CSM Voting ends on November the 26th so don’t miss out Vote Here.
If you are not convinced that I am the right candidate then check out CSM Vote Match to see who is.
I’d like to thank all the people who have supported my campaign, I hope I get the chance to repay your faith in me.
On the CSM Vote Match site there is a question (well 30 questions, but who is counting? – Me obviously ;)) that has raised a few eyebrows and which will probably cost me a number of votes.
This question is “Local chat should be changed to delayed mode.” and because I’m honest I picked it as something I strongly agree with. I even went as far as to pick it as a key question (without any thought of the impact it might have on match scores ;)).
Because the vote match is a simple site there isn’t any way to explain the reasoning behind that choice, which is where this post comes in. The question of delayed local is one that will split the candidates (no point having questions that everyone will agree on) just as much as the player base.
First off, scope of changes isn’t addressed in the question, but here are my thoughts.
Now we have that out of the way…
What is wrong with Local? It isn’t broken, why mess with it?
Simply put, Local is no longer a simple chat channel to (smack) talk with other pilots in the same system, rather it is predominately used as a general purpose Intel tool.
It has become a one stop shop for checking how many people are in system, if they are hostile to you (based on your standings) and even which corps and alliances they are in. This can happen before a person entering the system has even loaded (i.e. still in black screen).
So it gives an advantage to people defending a system more so than people attacking it? Hold on there, it is not quite so simple. If I’m scouting then I can use local once I load system to find out if there are any targets. I know who they are, which corp and can even add them to address book to watch them logoffski.
I feel this behaviour isn’t right, especially as it makes it impossible for covert ships to sneak up on targets because even if you enter from a different gate they see local spike and bug out. You can’t sneak a covert fleet in via a blackops portal out of scan range because they will see you in local. As a defender you can’t hide your true numbers in system without springing a login trap when the attackers have committed themselves (I dislike login traps and am glad Agony don’t use them).
CCP don’t seem to like the behaviour either which is why they tried something else in wormhole space. They have also stated that they are not willing to change local in known space without revisiting Intel tools, which I think is a fair compromise.
However the second you talk about possible changes to local you get quotes like the following
“(another csm candidate) agrees w/ making local delayed which is a horrible idea unless you want to constantly get ganked by cloakers in your own freaking space while trying to raise pvp money – it just further reduces 0.0 profitability (besides, that’s what WH’s are for). “
This is an often repeated view, that a change to local must be due to wanting to gank solo ratters in 0.0 space and must therefore be blocked at all costs! It is an emotional issue that people see as an outright attack on their game.
I feel this is rather short sighted. I’m interested in the whole picture – balance, risk vs reward and so I’d like the issue to be discussed fully and not be looked at purely from a solo ratters point of view (though that input is just as valid in the discussions).
So I’ve outlined some issues and other views, what do we do?
Firstly it is not my place to say how it should be done, it is my job (if elected to CSM) to take player proposals to the next meeting and discuss them.
I don’t and have never claimed to have all the answers! Nor do I want to force my view of PvP across all of Eve.
The question was do I support the idea of delayed local and as far as 0.0 goes, yes I do. The actual mechanism has yet to be proposed or debated by the players let alone the CSM.
That said, here are some ideas that have been thrown around.
If we must have a compromise than this could be it. In the case of a solo ratter or a mining op any change in local will be spotted and they can warp to their pos etc as now – no change for them and no benefit to the PvPers.
However in the smaller roaming gang PvP world, this is an improvement because while your scout caused local to go up by one, the defenders don’t know your name or corp/alliance unless they get eyes on you. Of course you need to get eyes on them for the same reasons but I think it would add an extra level of tactics.
This Intel could start off with ship counts entering and leaving system (once they decloak from session change) and could be upgraded to maybe give ship classes.
There is enough Intel for people to safe up but it still doesn’t give the pilot/corp/alliance details and does allow people to portal in to avoid being spotted by the gates.
However this doesn’t help people living in NPC 0.0 space
There are of course other and maybe better ideas yet to be discussed in public.
So that is my position, I know many people do not agree with me but I’m open to discussion on the subject.
TL:DR
I think the issues surrounding Local chat being used as a one stop Intel shop should be discussed by the playerbase and then the CSM in combination with CCP. This can only be achieved by proposals being raised in the Assembly Hall forum with ideas on how to implement any change to Local.
It looks like voting is now enabled, *Clicky Here*
Scroll down and vote for TeaDaze now 
If you haven’t yet made up your mind then please read this site and ask questions.
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 have decided to have another play with factional warfare (on an alt). I tried it shortly after it was released and lasted about two months because I ended up doing other things with my mains.
So far there seems to be a good mix of FW fleets and pirates – certainly more general traffic than I see in 0.0 but time will tell if I get some good fights 🙂 This will be the first weekend since I joined so I assume it will be even more populated but I’m not sure if that will mean more targets or just blobs. Tune in next week 😉
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:
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.