничивать себя только одной идеей о налогах. Это не единственный способ управления. И тем более он точно не способен встряхнуть альянсовую механику. Перечесление иск от корпораций альянсу и сейчас активно используется без дополнительных механик. А голосование осуществляется общением лидера альянса с цеокорпораций голосом или через почту.

Вы понимаете, что если механику клайма поменять и дать "больше защитных бонусов" малым альянсам, владеющих системами, то им же влиять на крупные альянсы станет и вовсе невозможно? Тут особенно следует дать больше конкретики и предложить механизм, который будет учитывать размер и качество альянсов, предоставляя равные условия малым альянсам как для защиты так и для атаки. То есть вы ничего не предлагаете.

Вы говорите о важности цитаделей, но и тут нет конкретных идей для Вашей работы в ЦСМ. Важность механики клайма, а не установка цитаделей должны занимать вашу светлую голову. Это приоритетная задача.

Удачи.
И извините меня за мой плохой английский.
Tactical Supremacy
#13 - 2017-02-06 07:34:20 UTC
For what it means Fawlty7 has the Peoples Diplos endorsement. Having though only known Fawlty for the past two years, I think without his initial leadership back in the main AUTZ squad in goons that made the game so fun for me I would have likely not stayed within the game.

From getting to know him initially in-game to meeting him in reality he is indeed a strong leader and is not scared to let his opinion be heard.

Through all the things TIKLE has so far gone through, the fact that the alliance still stands and even after out multiple sov-evictions, most members of the alliance stayed through it all, to which I believe is a strong example of Fawlty's leadership.

+1 Here.
Caldari State
#14 - 2017-02-06 09:47:42 UTC
nothing fawlty about fawlty7, good dude to fight good dude to drink with all around good dude. That being said, he does go on and on about it always being his 'birthday', says he gets lots of free crap from restaurants and he printed 365 fake drivers licenses with different date of births, so he can get free food and drinks and cheap tickets to the cinema. Bit sad a (barely) grown man faking his birthday for attention :)
Pandemic Legion
#15 - 2017-02-07 10:11:45 UTC
+1
Goonswarm Federation
#16 - 2017-02-07 10:55:41 UTC
'current mechanics still make it easy for a much larger entity to push a smaller one out. I believe there needs to be more defensive bonuses for alliances holding sovereignty, it makes sense that people should have to fight tooth and nail to push long standing residents out of an area. Citadels are also an emerging mechanic that has presented potential issues, especially for smaller alliances and their ability to counter them being placed by hostiles within owned space'

Do you believe longevity of a group's existence in some area means they deserve to have advantages to holding it beyond what's already in the game?

What advantages might those be?
How would you ameliorate the impact of greater numbers on a smaller entity in taking of space?
What increments would they kick in at, or would it be ratios?

Also happy birthday! P
Executive Outcomes
#17 - 2017-02-07 12:06:28 UTC
You get my vote, the CSM would benefit from having you there as would we the players.
Tactical Supremacy
#18 - 2017-02-07 13:01:15 UTC
Tracer Sass wrote:
'current mechanics still make it easy for a much larger entity to push a smaller one out. I believe there needs to be more defensive bonuses for alliances holding sovereignty, it makes sense that people should have to fight tooth and nail to push long standing residents out of an area. Citadels are also an emerging mechanic that has presented potential issues, especially for smaller alliances and their ability to counter them being placed by hostiles within owned space'

Do you believe longevity of a group's existence in some area means they deserve to have advantages to holding it beyond what's already in the game?

What advantages might those be?
How would you ameliorate the impact of greater numbers on a smaller entity in taking of space?
What increments would they kick in at, or would it be ratios?

Also happy birthday! P


Firstly, the CSM is not a mechanics development group so it's not really up to them/me to say this is exactly how it should be however I will answer as best I can.

I do believe that the longer a group has occupied their current space there should be some form of extra defensiveness provided, if you have spent 4 years in an area developing it and investing isk into it, then yes there should be more options to the defenders or at least some form of passive bonuses that accrue over time.

The kind of advantages I believe would be realistic are more for mechanics related to possible invasions, such as Citadels vulnerability timers being extended on citadels that do not belong to the sov owner. If it is linked the the strategic index, at the very least the buffer comes from time of sov ownership, alongside this perhaps there could be additional levels of strategic index that go towards these bonuses rather than ADM for a system.

With the proliferation of Astrahus being dropped all over the game there is quickly becoming many safe havens for people within space they do not own. Obviously attackers need a chance at getting a foothold but the defender should get a decent bonus to defending their own space. If it were to be some form of additional ADM accrued over time then I feel a ratio system would probably be better, but that is something for the real devs to design. I simply want to push the idea that it needs to be more geared to a defender who has been there for a longer period.

Honestly, the greater numbers vs smaller numbers is always going to be down to balancing and even then, eve players have a habit of breaking that as soon as humanly possible. I believe in giving the defender an advantage, be they big or small, will help alleviate some of those issues. The obvious hurdle is to make ensure those bonuses scale well enough that they don't make it impossible for any alliance big or small to be removed.

I hope this has helped. Again I want to stress, I don't see CSM as a game developer job. Its about providing feedback and pointing out areas that we believe the playerbase desires changes in.
Tactical Supremacy
#19 - 2017-02-10 13:58:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Shaun Hansen
The CSM would benefit greatly if Fawlty7 would join.

I've followed him since 2011/2012 ever since joined the CFC. He's an excellent and skilled FC, a great leader, lots of fun and trolls and he makes people happy.

I endorse Fawlty7 for the CSM XII. You'll have a vote from each of my accounts, mate. O7.
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2017-03-02 18:11:55 UTC
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.



DMC
2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump