I understand the feeling. I think it’s mainly because we are used to vote on people that present agendas. In the case of the CSM, i personally try to look for people that have similar experiences and views on the game - people that can provide feedback on the topics that i care about and people that i think understand the impacts that changes can have in the wider EVE universe.
So in a way my question is “who understands the EVE that I play and enjoy”
But this is what makes the CSM elections difficult
The only thing that makes it difficult for us is a lack of a concise and clear picture of who they are, what their hobbies and interests are (in Eve) and what they will bring to the table.
Since the CSM rarely generates or initiates EVE development, it is not usefull for a candidate to present a list of changes and new features he wants to introduce. CCP has always had EVE development lead and the best the CSM can do is mitigate the useless or poor designs, while encouraging or tweaking the good ones. In this regard, you look for candidates that either reflect your attitude or concept of the game or has a proven track record of creating,maintaining, or experiencing aspects of EVE that are important to you. Also it is important that the candidate reaches out and communicates frequently and effectively to others. Ditto with the ability to interact and constructively build consensence with people, especially those of differing opinions.
In my opinion, Dunk has a proven track record of all of the above; that’s why I am adding him high in my list of candidates I am voting for this year.
I don’t agree with this statement on your homepage:
EVE Online should be Fun to Start, Challenging to Play, and Difficult to Master.
A game can’t be challenging when it is flawed or ‘favours’ the hunter as opposed to the hunted
A game can’t be difficult to master when everything is severely over-balanced/capped (ship stats, mining income, isk per hour etc through highsec, midsec, nullsec) and in all other areas, leaving you feeling like you just can’t squeeze yourself through the top of the bottle in terms of player freedom.
Take the stupid Gila for example - a huge bonus to medium drone damage, yet only has bandwidth for 2 drones.
I expect all knowledgeable EVE players to do their homework and do some of the research needed to explore and examine each candidate they are interested in voting for this election. Since CCP dropped the ball in this regard this year, you will need to do your own research and examine past histories like corps/alliances, past forum posts, blogs, YouTube videos, Discord channels, and other venues and discover the person behind the avatar.
What Dunk has accomplished in EVE, what his underlying philosophy is about the game, who are the people associated with him and what he is trying to accomplish in the game, etc all let you know what kind of thinking/ideals he could bring to the CSM table. Is he perfect? Of course not, but he is superior to many of the other candidates in areas I feel are important.
EVE has never been an environment where information is spoon fed. If you are expecting any video to examine the complete rational to vote for someone, to have a candidate state a list of impossible to accomplish goals they will do if elected, or to have them agree with all of your concepts/views of what EVE should be; well, then YOU are the one that must be trolling. Your prolific forum posting history indicates that you are in the far-left part of the what EVE should be spectrum; advocating a radical change in past EVE game policies toward a safer, less hostile environment. Nothing wrong with that view, but realize that many people hold views across that wide spectrum and Dunk happens to hold a view to the right of yours. That’s fine as long as he is able to listen,communicate, and understand other people with different perspectives without passing judgement.
I have provided 5+ years of articles I have written, videos I have produced, and other content I have created. I have been on numerous EVE podcasts. I have spoken on stage at both Fanfest and EVE Vegas.
I would honestly suggest that there is more public information on my experience and viewpoint than any other candidate running. But it appears that is not enough for you.
There is no pleasing you or answering your questions in a way that satisfies your requests.
I hope you find a candidate that meets your qualifications.
Cannot answer for Dunk but since my thread is quiet? I will answer that here. You are looking for someones beliefs and goals are similar to your own so that your kind of thinking and play will be represented in the Council. That is why the good questions ask for a candidates opinion on a specific issue rather than what they do to fix it.
You also probably want a rep who will actually listen to you AFTER the election is over. Hey, you may have an opinion later you would like brought to the Devs. (It could happen)
Quick question - After listening to the recording of matteralls invasion stream. You mentioned that you would have liked invasions to create more chaos in order to shake the game up. Could you talk a bit about that.
From my Personal point of view, using npc mechanics to try and shake up the game is a rather strange approach. The way i would See it, is that we would need more incentives and motivations to not join the largest blobs…so i am curious about your ideas on the topic
There has been a lot of discussion in the community about stagnation, sometimes referred to as the “blue donut” of interlocking agreements that limit or control conflict. Further, the logistical constraints of moving ships and materials into combat can be difficult.
Groups tend to optimize their effort for maximum reward and “content”, this leads to min/maxing that leads to static and predictable behavior. Not just in null sec, but in faction warfare, as example, you see a lot of group dynamics dictated by trying to maximize the profit of loyalty points as opposed to engaging in actual fights. I consider it difficult to get groups to move away from min/maxing without an external push.
When I suggest chaos, I am suggesting that changes to core assumptions be changed to allow new dynamics to occur that previously were not realistic to envision. Here are a few brainstorm examples (I’m not proposing these exact things…)
Rotating new gates - Imagine new gate connections popping up randomly, tying distant regions together for a short time, allowing interaction between groups that normally don’t. Far more than hopping wormholes chains, actual gate mechanics.
Roaming Resources - Imagine a roaming resource (ore, gas, whatever) anomaly of extremely high value that changes location every few weeks. With a high enough value or reward, again you create interaction between groups that were previously content to live within their protected spaces.
Entry Requirements - Imagine randomization of locations or events that only allow access to pilots of a specific entry requirement: high or low security status, a specific character race or specific racial ship, or specific skill requirements or NOT having a skill. Rather than being able have perfect incursion or abyssal alts, allow for a changing system that cannot be neatly controlled and allow for a variety of pilots to get involved in.
Overall, when I talk to players about breaking up stagnation, they invariably want another group to change something, not their own. Convincing them to do this is difficult, so I am suggesting if we can’t change the player, we change the game.
Some ideas I would need to think about a bit - especially about what would be possible. It’s definitely a different approach to the one I had in mind (reducing resource density, reintroducing localized resources in order to create a balance/shortage of materials from the lower populated areas as a reward for moving there and such things), but a bit more unpredictability in the game would not be unwelcome - at least by me. And as you said - those examples are just brainstormings, so the details would have to be thought out anyways.
Thanks for posting your interview @Jin’taan I find it quite offensive that you have an English accent, but thankfully that isn’t important.
Now to my perspective:
Firstly, am I allowed to ask whether it’s considered good practice for a current CSM to endorse another candidate?
Secondly, asking questions on monetization I find is impractical and irrelevant. Players owe nothing to CCP and the favours that candidate and yourself are doing voluntarily for the franchise, going over and beyond to help it to succeed, frankly is beyond me.
Finally, while your questions to op were broad and straightforward, you didn’t seem to ask him any specifics and as a result I found it hard to gage his opinion of matters involving high-sec and areas of gameplay that I enjoy (in particular mining, missions, exploration).
Do you only support null-sov alliance gameplay?
And why medals?
Also - it would be good if your questions got a little more political and harder towards the end just me.
All in all I think OP showed himself to be an excellent citizen of the New Eden as well as a more than worthy candidate for csm 14 in this discussion.
I am not endorsing any candidate currently, I am doing a series of interviews. I will note who I intend to vote for in the election near the time, as is my right as a player.
As someone who’s served on the CSM for 3 years I’d like to think I know what it is and isn’t important to know a CSM’s position on. If you don’t agree with the question or think it’s important, you’re free to make your decisions based on that assessment however, but I believe it’s important to know where someone who is asked to protect the playerbase from predatory monetisation draws their red lines wrt that subject.
Sadly as I mention in the recording, all candidates will be asked the same questions, as I wished to keep the platform as neutral as possible. The only exception to this is follow up questions after the main points to ask the guest to elaborate. I hope this will give all candidates a level playing field and help people best choose the candidates that match what they want to see on the CSM.
What are your views about emergent gameplay (for example, high sec ganking)? If CCP were to table a motion that made a playstyle completely obsolete, would you challenge that even if you disagree with the playstyle and, if so, how?
The term “emergent gameplay” can be used as a euphemism for griefing, so I will answer this carefully.
If a playstyle is shown to be a significant problem for player retention, it needs to be addressed for both the sake of CCP and the rest of playerbase. More players in EVE is better for everyone. This was the case in changes to high sec wardeccers and the negative effect they had on the game.
Each case is unique and needs to be looked at separately. I have no problem with high sec ganking.
There are interesting things people do that can be frustrating (booshing excavators) which is different than broken things (ganking with a super in a FW plex). Broken things should be fixed.
If elected, this is how I’d determine my response to CCP.
just me.