TeaDaze.net

It has been a busy weekend spreading the word about the CSM in general and my campaign in particular. While teaching an Agony Unleashed PvP Basic class I got the chance to speak with and take questions from the players which was very helpful and enjoyable.

Eve is a not an easy game for the beginner, but it doesn’t need to be dumbed down. Due to the sandbox nature there exists another way. Many corporations will take in newer players to train them (Eve uni, Veto Academy etc), other corporations such as ourselves will train anybody (without having to get the player to join the corp).

After a few short hours of PvP Basic the players have a good grasp of ewar, safespots and other concepts to help them survive in and out of combat. The instructors do this because we enjoy spreading the knowledge and because ultimately (in the case of Agony) we want to fight players in 0.0 who are a challenge.

This kind of training exists because of the Sandbox nature of Eve. I wish to see the players help each other out and have the tools to do so. I am hopeful that with the new IGB changes in dominion that it will be easier for training corporations to provide teaching materials directly in game and I will support any proposals that encourage this.

TL:DR

If voted to the CSM, I will support ways to encourage the education of newer players but will outright reject anything that I feel is dumbing down Eve.

Eve is unique among the MMOs and I would like to keep it that way.

There was a live radio debate with myself and three other candidates on Split Inifinty Radio tonight at 21:00 eve time.

Check out the Planet Risk Show website for all the details and download the podcast version.

The list is up and of the 60 people who applied 11 were rejected for passport issues, EULA violations and in some cases for being “Internet lolsters”.

So now the campaigning begins, please read my platform message to see what I stand for and also please check out the other posts on this blog to see a bit more about how I approach a subject.

Also you can follow my twitter and ask questions there.

TL:DR

If you vote me into the CSM:

• I will listen to feedback
• I will research issues raised
• I will ensure correspondence from the CSM gets back to the players in a timely manner

No wall of text this time 😉

Once again an Alliance has been disbanded by a broken game mechanic.

Please support this proposal

Metagaming has its place in and out of Eve, but the in game mechanic that allows people to kick all corps and then hit disband in a matter of minutes without any timers or votes doesn’t.

Thanks to Mynxee for putting the proposal to the CSM.

I see a number of people campaigning for your votes on the platform of “X is wrong. Vote for me and I’ll fix it”. I think this isn’t a particularly good method for determining who should form the CSM.

The CSM are supposed to present the views of the players, not just the CSM candidate and their corp/alliance.

In addition there are some issues that are universally supported, such as fixing the corp interface which has been terrible for years.

These in my opinion are not valid campaign platforms because then you the voters see no differentiation between the candidates. However that said I guess a quick summery of the obvious is useful to ensure my position on some things is clear.

If I get voted into the CSM I will:

• Continue to chase CCP for answers to the Issues in progress (those which have been voted on by the CSM but have yet to have a reply from CCP)

• Accurately relay topics raised in the Assembly Hall to the CSM.

• Evaluate the proposals fully, mindful of their impact on smaller gang pvp amongst other things.

• Vote based on the proposal raised, not on the politics of the person/corp/alliance that raised it.

As I say, this should be stating the obvious, but sometimes it does not hurt to do so 😉

So what do I mean with the title of this post?

I feel strongly that proposed changes raised in the Assembly hall should be presented accurately, but there are a few instances where I feel this has not happened and I wanted to bring up a specific example of this.

Retweak Minmatar Ewar ship web abilities

From the linked wiki page

Summary

Minmatar Recons suffered more than any other kind in the Empyrean Age expansion with the so called ‘Nano Nerf’. They are now unable to dictate range effectively during engagements.

Solution

Make the Huginn more like the Curse in that it’s EWAR abilities are more important than damage. The 5% missile launcher ROF per level of the Recon Ship skill is changed instead for 5% stasis webifier effectiveness per level. Additionally the Hyena loses it’s signature radius reduction bonus and gains the 5% web effectiveness bonus per level of EAS. Even at level 5 with 60% webs both ships are only upgraded to 75% webs, however, this gives them a much more defined role. The Rapier will remain as is.

Now I have an interest in this topic because I like many other people believe the Rapier is unable to do the job for which it was intended. It shouldn’t be a solo pwnmobile of course but it should have the tools to web a fast moving ship down to the point where the rapier itself is able to dictate range (i.e. the target is now slower than the Rapier).

But this proposal specifically excludes the Rapier? From the linked Assembly Hall forum thread

I would suggest (as with other EWAR) that webs be left as is for ships without a bonus (i.e.60% speed reduction)..but perhaps introduce a 2.5-5% bonus per level to web strength for both Minmatar recons and the Hyena.

So the CSM voted on CCP making changes to just the hugin and hyena. It seems to have deliberately excluded the Rapier. I don’t feel in this instance that the original proposal as supported by the players in the Assembly Hall was fairly represented.

I feel all proposals should be presented as originally posted in the Assembly Hall. During the discussion/debate it is fine for CSM members to suggest a alternative changes within the framework of the topic (in this instance the proposal in the same Assembly Hall thread to remove the Target Painting bonuses from the base ships and replace with a web strength bonus that would then be passed up to the T2 versions. This would have made the bellicose more useful and make the vigil into a nice T1 tackler).

You might claim the net result is the same either way because ultimately CCP make the choice of which ships to include in the rebalancing and considering that many of the newly changed faction ships have 90% webs thanks to ship bonuses I think this will have been on their minds. But that is not the point, the topic was edited before submission to the CSM and that in my opinion is wrong.

I am not trying to get voted into the CSM to push my vision for how the game should be changed or otherwise campaigning on specific changes.

I am running because I wish to ensure that the views of the players are presented without bias and that any discussions thereafter have representation from the small gang PvP and non spaceholding 0.0 alliance perspectives.

TL:DR

If voted in to the CSM I will accurately represent the proposals as voted on by the players without making amendments.

I’m not infallible, but I do listen 😉

When a few people told me that the Vengeance and Retribution were lacking something compared to the other races’ Assault Ships I  was initially skeptical. After all the Vengeance fit I use can tank something like 300dps as a heavy tackler (though with sod all DPS which is fine for the role) and I’ve flown 260DPS gank fitted Retributions which are wonderfully destructive but lack any spare midslots.

However I had to check into this a issue a little more because I use these ships for fleet work, and the complaint was that neither were suitable for solo PvP. Now I don’t see a problem with having some ships that are not good for solo PvP work as long as they are fine in a fleet, but it looks like pure Amarr pilots haven’t got a choice with their Assault Ships.

So what is the problem and how to rectify this?

The requirements for a solo PvP ship are a decent balance between DPS, tank and ewar. Without enough DPS you can’t kill anything. Without some tank you can’t survive long enough to kill anything (though doing more DPS than the opponent is also a form of tank in smaller fights). Without ewar, specifically a warp scram you can’t hold the opponent down if they wish to escape.

I understand all that but what is the issue with Amarr Assault Ships for Solo PvP work?

Firstly the Retribution has excellent DPS and can fit a decent buffer tank. However it only has one midslot, so if you fit a scram you’ll be limited to taking on really slow ships or camping catch bubbles. If you fit a propulsion mod instead then your target will warp off. To address this some people would be happy to lose the utility high on the Retri to give it 2 mids, others would prefer to lose a low. Giving it a 4L 2M 5H layout would match the wolf however lasers have some range advantage over the autocannons thus this would have to be looked at carefully.

To the Vengeance then. I fly a heavy tackle version but I had assumed that gank fitted it would be on a par with other Assault Ships (though not as hard hitting at the Retri) and with the spare mids for tackle it would seem fine as a solo ship. Sadly it seems that the rocket damage output is so bad that even with the ship bonus and 3 damage mods that the Veng struggles to match other ships. In this case I put the blame at the rockets themselves and I know there have been many threads about those already ranging from the detailed and well thought out to the “Fix rockets kkthx”.

As per a previous CSM suggestion it is planned that Assault Ships will get an afterburner speed bonus which will likely make them more popular and as things stand it would appear that the Amarr versions do have a disadvantage for solo PvP. In my opinion at least one of these ships should be capable of solo PvP and thus I think the Vengeance should be fitted into this role, once rocket changes have been made (hopefully soon tm).

If this issue has effected you in some way, please put on your thinking caps and submit a thread to the Assembly Hall to be voted on. With enough player support the CSM will be able to champion these ideas to CCP.

TL:DR

If elected to CSM I will look into issues raised by the players, evaluate them objectively and ensure I am equipped to represent the players faithfully in discussions.

In game my name is TeaDaze and I have been playing Eve since 2005. I would like you to consider voting for me in this the fourth session of the CSM. Currently I specialise in 0.0 small gang PvP but like many people I started as an empire carebear running missions and for a while was a member of a space-holding alliance. I also dabble in market trading, run a reaction pos and am involved with low scale T2 production via invention so have a wide variety of game experience to draw on.

I am probably best known for being one of the commentators from the 7th Alliance tournament, however don’t let that put you off 😉 I have been a member of Agony Unleashed for 18 months and am one of their instructors. We run public classes for players, many new to PvP, about how to fight and survive in 0.0. We treat anyone in 0.0 as fair game but at the same time we respect our opponents (depending on how they react ;)) and have a no smack policy. I have no political connection to large space holding alliances and can be seen as an objective third party in that respect.

Like many people I have ideas for ways that Eve can be improved, however I also understand that being a CSM representative is not a platform for me to propose my ideas directly but is instead a position of responsibility to promote the ideas raised and voted for by you, the players, via the Assembly forum. To that end rather than posting a list of changes I would make (some of which other people have already addressed in CSM #3 though they might not be implemented yet) I will instead cover my general stance on issues.

• Risk should be rewarded.
• In general buffing a weaker item is preferable to nerfing stronger ones.
• Not all ships have to be good at solo PvP.
• Flexibility is important so people can use ships in ways not intended; within reason.
• Racial differences in ships and weapons should be maintained rather than homogenizing everything however these must be balanced in some other way.
• Tactics should have a place in countering overwhelming numbers.

I will always listen to a well made argument for or against a specific issue passed to the CSM and if elected I will debate them to the best of my ability without political bias.

I look forward to answering your questions.

TL:DR
Vote for TeaDaze!

Greetings pilot and welcome to my home on the Galactic Network.

Here you will find some information about me, my character in Eve Online and my candidacy for the fourth session of the Council of Stellar Management (CSM).

More information will be transmitted soon, please stand by.