Why the CSM again (again!)?
While CSM 18 has had its ups and downs, I believe our continuous feedback has had a positive effect on what was ultimately released (yes, even Equinox). With CCP seemingly interested in addressing power projection as hinted by the Zarzakh changes and the (unfortunately misguided) equinox ansiblex changes, I believe we have an opportunity to further change the current projection paradigm of the game, which has been a focus of mine the previous 2 CSM terms.
Who am I?
I have been part of Pandemic Horde’s leadership for the past 8 years or so.
I have fced medium to large scale fleets, mostly in nullsec but also duking it out over lowsec moons before the untimely demise of passive moon mining, finding my best success with bombing fleets.
I only rarely FC anymore, rather focusing on enabling and supporting more talented and motivated FCs than myself, as well as managing a good chunk of Pandemic Horde’s IT services.
What can you expect of me?
I will keep focusing on similar topics as the previous 2 terms:
Force projection
Content drivers
Pushing for regular balance changes and not just new ships for the sake of novelty
ESI, and in particular integrating data from new features in it
On the topic of force projection specifically, I think it’s important to keep the pressure on CCP not only on ansiblexes (even if they are the most egregious problem), but also on features such as filaments and uni/drifter wormholes.
@Storm_Delay Do you support hiring (EVE Vanguard) Warclone Mercenaries as an attack/defense vector in Capsuleer conflicts? Like attacking/defending Planetary Infrastructure, Skyhooks/POCOs and Upwell Structures?
As a CSM would you try and pitch for CCP to make stack multi-split (splitting a stack of items into multiple stacks of same size in one go instead of just one split at a time) happen?
No, I think the gameplay of both games should remain very separate: I want to play eve with eve players, I don’t want to end up in a place where people get in-game advantages because they also play another game.
As a CSM would you try and pitch for CCP to make stack multi-split (splitting a stack of items into multiple stacks of same size in one go instead of just one split at a time) happen?
It’s a fairly common QoL suggestion, I’m all for it
How does it stack against incoming SCARAB weapon? It de-facto sends imaginary NPC warclones into your ship to rip it apart from the inside. How it would be any different if it would require the actual eve vanguard players to do something on their side of the link to actually be effective on eve side of the link and affect eve ship targeted with SCARAB?
We don’t know any specifics of it atm (you probably do ofc …ok, shhh) but the way it was described in the Revenant announcement suggested that once you are hit you are de-facto slowly being done with with no counter. And no EVE Vanguard players included yet.
So what would be difference anyways if they were included in it but would actually need to succeed on their side so the SCARAB weapon have any effect on EVE ship? So the element of chance instead of inevitable fate. And what if you could carry something (warclone blanks ) in your cargo or special new bay that could counter EVE Vanguard players on their side? Like other EVE Vanguard players fighting on your side?
Last year I asked eight questions and then compiled the answers into a huge mega-thread. It was massive. With the exception of MILINT_ARC_Trooper, no one had a thread bigger than mine, to be fair MILINT_ARC_Troopers’ thread was so weighty and knowledgable it teetered on the edge of collapsing into its’ own core.
That catalogue of replies is now a time-capsule and encapsulated within are the hopes and disappointments that CSM 18 candidates considered worth speaking about during the year of EVE’s 20th anniversary.
The responses gave voters en masse an opportunity to test and compare each hopeful CSM 18 candidates commitment to their claims of being community oriented, knowledgable, responsive and representative of player values. Given that the CSM does not directly control any aspect of EVE’s development and that the successful candidates are those that can identify existing and future consequences, co-operate with other CSM members, and communicate issues -from a player perspective- to CCP staff one-to-one, I’ve formulated a set of questions designed to seperate the compressed ORE from the Long-Limb Roes in this years election race.
Year-on-year the Independent Representatives, Solo players with single accounts, Worm Holers, Triangle People, Semi-nomadic Role-Playing Sandbox Explorers, and Salvagers, have been organising and gaining traction against the self-secure Null-Bloc Empire Candidates and their vast hordes of leather-skinned, evil, flying-monkeys. More-and-more players are choosing to vote in members they believe can positively impact CCP’s approach to the game regardless of their in-game affiliations.
Exposure matters, who are you, what is your clue?
As was the process last year I will post each candidates reply in a super thread, first-in first-served.
This years questions:
What ONE identifiable consequence requires CCP’s attention?
What PROVABLE evidence can you supply to support your belief in this situation?
What practical, and balanced change can be made to support a solution if any?
What support do your observations have from other CSM candidates?
How will you present your findings to CCP?
If you have already identified and spoken about a problem in your CSM candidacy bio at the top of this thread feel free to copy pasta that response where applicable. I’ll copy paste directly from your response to this post. Choose your goblet…. wisely.
Let the games begin, and may the odds ever be in your favour.
…ok, shhh) but the way it was described in the Revenant announcement suggested that once you are hit you are de-facto slowly being done with with no counter. And no EVE Vanguard players included yet.
) in your cargo or special new bay that could counter EVE Vanguard players on their side? Like other EVE Vanguard players fighting on your side?