Innominate for CSM16

My Story.

While I started Eve in beta, I only played a few months into release. Returning for a few short stints, the game finally stuck when I joined Goonfleet in 2006. Since then, my history has been Goonswarm’s history. I’ve been playing steadily since then, taking part in conquering our first space, the great war, and all of the rest of Goonswarm’s significant conflicts. I’ve been around for a long time, and this shapes how I look at the game. I am not concerned with what ship doctrine is in vogue, or what the game will look like next month. I am concerned with what the game looks like next year, or five years from now.

My biggest contribution on the CSM has been spearheading the push for wardec reform, bringing us the system we have now which while imperfect is no longer driving players out of the game en masse.

Why am I applying for the CSM?

Continuity. When I first ran in CSM 11, all but one person was on the CSM for the first time. While we did do some good, we spent much time and effort working out who was who and how the CSM would work. My following terms were greatly improved both by not losing time and by helping first term CSMs get their feet under them more quickly. I feel that turnover in the CSM is essential, but also that it is valuable to maintain continuity. In every case I have seen, a 2nd term CSM has always been more successful than their first term. I give this as advice to anyone considering running for csm; don’t run unless you expect to run for multiple terms.

What can players expect from you?

I am unapologetically a Goonswarm bloc level candidate. But don’t misunderstand what that means. The health of Goonswarm is inexorably linked to the health of the game. We cannot survive without a healthy highsec growing new players, or without strong enemies capable of threatening our existence. No matter what we do in the game, or what banner we fly under, we’re all in this together. I advocate for what I believe to be for the overall betterment of the game and take the long view on the impact of changes. I want to be able to hunt buffalo, but that means making sure there is a healthy population of buffalo to hunt. If we let the buffalo die out, we die next.

When CCP told the CSM they were planning to boost rorquals and add excavator drones my reaction was disbelief. I thought it was a bad idea. The specific words I used were, “If you make this change, Delve will be wall to wall rorquals.” The change was going to be massively beneficial to us, but I argued against it.

Before my time on the CSM I was a supporter of highsec wardecs. I believed they were about as Eve a mechanic as you can get. As a Goon, we expect to be under highsec wardec always and don’t think much of it. After talking to the highsec wardec people themselves, it became clear that the bulk of what they were doing was preventing highsec players from being able to form meaningful groups and social bonds. Starting on CSM 11, I pushed on highsec wardecs, and even though the csm was profoundly nullsec biased, there was broad support each year that it was a significant problem. It took two and a half years, but we did finally get it addressed. Without the continuity of having those three terms in a row, I do not believe the change would have happened. This also serves as an excellent example and reminder that just because someone is from nullsec doesn’t mean they don’t care about the health of highsec.

My areas of expertise.

My long tenure on the CSM has made me something of an expert there. Having been through the problems and solutions used by previous CSMs, I’ve been able to help guide both individual CSM members as well as the CSM as a whole through what would otherwise be much more difficult situations.

I am very much a generalist. I have, at some point, done most of what the game has to offer, but have avoided getting too attached to any particular system or mechanic.

Aside from playing the game, I also manage the Goonswarm servers and have written a large portion of our software. We use the ESI heavily, making it’s operation, development, and feature set dearly important to me.

I am a big fan of keeping in mind Chesterton’s Fence and higher order effects of changes. My long experience in the game is particularly important here. In many cases, I have played all of the variants of a given system over the years. For example, when talking about sov changes, I have engaged in station ping-pong, pos warfare, dominion sov, entosis sov, and the current citadel system. Understanding how past systems worked is critical to avoid repeating their mistakes. Often this means knowing not just the what, but the why’s that may never have been written down. Who remembers why carrier fighters don’t have auto-aggression?

6 Likes

First, also, most likely I will be voting for this man.

1 Like

This man is a priceless part of the CSM, and I am proud to support him.

5 Likes

When I had the privledge of working with Innominate on the CSM I noticed that he was consistently a check against potentially catastrophic situations that were seemingly unforseen by CCP.

CCP would say “here is our idea for THING” and Innominate would say something like “well if you do that then the players will just do Highly Specific Counter THING” and CCP would be aghast at how they could have overlooked this fact.

3 Likes

Do you still believe that remote reps should be deleted from the game and will you continue to try to make that happen?

Congratulations on getting reelected.

1 Like

It was a tongue-in-cheek request. I’m not a fan of the state of remote reps and the way they often lead to fights where one side is annihilated while the other takes no losses. Literally removing them isn’t the solution though.

1 Like

I thought it was a good solution lol.

If CCP devs came to you and offered you the oportunity to have 3 gameplay or rule changes of your choice, what would they be and why?

  1. Remove nullification from everything, then give it to shuttles only. It serves a good purpose in allowing the movement of pods around the game but on combat ships is too powerful in allowing players to avoid combat. Running gatecamps is a lost art I’d like to see come back.

  2. Give the fleet interceptors the warp acceleration bonus the leopard has, possibly tweak the bonus amount. Partly to make up for the loss of nulification, but it would put the interceptors squarely in the role of uh intercepting. Combat interceptors have the overheat bonus, great for running things down on grid. This would make the fleet interceptors much faster at crossing warp distances allowing them to live up to their name in warp chases. The cap on acceleration/deceleration means that even though the top warp speed is high, the accel/decel periods still take up the bulk of the warp time. The Leopard warp acceleration bonus would give them the needed warp times.

  3. Redesign the ECM ships to be usable despite the ecm-lock-back change, or undo the change. Allowing the locking of a ship that is jamming you was potentially a great change in effectively turning ECM into a taunt. However the ECM ships are designed around ECM tanking and so are far too flimsy to work well in the new environment. I prefer the taunt version, but ECM ships need something to bring back their usefulness. Maybe more EHP, maybe more range, or maybe just undo the taunt change if a viable design cannot be found. I sort of like the idea of ECM ships being low damage with brick tanks, but I’m not attached to a specific fix.

4 Likes

To your first point, what is a Running gate camp? Any gate camp is a good gate camp in my book.

To your third point, I recall CCP at the time saying they would buff the HP on the ECM ships to compensate for the change to ECM, but that never came. Glad to see you haven’t forgotten about them.

One thing that’s really common in low sec, is dealing with the supers of other major blocs, effectively removing any autonomy that a pirate corp can have, how would you suggest CCP address this?

What do you think about the denegration of pirate/piracy play style? It feels like it’s always being attacked or reduced, with 0 benefits, even in low, null, or NPC Pirate spaces. Any thoughts or ideas on this side of things?

Running a gate camp means getting past it. Like running a blockade. There are lots of tricks and ways to do it, but so many have been forgotten because people just jump into an interceptor.

The main problem seems to be lowsec forming its own bloc(s). I’m not sure the right answer, but I don’t think it’s to make lowsec “nullsec-lite”. Some kind of major rework is needed that needs to begin with the question, “Why do we need lowsec? What is its purpose?”

I’m not sure what you mean, so I’m going to guess a bit. In the balance of hunters vs PvErs, the balance was swung nearly overwhelmingly in favor of the hunters. There are some outstanding issues(e.g. wcs drone boats) but the main thing I’d like to see is an expansion of NPC space such that every region has or at least is near npc space.

1 Like

Thanks for the responses. It’s much appreciated. To address my last question, piracy, has only negatives, -10 sec status is only a negative in high and low sec, we arent able to bribe Concord, we dont get a monopoly on drug creation, or smuggling, we have no benefits like strength or speed increase due to our being out laws, is there any benefits to being -10 you would like to see to level out all the negatives?

The benefit to being -10 is being able to kill stuff freely without making things worse. It’s a penalty by design, it’s not supposed to carry benefits.

Piracy as an identity should not exclusively be we get Concord and we can be engaged on gate by anyone with no restrictions, there should be some kind of crime we can engage in besides just killing. IMO, losing drugs and smuggling was a serious blow to pirate identity, there are ships like the enforcer that have benefits to being positive sec status, and it would be nice if the inverse could exist. Why should there be even more benefits to having positive status other than being protected from Concord and gate guns?

Innominate’s knowledge of Eve runs deeper than anyone else I know. He’s a great person who cares deeply about the game. I’ll definitely be voting for him.

My votes will be cast for the Goonswarm accross the board. I was part of the wall to wall rorqual issue and it made me space wealthy but I too was dumbfounded when that expansion was announced and eventually released. I too fought against the change but when it passed, I would have been a fool not to take full advantage of the situation.

I returned to solo highsec gaming a couple years ago but I believe in what the Goonswarm stands for, content creation and a solid gaming environment for all players. A gaming environment were everyone isnt everyone else’s best buddy, where huge wars are carried out for all to participate in or ignore completely and go on about one’s own business.

And so, Cheers Goonswarm!

My votes are in essence already cast,

Maldiro Selkurk

Hi, you mentioned this under your areas of expertise:

It feels like ESI has been mostly abandoned by CCP. There are APIs that have been ‘temporarily’ disabled for over a year. Major new features added to the game get no ESI support. Feature requests to fix obvious holes in the API have been open and ignored for years.

We did get an update from CCP last year (The current state of ESI · Issue #1225 · esi/esi-issues · GitHub) that ESI development was on hold because of an internal migration. But it’s been 10 months, things haven’t improved and as far as I know there hasn’t been any further update.

Nearly every Eve player relies on out of game tools that use the ESI API, and yet most CSM candidates are ignoring it. Little as it was, your campaign message is the only one that even mentioned the API, and for that you’ve earned a place in my vote.

Please help convince CCP to invest more in improving ESI.

Little as it was, your campaign message is the only one that even mentioned the API, and for that you’ve earned a place in my vote.

Bruh it’s literally 95% of my campaign :’(

TIL text search on this forum does not work the way I would have expected…
Thanks for pointing this out. You get a vote, and now I need to go re-read all the others more carefully.

2 Likes