Re-Elect Angry Mustache for CSM 18

Council Of Stellar Management CSM Campaigns
1

Hello Again

I am Angry Mustache, running for re-election to CSM 18 to continue helping CCP fix the EVE economy. I am one of those strange people that actually like crunching numbers, so I do it for my day job, for fun in my alliance space job, and for the past year doing that for my space politician job.

So what have you done on the CSM

When I ran for CSM 17, I had 3 main goals. Reproduced below from my CSM 17 campaign post with a list of changes that happened in the last year that I lobbied for to support these goals.

1:Remove/Minimize perverse incentives I consider this goal mostly accomplished

  • DBS floor moved up to 100% to get more people in space

  • Broker fee isk sink has been changed to a flat 0.5% to not punish tax rates other than 1%.

  • Industry taxes now run on %EIV of item rather than %index fees

2:Add advantages to game mechanics that promote player to player interaction I’ll admit less was done on this front than I would like

  • Addition of LP taxation to give FW group income

  • restoring Pochven respawn timer (the second change I supported to make this interaction healthier didn’t go through thou

  • removal of Jita Abyssals

3:Increased player access to data/improved communication transparency

This has been an ongoing process throughout the year, with big kudos to CCP estimate. New data was added to the MER like regional LP and Blue loot by wormhole category. Some graphs were refined to give a more relevant comparison. Backend things like item mappings were also corrected, not very visible unless you know where to look but correct data is always better than wrong data.

I didn’t add goal 4 last year because when I was running, I was pessimistic about how much CCP would value our input on the overall state of the eve economy. That turned out not to be the case and the most significant effort I spent on the CSM did have to do with the state of the eve economy.

4:Improve the general health of the eve economy

  • Streamline and remove pinpoints in the capital industry process. I gave a presentation at the summit on this subject and a lot of the suggestions were implemented in Viridian.

  • Increase the importance of secondary isk sinks to the sink/faucet dynamic. Also implemented in Viridian with the Industry tax change

  • Improvements to PI, size reduction and P1 removal - Implemented in Viridian

  • Monitor the isk sink/faucet balance. Ongoing process.

  • Improve access to basic resources . Also ongoing process

What do you plan to do on CSM 18

CSM17 went better than I expected, I got a decent bit of the platform implemented, but still lots to be done. The goals stay largely the same, with the big difference being that helping improve the economic healthy of EVE is now goal number 1.

1:Improve the general health of the eve economy

  • Improve access to basic materials to make “baseline power” easier to achieve for newer players and smaller groups

  • Make it so every area of space has both isk generating activities and specialized materials to produce

  • Better balance of isk sinks and faucets

  • Continue to improve the capital ship/pirate ship build process

2:Add advantages to game mechanics that promote player to player interaction

  • Still pushing for group PvE across the game whenever possible.

3:Increased player access to data/improved communication transparency

  • Ongoing process.
7 Likes
2

Chinese Version

大家好
我是 Angry Mustache,是蜜蜂联盟的团员。去年我被选上CSM17，今年我在竞选连任CSM 18 。我的目标和上一年一样，帮助CCP改善EVE的经济体系，特别专注于制造和市场.

所以说我在CSM17上做了什么？

我竞选CSM17 的时候有三个目标。以下是那些目标和上一年内CCP的改良

1:减少对玩家收入的打压

  • 赏金系数 从50%提到100%. 恢复00地区的收入

  • 市场佣金的流出从佣金的50%改成总价钱的0.5%.

  • 玩家空站制造税从SCI 的百分比改成材料价值的百分比

**2: 游戏鼓励玩家交互

  • 加入了忠诚点税，给势力战争团体一种收入方式

  • 故土OF重生时间改回0，回复故土的人口

  • 取消在吉他安全的打深渊，

3:增加CCP给玩家的提供的信息

这是一个持续过程。今年CCP的数据科学家CCP Estimate 在 MER （经济月报）里 添加了一些以前看不到的信息，比如像虫洞的Blue loot （蓝纸）. 同时也更新了月报上一些更有关的数据。数库的后台分类得到了更新。

在CSM17 竞选的时候我没有第四个目标，因为当时我不知道CCP会不会接受CSM对整体游戏经济这一方面的反馈。竞选成功以后，我在和CCP沟通的过程中发现如果你提的建议有道理，而且你有数据支持，CCP会重视你的反馈 。我在CSM17上的努力实实在在的影响了游戏的经济体系。。

4: 改善EVE的游戏经济

  • 简单化旗舰生产，减低旗舰价格。2023年一月份我和Kenneth Feld在冰岛给CCP看了我们做的PPT。大多数这个PPT的建议出现在了2023年六月的Viridian更新中。

  • 控制游戏的货币供给和通货膨胀。Viridian 的制造税改变给游戏添加了一个 isk流出方式 .

  • PI（菜） 体积减小和优化了收菜的频率。让玩家更容易移动旗舰生产所需要的PI

  • 增加游戏基本资源数量，尤其是同位聚合体。在这个方面CCP是添加了一些矿，但是数量远远不够。这是个长远的过程。

我的CSM18目标

我觉得CSM17做到的事比我预期的要好，我提出的议题有一部分已经被CCP采纳并实施。但是要做的事还有很多。CSM18的目标和CSM17大致相同。

1: 改善EVE的游戏经济

  • 增加游戏基本资源产量

  • 让游戏每个地区都有价值和可提供的资源

  • 保持isk流入和流出 的平衡

  • 减少旗舰和海盗舰的价格

2: 游戏鼓励玩家交互

3: 增加CCP给玩家的提供的信息

1 Like
3

Angry is easily one of the biggest perpetual pains in my ass, and he also absolutely needs to be on the CSM. Goon ticket should be enough to make this happen, but you should legitimately consider throwing him on your ballot if you have room regardless of your alliance - few people understand the dumb math of this game better than my boy Angry.

4 Likes
4

Angry has been critical to our industry efforts on the CSM, and I can’t recommend him enough. With Ken Feld rotating, off, it’s critical to have someone who understands industry, who has the respect of the devs, and who knows who to talk to when it comes to these issues. I hope he’ll be at the top of your ballot.

4 Likes
5

Be warned, this man is known for allowing your country to be savaged by an onslaught of German tanks, but otherwise he’s an alright guy I guess

6

A goon CSM candidate into a thread at sundown with his eyes low and his head down
the bartender says “ay! whats the matter. you seem troubled”
The candidate responds with “you see this spreadsheet I made with my own hands, but they don’t call me the spreadsheet maker”

“And this chart that shows why dreadnaughts are expensive, do they call me the chart man? no.”

“But you feed 40 divisions in north Africa once…”

7

My favourite candidate.

8

This candidate’s map-painting skills receive the endorsement of a renowned expert in encirclement?

9

Quite the opposite in fact, I am an expert in getting my divs encircled.

10

@Angry_Mustache would you back any idea mentioned below as CSM member?

  1. Insane idea - pay with PLEX in NES for extra dev time
  2. Quafe+ is from "biomass" (...or corpse reprocessing)
  3. Little things / Small QoL suggestions - Better Visibility Of Other Players’ PI Networks
  4. Little things / Small QoL suggestions - 13 requests for Stack Split enhancment since Jun’18
  5. Little things / Small QoL suggestions - PI KB-shortcuts for toggling between groups of structures
1 Like
11

#1 that’s not how businesses work.

#2 it will probably be added to an LP store if they do add it

#3/#5 - CCP shanghai announced that their team is implementing PI templates, which makes these 2 not necessary.

#4 not sure what the exact suggestion is, it returns a search.

3 Likes
12

Thank you for your replies :slight_smile:

not yet, you will see…

waa? corpse reprocessing would yield LP? any corpse or just FW pilots’? EverMarks?! :confused:
i thought such info is guarded by NDA?

any timeline for release? will this improve PI networks visibility in zoom out or add kb-shortcuts to PI?
isn’t this also NDA’ed? :thinking:

No 4 is forum search link in CCP’s QoL thread, you should see 13 (but out only 8 are relevant here) posts from that thread asking for enhancments to Stack Split functionality:

1 Like
13

I enjoyed working with Angry - his level of understanding of industry and effort he put on made him a valuable member of CSM17. I believe he’s got the general health of the game in mind and not just one sector of Space!

1 Like
14
  1. What do CCP do that is correct?
  2. What do CCP do that is incorrect?
  3. What do you wish existed in-game that doesn’t?
  4. What exists in-game that you wish didn’t?
  5. What exists in-game that you think ought to continue to exist?
  6. What doesn’t exist in-game that you hope never comes into existence?
  7. How would you improve PI?
  8. How would you improve the entire corporation UI?
1 Like
15

These questions are way too broad and not really answerable in anything besides the most general, meaningless terms.

2 Likes
16

It’s a shame that you feel that @Angry_Mustache and I understand. However, I was really looking forward to your replies. The question 3-6 are a special type of question that force you to reconsider your perspective on a topic. They’re essentially asking for an example of a

  1. A false positive
  2. A false negative
  3. A true positive
  4. A true negative

or in other terms

  1. There was a problem and CCP did not identify that problem
  2. There was not a problem and CCP identified there was a problem
  3. There was a problem and CCP identified that problem
  4. There was not a problem and CCP did not identify a problem

You might find questions like that easier to identify in context. For example how is this true of capital ship balance. Or how is this true of Market Fees and Taxes.

A part of the reason that I was looking forward to your responses in particular is because you have suggested in the past that CCP need to conduct a more thorough system analysis on changes.

Having said that, and in your defence, if you’re the type of person that prefers to focus on provable factual evidence over say personal or shared values it can be difficult to know where to begin to answer questions such as these where no specific topic is identified.

I’ll posit that if you were being entirely accurate you would say these questions are way to broad for me to answer and are not answerable by me in anything but the most general terms and I would find that meaningless.

Which would be a true representation of how you perceive the situation since the variety of responses given by other candidates does constitute provable evidence that the questions can be answered in specific and meaningful terms.

In my defence there are a lot of candidates and I really don’t know any of them except The Oz, Yourself, Mark and Mike. I wanted to see who I should vote for and by using broad terms I am able to throw a wider net. If you read through the responses given by each candidate you appear to get a reasonable understanding of what is important to that person. Given how much you’ve already spoken about Eve I wasn’t going to ask these question of you or Oz or Mark or Mike but then someone mentioned that I had missed some candidates… which I could see that they thought was unfair. So I asked.

17

They are attempting to get a read on your character to see if you have a good head on your shoulders. Similar to real-life politics, politicians are asked simple questions that have easy answers and give people a view into a candidate’s beliefs. These questions can usually create division among people, those who agree that x is good and y is wrong. If you side with x, you will upset y. CSM is supposed to represent player interests.

At least, that is what I believe. From my perspective, your priority appears to be political power, not wanting to express opinions that may affect voting turnout. If you were to answer 7, for example (How to improve PI), and your answer upset those who like how PI is, you would lose votes.

CSM should improve the game through their knowledge, experience, and open minds. From my perspective, you treat questions as political, and CSM is not supposed to be political. It should be an advisory panel that helps guide the game in its best interests.

TLDR: I caution other voters to question the motives of who they vote for.

1 Like
18

Will you stop RMT and Gambling operations being run off TOR and other means via assistance from PONYNET and the people above you?

19

Now that I’ve read your response and compilation of answers from other CSM candidates as well, the response you suggested “these questions are way to broad for me to answer” is the much better response than the one I gave. That said, asking question 1/2 to a sitting CSM is going to be iffy because I think I speak for most of us that the “true answer” would break NDA, so you get some wishy-washy deflection answer.

That said, I will admit that as I was reading through the initial questions list, the thought that came to me was “we can’t really affect any of this” and sentiment went negative. Only Questions 6-8 are things that the CSM can contribute to at a significant level and with examples.

6 - I am strongly against “Gold ammo” as is everyone else. The recent situation with the special booster sale was an example of community and community rep feedback affecting company decisions in a concrete way.

7 - In an ideal world I would just port over the Echoes PI system. Lacking that, templates and one button refresh. The suggestion about PI size reduction and removal of P1 goods from use was already implemented.

8 - Not my area of expertise, although from what little I have used of corp UI it does suck.

1 Like
20

I understand.

I think @Harper_J_Sheen put it best with their comment:

I already had a pretty good read on your character from the interviews that you gave. After watching them, I thought, ‘Finally, somebody who sticks to the facts’.

Yeah that’s the impression that I get, that the CSM is for the most part, a focus group, no disrespect intended. However, watching your presentations last year I reconsidered my perspective. What you presented, and how you presented it was hard to ignore. Perhaps the CSM is a focus group, but you can have sub-optimal focus groups and you can have exceptional focus groups. And if a focus group is what we’ve got, then it’s in our communities best interest to stack that group with the most sensible, hard working and understanding community members we can find. People who have an extremely practicable and concrete approach to the situation they have volunteered themselves to be in. That’s why I voted for you last year and that’s why I’ll vote for you again.

I’m not a fan of null-bloc representation. They don’t represent my interests at all, I’m a solo player, who likes dungeon content, and the NPE. (Things that null bloc influencers couldn’t care less about but that I suspect they’re F1 monkeys might benefit from).

With regards to my own candidate choices I don’t care what corporation or alliance a candidate is in. Essentially what I’m trying to determine is whether a candidate can identify the strengths and weaknesses of another persons argument. I’m assessing their debating and communication skills. Can they validate another persons point of view and then put forward a reasonable counter argument that persuades that person to reconsider their position on a matter. That’s what your analytics did, they showed the situation as it was, and they inadvertently validated CCP’s past approach. Then you presented the outcomes, you demonstrated how those outcomes were flawed and you offered an alternative that was fair and balanced. You began with a top down approach and offered a bottom up solution. That impressed me.

To my understanding anyone who thinks that they’re going to go in there and shove some idea down CCP’s throat until they listen is by default an idiot. That seems like a super effective way to get yourself ignored. A candidate needs to understand their limitations and be able to comfortably work within those parameters, they need to identify where they have points of leverage, and then they need to leverage the ■■■■ out of those opportunities. Any player that convinces me that they’re capable of that gets my vote AND last year, you were the number one person on my list with respect to that criteria.

This year I’m impressed with @Stitch_Kaneland, somewhat with @Drake_Iddon (Both whom have had their suggestions adopted by CCP in the past), I’m impressed with @The_Oz accomplishments in game and within the community. I think it would be difficult to get to where the oz has gotten without some ability to discriminate between what’s true of a situation and what is not.

I think @Mark_Resurrectus is an important counter balance to null bloc interests and is an experienced candidate. He represents a competing style of play and he doesn’t hesitate to disagree with @Brisc_Rubal. Brisc is a great guy and he’s so privilege in-game I sometimes wonder whether he’s out of touch with what’s important to a player like myself.

I like @Kshal_Aideron’s vibe and I love @Torvald_Uruz, I mean both these players naturally reflect my own interests so it’s difficult not to like them for that reason alone.

The rest of my picks are really just a reflection of whose ideas I like the most.

So practical, so efficient.

I believe that in a game that centres on warring industrial corporations in-space that the corporation UI really ought to be at the nexus of that experience. And that it should be meaningful to players at every level of responsibility. At its core the corp Ui is a communications and management tool and many of the practical day-to-day responsibilities such as updating fleet doctrines, personnel assignments, and resource logistics would be better served if they were accessible through this feature. Role assignment ought to really be a two-way mechanic where players can apply for roles and their in-game contribution be assessed as worthy of that title etc. by the corporations management. As it stands the corporation CEO’s have to rely on ‘clues’ to guess at how to manage their members and their members privileges. This information, which is somewhat reflective of the personalisation that CCP has been driving toward, should be front and centre to a player as it is more relevant than the date they were born, their NPC alignment, or their corp history. The projects feature has demonstrated that it’s possible to track and publish these metrics. And accessibility lists allow us to moderate what we’re willing to allow each other to see. so statistics about myself which I wish to keep secret could be kept secret, perhaps at the expense of a promotion etc. and other information relevant to an in-game title promotion would be made available and visible to relevant parties to action at their discretion. Whichever corporations accomplish this more effectively will naturally surpass those that do not.

Bottom line, as a player and member of an organisation that I’ve put effort into selecting to join, I want to know where I stand NOW and where I can go NEXT. And my CEO wants to know who’s available for what and when and they want to be able to manage experiences, such as fleet operations, resource harvesting expeditions, refuelling, industry resupply etc, quickly and easily by assigning responsibilities to players that have demonstrated capability. It’s called self-monitoring, allow users to track the changes they want to make.

Corporations in-space that had the capability to run like actual real-life corporations would be fantastic. Both in their failure to do so and in their success.

Thanks again for your reply and good luck.

1 Like