Vote for Zipp Adoudel for CSM 14

(Zipp Adoudel) #1

o7. Hi New Eden, Zipp Adoudel here. I am running for CSM.

What is the CSM? The CSM is suppose to be a democratically elected group of people that CCP can present ideas to and the CSM can help shape how ideas take place. The CSM is not a developer. They do not present problems with the intent to fix. The CSM is a player based advisory group to CCP.

Should the CSM be representative of all of Eve, independent of where they park their ship? Yes. If someone in your alliance or corp doesn’t get elected, does that mean you are not represented? No. The CSM is about advancing Eve. Not for just the big guy, but for everyone. The CSM has its shortcomings but works to fix game imbalances as they come and should be viewed as an important part of Eve. This institution attempts to represent all pilots of Eve. It is meant to treat each play style with viability and to pursue new and interesting ways in which old playstyles can be reborn. The CSM is like a phoenix. (Not the Caldari dread.) The mythological creature that is reborn from its own ashes. The CSM is meant to take old ideas, and guide them into new play.

Some ideas I’d like to put forward on the CSM are:

  1. Loot drop from killing structures in null (50%). This would hopefully increase content from defending assets, a use or lose sort of system, and at the bare minimum it would give attackers an incentive.
  2. Make rorq mining interactive (potentially similar to Fighter Mechanics for Excavator Drones) this would reduce the ability to multibox to remove afk rorq mining. This will cause supers and titans to be less available, and will make building of said ships a community activity
  3. Continue to support rebalance/redesign (Marauders, ECM), in hopes of changing or broadening the meta (Marauders could have a special function, like cyno jamming, when in bastion, or could be an anti capital ship that gets bonuses to resists of capital guns and fighters when in bastion mode. Where as ECMs could be made effective but in a less oppressive way than before with stat tweeks)

With the understanding that I am not bringing ideas to CCP, I would like to present a few of my thoughts on Eve. Here are guidelines that I would follow when making a decision:

  1. My playstyle does not trump yours. My fun is not your fun, and it doesn’t have to be.
  2. When presented with an idea, I will attempt to explore all ways in which the idea could impact New Eden. The four big areas would be the 4 parts of space (High, low, null, and wh). Other areas would include PVE (mining, production, mission running, etc) and PVP(small gang, large fleet, SOV, Structure bashing, etc)
  3. If given the choice between something that supports small gang or fleet PVP, I push for improvements to smaller scale experiences with less TiDi. Daily interaction that are small scale should be given more weight and hopefully result in the occasional large fleet/cap brawl.
  4. New vs fix; This is an interesting question. Would I favor a new ship over a rebalance of an old ship? Would I favor a new mechanic over fixing an old one? The answer is that it depends. Best case is I would hear the arguments for both and make a decision based on one of the other points presented. Worst case is I would listen to arguments for both, look for unintended consequences of each choice, and make a decision based on which one suites more of a majority of the game. Content creation will always win out.
  5. Capitals? I feel that capitals are a sledgehammer in Eve. Many other things are scalpels. What I mean by this statement is, Capitals show up too often and can solve many problems. Titans should not have HAW guns and dreads should not be able to apply to stuff below BC without additional support. Each ship has a purpose and it isn’t “Use for everything.”
  6. CCP, CSM, and player relations must be kept at the foreground for every idea. Transparency should be second nature, when it can be, and that relationship should be fostered so that players trust both the CSM and CCP. The CSM should not have the reputation of something that was a good idea and never panned out
  7. Last, and just as important, I will not make everyone happy with all of my decisions. My decisions may or may not be implemented. I can say without a doubt that I will do my best to represent the biggest majority of Eve every time. I am running for CSM for Eve itself, not for my Alliance, nor for my corp. I want Eve to be better when I leave office. The game needs more representatives willing to enrich the player experience and provide content opportunity

I have a resume and a candidate short bio that is or will be out there shortly. I am not going to rehash those credentials. I have been with many Alliances, and as I play Eve, I am sure I will be with many more. I welcome all discussion. If you would like to schedule a time to chat about your group’s concerns, I would gladly welcome it. I am by no means an expert in Eve. I am but a humble student and willing to represent each and everyone of you to the best of my ability. I have set up an email for my campaign and for my time in office, if I fit your needs. Please send me thoughts on Eve and all requests to [ZippAdoudel@gmail.com] or @ZAdoudel on twitter.

For PVP stats see my PVP toon Somer Adoudel

To view my Resume Click Here

13 Likes
(Mar5hy) #2

Hmmm - 110 votes from me lol.

If this was a thing with out a local nerf you would make null very safe.

3 Likes
(Zipp Adoudel) #3

It wasn’t a hard idea. I was searching for a way to make marauders a useful ship outside of HS mission running. The last thing I want to do is remove content from the game.

What ways do you think marauders could be changed to be a relevant ship?

1 Like
(Racken Ormand) #4

Citadel loot drop idea is by far a good idea, i’m in favor of either a loot drop % or even a complete destruction of assets. Although i would make this dependable on the space. I still have some belief that asset safety could still exist in highsec, or some form of asset safety where not all your assets are saved but a random %. Although i am 100% of the opinion that asset safety should not have ever existed in nullsec, the mechanic encourages laziness and in most circumstances it has lead to many great fights and extra content never potentially happening . (why bother protecting the structure if my assets are safe) with of course the exemption of assets in build with production citadels.

imagine a circumstance where assets are under threat of complete destruction, it would galvanize entire alliances into putting up the best fight they could, at the moment, from past observations with the asset safety mechanic it has just lead to alliances saying “oh well” and then just leaving a citadel to die and having people waiting (insert asset safety waiting time, i don’t know it) before they start playing the game again. This forces a choice, you either get the assets out, you put up a fight and protect the assets or you loose the assets.

Asset safety should be entirely removed from null, if you want to live in a space with 0 security, you should be prepared to risk your assets to reap the rewards, after all the very foundations of this game are built upon risk and reward. Wormhole space doesn’t have asset safety so there is no real plausible excuse for it’s existence in null.

3 Likes
(Calum MacGowan) #5

Cloaky camping is the only viable way to forcibly reduce ADMs, and is thus a vital tool in sov warfare. Any counter to cloaky camping will require a substantial nerf in local channel lists, which would undoubtedly incur the wrath of nullsec PvE’ers.

I don’t like Mar5hy for obvious reasons, but I have to agree that without a nerf to local, your solution to cloaky camping could potentially make nullsec too safe.


Your sentiments on HAW dreads pose a threat to solo dreadnought PvP gameplay, popularised by the likes of Lasker Emanuel. HAW titans very much deserve the nerf bat and I am thankful for whatever comes their way now and in the future. Would you reconsider your position if you realised that your wishes would threaten solo dread gameplay?

1 Like
(Zipp Adoudel) #6

Solo dread gameplay isn’t an issue. If a dread is fit to hit smaller ships, it would sacrafic tank or damage. That makes sense. What i would advocate against is a small 10 man frig roam is out and dreads get dropped as a counter.

Going back to your cloaky camping issue. I agree that cloaky camping is a necessary part of SOV warfare. Everyone hates toasting max ADMs. The comment on the marauder was less about cloaky camping and more about finding a niche for it.

Do you have suggestions for a roll the marauder could be worked into?

1 Like
(Zipp Adoudel) #7

I updated the Marauder idea.

1 Like
(Zipp Adoudel) #8

Generating ideas for additional content:

more C5/C6 to Null worm holes (potential to allow bigger WH entities to find suitable content) Maybe medium size. Could be Cap size. Give me your pros and cons.

Delay Local and Intel channels writing to log files by 10 minutes (this makes intel programs and bots uneffective)

Make Local either regional or constellation based (Local becomes less of an intel tool)

Modify the mass of the Leshak to fit more with other BS

rebalance risk/reward/time of C3 and c4 sites as well as Capital Escalations in C5 systems.

Give me your pros and cons for the ideas.

1 Like
(Smartbombing Gatecamps) #9

I don’t know enough about WH space to comment on the first part.

I like the idea of delaying log files being written, a 10 minute delay in automated programs being able to pick up intel reports would be nice and aid active hunting.

Local should stay as it is, there’s already (largely unused) constellation/regional chat. Many people probably don’t even know it exists. If I didn’t want local I’d live in a wormhole, plus I feel it would be unnecessary with intel bots etc. being less useful anyway.

No issues with the mass change.

Again, don’t know enough to comment on the last point.

(Zipp Adoudel) #10

@Smartbombing_Gatecamps Do you not feel that changing Local to Constellation or regional would make things like ratting and mining a little harder? It would require people to take risks or have a plan to fight? Local was never meant to be used as an intel tool and it would be harder to track hostiles with a change like this.

(Smartbombing Gatecamps) #11

I can guarantee you people will quit the game if you attempt to change the way local works at this point. And more people leaving EVE is the last thing we need.

(Zipp Adoudel) #12

We want more, not less people. I agree with that. But who would be impacted by the change?

I have been on the hunting side, as well as the mining/ratting side. It would def make me rethink how I am going to try and safe guard my assets, but all of my ideas ( alt on regional gate, response fleet ready, more tank and less DPS/mining yield) I feel would contribute to people having to be at the computer and paying attention.

(Smartbombing Gatecamps) #13

Anyone that does PVE would be negatively effected by the change, local has been a core mechanic of EVE for the past 16 years; if changes were to be made to it they would need to have been made long ago - but I’ve been playing the game for 13 years… you’ve been playing it for 1 and 1/2, what would I know?

I’m someone that actually doesn’t do any PVE at all; I sub my accounts and play the game to PVP so realistically a local change wouldn’t effect me much, but many people rely on the ability to make ISK in game to do what they need. I’m all for delays to log files etc. because that means automated intel is no longer a thing. But if people are paying attention to in-game intel channels, then I have no issue with them knowing what is going on near by.

Not being able to tell when someone enters local would mean ratters etc. are constantly going to loose their ships, people will not be able to afford this and leave and if ratters stop ratting and miners stop mining… then there’s no one to hunt.

(Zipp Adoudel) #14

@Smartbombing_Gatecamps As I stated before, I do not want to get rid of content. My time in the game may be short compared to others, but have been around eve and learned from many people. I am by no means an expert, but my lack of time is no reason to dismiss my comment. Just because something always has been, doesnt mean it cant be changed. My intent with the local change is to remove the amount of intel that can be gained from just being in game. Do you have ideas as to how that intent could be met without causing people to leave the game?

(Smartbombing Gatecamps) #15

Why do you feel that amount of intel that can be gained from actively playing the game should be reduced?

When you suggest a change, you need to understand all the aspects of the game that it will effect; and this is where playing the game for a long time comes in handy - because you’re then more likely to realise changes like this effect not just PVP and PVE but would also have a dramatic impact on the in-game market, etc.

No. If a change like this is made, people will leave.

If people loose ships when trying to make money, PLEX prices will keep going up and up, and they’re already too high for many people.

(Tiger Venn Ronuken) #16

A small addition to our discussion from a few days ago:

I’d say cloaky camping is much less overpowered than people think. For one, a single person or a small group of campers can generally be avoided by just moving to the system next door, which is entirely viable due to how much PvE each system can support before it overflows.

Second of all, with only a light capital umbrella, the ‘victim’ can just cyno up and, ehh “heavily discourage” anyone coming in to attack them. Even a few carriers will make even sizeable BLOPS flets (up to 20 dudes) quickly GTFO, and a single FAX will save the ratter as well.

So even though cloaky camping is seen as this unbeatable strategy where you either stop ratting or die, it’s far from it. It takes a lot to make it a really successful strategy - for example, Mar5hy with his 100 alts and huge Bombers Bar fleets to bring in, or Goons with their massive fleets and sheer number of individual campers. In both cases, an entire region can be covered, so ratters can’t just move one system over, and the fleets bridging in are in the triple digits, so you can’t just scare them off with a handful of capitals.

Finally, I’ve always found covert fleets with the explicit task of lowering a region’s ADMs in preparation for an invasion to be a really cool tactic.

Having said all that, I still think that 99% of the time, cloaky camping is as boring for the victims as it is for the perpetrators, and I think it should be looked at, but not without addressing the degree of safety which ratters and miners in nullsec enjoy currently, as has been discussed.

(Zipp Adoudel) #17

Local is not an active event. Local is something that just is. You need a community to have an intel channel. Many alliances, both large and small have them and they work by people posting in the channel. I am aware that changing local would effect ratting and mining. I understand that by effecting mining you are increasing ore prices.

Plex will probably be in a bad place in the near future because of the group coming from Serenity. Not manufacturing isk from ratting would more than likely lower prices because of the lack of inflation.

At the end of the day, I will only be suggesting fixes. I appreciate the discussion about local. I can see how making it harder for people to fund their game play could reduce the number of people in the game. I do not want to make anyone feel like they have to pay more than they already do for this amazing game.

(Zipp Adoudel) #18

Tiger I agree with your ideas. I’m not a fan of cloaky camping in its current form, but with Fozzie SOV it is a necessity. I like the idea of preparing for an invasion. Almost like the cloaky camper is a spy gathing intel for where to stike first.

I do not want to make it hard for people to pay for their accounts they way they see fit, but at the same time, tools like near2 or vintel create less content for minimal effort. The game needs more content creators and not less.

2 Likes
(Solecist Project) #19

Don’t let this thread devolve into the main afk cloaky thread. That thread shows that they will use any and all reasons for why afk cloaking is bad and that there is not one reason that’s actually legit, because they will also just keep jumping from one to another.

Always remember that the ones who want afk cloaking to be changed the most are the RMTers. There is no reason to differentiate, because when someone who isn’t an RMTer even just indirectly supports RMTers, then he’s just as bad as them.

1 Like
(Zipp Adoudel) #20

With the fundamental understanding that CCP brings the changes to the CSM, what kind of thought process or ideas would you like to see CSM 14 push?