open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked Re-elect Sokratesz for CSM-6 2011!
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.21 17:42:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 22/02/2011 14:16:26


Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


Sokratesz for CSM 2011!

With CSM-4 and 5 we managed to stir up the place and I would like to continue doing just that, pointing CCP at flaws and aiding them in fixing what we, the players, deem important. With me you get no huge walls-of-text, no inflated management talk but most importantly: no bull****. I say things as they are, the way the players want it. If you need me, Iím always available in-game or by e-mail. You can find me on these forums or on many other EVE-community sites, talking about stuff related to EVE, CCP and the CSM.

My approach to the CSM has been one that favours competitive elements - whether that means blowing up other people's ships large or small or economic competition. I have no ties to large alliances, I pledge allegiance to no one but the people around me that enjoy playing the game.

If you have any questions, feel free to bother me.

- Sok.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.21 17:42:00 - [2]
 

Reserved!

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2011.02.21 17:52:00 - [3]
 

I heard Sok is a pretty cool guy.

Nomad I
Posted - 2011.02.21 20:51:00 - [4]
 

Edited by: Nomad I on 21/02/2011 20:52:06
This candidate is for a nerv of all logistics in 0.0 so that freighter and hauler convoys getting a new and bright future and that everyone in 0.0 will be forced to work 95% of his game time to make logistics instead of making pewpew. It's the typical attitude of a low sec griefer. Don't elect him.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.21 21:12:00 - [5]
 

Originally by: Nomad I
Edited by: Nomad I on 21/02/2011 20:52:06
This candidate is for a nerv of all logistics in 0.0 so that freighter and hauler convoys getting a new and bright future and that everyone in 0.0 will be forced to work 95% of his game time to make logistics instead of making pewpew. It's the typical attitude of a low sec griefer. Don't elect him.


It seems as if you haven't got even the slightest gist of what you are talking about. If there however are any genuine questions about this matter that was discussed in the last CSM summit, I'll be happy to address them.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.21 23:05:00 - [6]
 

What's your take on the rampant botting and how are you going to persuade CCP to dedicate sufficient resources to the problem and convince them 24 hour bans are not going to stop ppl using bots?

Nomad I
Posted - 2011.02.22 06:44:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Nomad I
Edited by: Nomad I on 21/02/2011 20:52:06
This candidate is for a nerv of all logistics in 0.0 so that freighter and hauler convoys getting a new and bright future and that everyone in 0.0 will be forced to work 95% of his game time to make logistics instead of making pewpew. It's the typical attitude of a low sec griefer. Don't elect him.


It seems as if you haven't got even the slightest gist of what you are talking about. If there however are any genuine questions about this matter that was discussed in the last CSM summit, I'll be happy to address them.


Don't lie because you self wrote:
"0.0 logistics currently are too easy and cheap IMO"

As I'm stated before, don't elect this candidate, because he will make your life in 0.0 to a hell.



Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:42:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Dirk Decibel
What's your take on the rampant botting and how are you going to persuade CCP to dedicate sufficient resources to the problem and convince them 24 hour bans are not going to stop ppl using bots?


Even though, according to recent publications, everyone seems to have underestimated the problem somewhat, CCP has taken the problem quite seriously from what I could gather in the past CSM terms. It seems there is a need to do some more however and I will not hesitate to push that subject because even in the most optimistic estimates, botting is having a huge influence in the EVE economy and political landscape.


Originally by: Nomad I
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Nomad I
Edited by: Nomad I on 21/02/2011 20:52:06
This candidate is for a nerv of all logistics in 0.0 so that freighter and hauler convoys getting a new and bright future and that everyone in 0.0 will be forced to work 95% of his game time to make logistics instead of making pewpew. It's the typical attitude of a low sec griefer. Don't elect him.


It seems as if you haven't got even the slightest gist of what you are talking about. If there however are any genuine questions about this matter that was discussed in the last CSM summit, I'll be happy to address them.


Don't lie because you self wrote:
"0.0 logistics currently are too easy and cheap IMO"

As I'm stated before, don't elect this candidate, because he will make your life in 0.0 to a hell.




The trouble with fools is that they can be so damn persistent..you keep reading this very selectively and interpreting it as if it were a threat made personally against you.

There is no doubt that the proliferation of supercaps and the ability of an army to move all the way across the galaxy in a matter of hours is having a quenching effect on PVP, large and small. Who's gonna engage a 10 vs 10 when you know there is a hotdrop inbound? Who can afford to leave his homespace for a few days because the enemy could move over en-force tonight and siege it? These are, in my opinion, some of the overarching problems that 0.0 and lowsec currently face, and we have been discussing possible solutions at length. Ideas were let loose, some of which are apparently so radical that people like you have difficulty realising that we are trying to think up ways of making the game better. If you have alternative ideas on how to fix these problems, don't hesitate to voice them because we are after all your representatives.

Nomad I
Posted - 2011.02.22 10:30:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz

There is no doubt that the proliferation of supercaps and the ability of an army to move all the way across the galaxy in a matter of hours is having a quenching effect on PVP, large and small.


You are mixing up force projection and logistics and I remaind poeple here, what you have written:

"0.0 logistics currently are too easy and cheap IMO"

I don't know wheter you are always was be active in corp logistics or not. But you are showing no competance and messing up a good intention to remove force projection. Managing production and delivery a ship in an ongoing war can be an exhausting job. If than one like you, try to mess with the logistic chain this will be the death to many smaller entitys in 0.0, while big coalitions can engange their carebear force.

I'm a pilot that want pewpew and not endless convoys or the result that a small alliance isn't able to secure the supply. Thx for the fool. I give it back to you.




Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.22 11:35:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Nomad I
Originally by: Sokratesz

There is no doubt that the proliferation of supercaps and the ability of an army to move all the way across the galaxy in a matter of hours is having a quenching effect on PVP, large and small.


I'm a pilot that want pewpew and not endless convoys or the result that a small alliance isn't able to secure the supply. Thx for the fool. I give it back to you.




What if we can make the game better and give you more, and more interesting PVP by tweaking 0.0 logistics? What if we made construction in outposts and at POS'es easier so you can build stuff locally and not have to import everything from empire? That would offset much of the inconveniences that regular players would suffer from a logistics 'nerf', whilst at the same time making it more difficult to construct supercaps (which, currently, is stupidly easy).

You are completely forgetting the big picture. There is a lot to be gained by everyone from an overhaul of the way items and ships are made and transported in 0.0. I want to make it easier and more interesting for the regular players, and more challenging for the multi-billionaires and their supercap toys.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.22 20:17:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Dirk Decibel
What's your take on the rampant botting and how are you going to persuade CCP to dedicate sufficient resources to the problem and convince them 24 hour bans are not going to stop ppl using bots?


Even though, according to recent publications, everyone seems to have underestimated the problem somewhat, CCP has taken the problem quite seriously from what I could gather in the past CSM terms. It seems there is a need to do some more however and I will not hesitate to push that subject because even in the most optimistic estimates, botting is having a huge influence in the EVE economy and political landscape.


How are you planning on 'pushing' this issue if I may ask? I hope you will advocate for more rigorous punishment, having a fleet of 0.0 bots banned for 24 hours and being back the day after is certainly not going to solve the problem for instance.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:29:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Sokratesz on 22/02/2011 23:31:06
Originally by: Dirk Decibel

How are you planning on 'pushing' this issue if I may ask? I hope you will advocate for more rigorous punishment, having a fleet of 0.0 bots banned for 24 hours and being back the day after is certainly not going to solve the problem for instance.


The problem with bots is that you have to be damn sure that it actually is a bot before banning one to prevent losing legit customers and causing a PR disaster. So improving detection methods with the aid of players (who undoubtedly know a thing or two about bots :)) is one important factor as well as enforcing the EULA by warnings and bans. If a warning or temp ban does not suffice to stop the botting, more serious actions may be appropriate.

Changing PVE and market mechanics to make botting more difficult (without hindering the players!) is also a possibility but again, this has to be carefully considered.

Dirk Decibel
Posted - 2011.02.23 13:23:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
Edited by: Sokratesz on 22/02/2011 23:31:06


The problem with bots is that you have to be damn sure that it actually is a bot before banning one to prevent losing legit customers and causing a PR disaster. So improving detection methods with the aid of players (who undoubtedly know a thing or two about bots :)) is one important factor as well as enforcing the EULA by warnings and bans. If a warning or temp ban does not suffice to stop the botting, more serious actions may be appropriate.

Changing PVE and market mechanics to make botting more difficult (without hindering the players!) is also a possibility but again, this has to be carefully considered.


Well, we can all see that the current system is not working... And how sure do you need to be when players continue to play for 23 hours a day for prolonged periods of time?

You don't sound like someone who makes comming down hard on bots a priority. "If a warning or temp ban does not suffice to stop the botting, more serious actions may be appropriate.".

News flash: it DOESN'T suffice, you know that, we all know it but still you won't go any further than stating that "More serious actions MAY be appropriate"? Wow, that all sounds a bit like what CCP has been telling us about the issue...

It does not sound like the guy who will do this:

Quote:
With me you get no huge walls-of-text, no inflated management talk but most importantly: no bull****. I say things as they are, the way the players want it.


It sounds like a politician who is not willing to touch the subject too much cuz it won't sit well with his potential voters. In this case being the 0.0 bot-running/condoning crowd perhaps? Neutral

iP0D
Posted - 2011.02.23 15:42:00 - [14]
 

Well, you don't exactly have a record of participation in the CSM. Very little in meetings, you've missed the most ones from all csm 5 members with the least notices in advance of dropping out (with the except of Mazzilliu but hell, she is a self admitted free trip to iceland member), and there's very little besides banter and fun visible from you in the meeting logs? (link)

Is that going to change? Reliably? I mean sure you vote a lot on issues raised, but it's about what you DO as a CSM member.

Lee Janssen
6pack and a Potato
Posted - 2011.02.23 16:00:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Lee Janssen on 23/02/2011 16:10:02
Will you support the nerfing of drakes?



-A Concerned Officer

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.23 18:32:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Dirk Decibel
Originally by: Sokratesz
Edited by: Sokratesz on 22/02/2011 23:31:06


The problem with bots is that you have to be damn sure that it actually is a bot before banning one to prevent losing legit customers and causing a PR disaster. So improving detection methods with the aid of players (who undoubtedly know a thing or two about bots :)) is one important factor as well as enforcing the EULA by warnings and bans. If a warning or temp ban does not suffice to stop the botting, more serious actions may be appropriate.

Changing PVE and market mechanics to make botting more difficult (without hindering the players!) is also a possibility but again, this has to be carefully considered.


Well, we can all see that the current system is not working... And how sure do you need to be when players continue to play for 23 hours a day for prolonged periods of time?

You don't sound like someone who makes comming down hard on bots a priority. "If a warning or temp ban does not suffice to stop the botting, more serious actions may be appropriate.".

News flash: it DOESN'T suffice, you know that, we all know it but still you won't go any further than stating that "More serious actions MAY be appropriate"? Wow, that all sounds a bit like what CCP has been telling us about the issue...

It does not sound like the guy who will do this:

Quote:
With me you get no huge walls-of-text, no inflated management talk but most importantly: no bull****. I say things as they are, the way the players want it.


It sounds like a politician who is not willing to touch the subject too much cuz it won't sit well with his potential voters. In this case being the 0.0 bot-running/condoning crowd perhaps? Neutral


Botting is bad and people who do it need to be banned, I completely agree there, but CCP needs to be careful in their measures against it to prevent fallout. We and CCP are very much aware that if someone is online for 23hrs a day that it's probably a bot, but tools need to be put in place to automatically detect their types of behavior and flag the accounts, and that takes a lot of research, development and time. They showed us in the june and december summits that they are working on it, and if they don't have anything tangible by fanfest then we definitely need to start pressing them! In case CCP does start mass-banning bots again like with unholy rage, they should also keep a very close eye on the economy because bots have a significant impact there, and maybe even be ready to intervene.

And no, I don't serve no 0.0 botting people :) They can all DIAF.


Originally by: iP0D
Well, you don't exactly have a record of participation in the CSM. Very little in meetings, you've missed the most ones from all csm 5 members with the least notices in advance of dropping out (with the except of Mazzilliu but hell, she is a self admitted free trip to iceland member), and there's very little besides banter and fun visible from you in the meeting logs? (link)

Is that going to change? Reliably? I mean sure you vote a lot on issues raised, but it's about what you DO as a CSM member.



What I do as a CSM member is think along with the subject at hand, and then voice my opinion based on experience and input from players, and then vote. CSM-5 had very few issues to discuss because frankly, CSM 1-4 went over so many already, there wasn't much new. The meeting record also isn't quite complete, I missed two in January because I was away in the jungle for a uni project but those are not listed as 'excused'. And looking at those numbers it kind of seems like you deliberately tried to single me out for fingerpointing, because the differences between members are small.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.23 18:43:00 - [17]
 

..continued

Also during the june and december summits I have kept the public informed with daily updates that have been copied by numerous other blogs and forums, something I considered especially important because apart from the minutes (that usually took awhile to be released), the summits were kind of non-transparent to the public.


Originally by: Lee Janssen

Will you support the nerfing of drakes?


-A Concerned Officer


I haven't flown or faced them a whole lot since the last round of adjustments so I can't comment personally. Is this a new structural imbalance or just the latest FOTM whine?

El'Niaga
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2011.02.24 07:39:00 - [18]
 

Nope, not very pleased with the meetings notes I've read. We need new people in the CSM not keep sending the same people and expecting a different result.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.24 16:44:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: El'Niaga
Nope, not very pleased with the meetings notes I've read. We need new people in the CSM not keep sending the same people and expecting a different result.


I think that a certain amount of consistency would be a good thing - to prevent every council from having to start from scratch, getting to know each other and CCP, but at the same time new people with new ideas should be given a chance, so take your own pick.

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.28 09:53:00 - [20]
 

bump!

Disgruntled Flying Monkey
Caldari
School of Applied Knowledge
Posted - 2011.02.28 10:00:00 - [21]
 

Not really keen on the new portrait :( but your ideas are good and you were one of the few decent CSM last term

Hopefully you will get in Very Happy

Camios
Minmatar
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2011.02.28 12:17:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Camios on 28/02/2011 12:18:33
What do you think of small entities in 0.0?

Why I ask: I am not sure about the fact that a nerf in logistics will actually split coalitions (I would like a set of nerf/buffs to encourage local production tough).

But if we want small scale PVP to happen more often in conquerable 0.0, we need small entities there. And by small entities, I mean corporations.
If independent medium sized corporations are allowed to live in conquerable space it will be far more interesting, won't it?

I think that there are a lot of ways to allow independent corporations to live in 0.0 without having them competing with obviously stronger entities about sov, outposts, POSes. Here are some possibilities, and many other could be thought of.

So, in conclusion, what do you think of this vision:

  • Independent corporations in 0.0 conquerable will bring a lot of small scale pvp there;

  • 0.0 "farming landscape" will be more rich and deep: large entities will control outposts, moons, supercap production; small entities will ninjamine, ninjafarm, do piracy, small scale industry;

  • Strong entities will battle against eachother about big things, or try to hunt small entities (and succeeed sometimes), while small entities will fight against eachother, or do piracy or harassment on the space owner.

  • Same space, 2 radically different ways of living in it, 2 levels, both possible, for a lot more small action in 0.0.




Swynet
State War Academy
Posted - 2011.02.28 12:41:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Nomad I
This candidate is for a nerv of all logistics in 0.0 so that freighter and hauler convoys getting a new and bright future and that everyone in 0.0 will be forced to work 95% of his game time to make logistics instead of making pewpew. It's the typical attitude of a low sec griefer. Don't elect him.


If by 95% of game time you mean: work in team play with other people then, hell I say twice yes.
0.0 is far too much safe than it should ever be, that must be changed and then you'll get more pew pew than you have right now, but I would like that the actual abilitys of large fleets to move from here to "there" change a little bit more than just some clicks and "I blob you here and I blob you there"


Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.02.28 20:51:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Disgruntled Flying Monkey
Not really keen on the new portrait :( but your ideas are good and you were one of the few decent CSM last term

Hopefully you will get in Very Happy


The body is nice though :D


Originally by: Camios

So, in conclusion, what do you think of this vision:

  • Independent corporations in 0.0 conquerable will bring a lot of small scale pvp there;

  • 0.0 "farming landscape" will be more rich and deep: large entities will control outposts, moons, supercap production; small entities will ninjamine, ninjafarm, do piracy, small scale industry;

  • Strong entities will battle against eachother about big things, or try to hunt small entities (and succeeed sometimes), while small entities will fight against eachother, or do piracy or harassment on the space owner.

  • Same space, 2 radically different ways of living in it, 2 levels, both possible, for a lot more small action in 0.0.





The more entities you have in zero zero, not blue'd up to ****, the better, because it means conflict. If people can make ISK reliably and find PVP close by, the need to blue up thousands of people disappears. If, at the same time, the ability to move huge fleets across the galaxy in mere hours is reduced, it means a lot more local conflict without half the galaxy involved.

So yeah, what you just said there, I'd consider that an awesome future for 0.0

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.02 08:30:00 - [25]
 

bump!

sue AGPlant
Minmatar
Pew Pew Patrol
Posted - 2011.03.02 11:35:00 - [26]
 

Standing again mate?

Cool and good luck.


AKA the friendly bumpLaughing

Dro Nee
Posted - 2011.03.02 17:16:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Sokratesz
pointing CCP at flaws and aiding them in fixing what we, the players, deem important.


Can I infer from the second part of that sentence that you deem popularity as reason enough to propose/fight for changes to precieved "flaws"? If not, then would you briefly describe how you evaluate something is "flawed" in the first place? I am more interested in how you think then necessarily what you think on specific issues.

Cheers

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.02 17:44:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Dro Nee
Originally by: Sokratesz
pointing CCP at flaws and aiding them in fixing what we, the players, deem important.


Can I infer from the second part of that sentence that you deem popularity as reason enough to propose/fight for changes to precieved "flaws"? If not, then would you briefly describe how you evaluate something is "flawed" in the first place? I am more interested in how you think then necessarily what you think on specific issues.

Cheers


If priority were determined by how many whine posts have been made about it on the forum, EVE would be a very different game :)

What I (and others on the CSM) have been doing is that if something pops up, either because it's posted publicly, mailed to us privately or because CCP asks us for our opinion about something, is turn to the people around us - in my case, corp mates and many friends all over EVE, and ask them what they think of it. If that's not enough, some crowdsourcing may be useful (trebor has been busy with this, see AH). It is by no means based on popularity Wink

Misanth
RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE
Posted - 2011.03.02 18:12:00 - [29]
 

Edited by: Misanth on 02/03/2011 18:17:02
Do you actually believe in the CSM?

* The NDA and the role you have is neither showing any of the "transparency" to us players as it was supposed to.
* CCP likes to present changes and ideas as "we have discussed this issue with CSM .." but eventually they end up doing what they want with it anyway. If you guys agree, chestbeat. If you don't, at least they have "discussed it".

My point is;
I usually agree with most opinions you have regarding capitals, sov, and unlike the whiner early in this thread I too think that a change to logistics is necessary (perhaps by making local production easier, for example), both for supercap production as well as capital warfare -

- But I don't believe in the CSM. In fact I have proposed in these forums that CCP should put those resources to better use. Hire a professional 'spokesperson' and/or communicator, that can be a dialogue between players and CCP. Not so much for ideas and changes, but he could rather be presenting CCP's ideas to avoid the usual misinterpretations when CCP does a change.

So tell me, what can CSM really do? Apart from being a decoy for CCP to point at, to get less angry customers on their asses. I see more issue with why I should vote, than who I should vote for. Razz

So my initial statement stands; Do you actually believe in the CSM?

Edit; oh and out of curiosity, do you want any changes to lowsec at all, or think it's fine as is? And if any changes, which, and why?

Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Northern Coalition.
Posted - 2011.03.02 19:25:00 - [30]
 

Originally by: Misanth

Do you actually believe in the CSM?

* The NDA and the role you have is neither showing any of the "transparency" to us players as it was supposed to.
* CCP likes to present changes and ideas as "we have discussed this issue with CSM .." but eventually they end up doing what they want with it anyway. If you guys agree, chestbeat. If you don't, at least they have "discussed it".

My point is;
I usually agree with most opinions you have regarding capitals, sov, and unlike the whiner early in this thread I too think that a change to logistics is necessary (perhaps by making local production easier, for example), both for supercap production as well as capital warfare -

- But I don't believe in the CSM. In fact I have proposed in these forums that CCP should put those resources to better use. Hire a professional 'spokesperson' and/or communicator, that can be a dialogue between players and CCP. Not so much for ideas and changes, but he could rather be presenting CCP's ideas to avoid the usual misinterpretations when CCP does a change.

So tell me, what can CSM really do? Apart from being a decoy for CCP to point at, to get less angry customers on their asses. I see more issue with why I should vote, than who I should vote for. Razz

So my initial statement stands; Do you actually believe in the CSM?

Edit; oh and out of curiosity, do you want any changes to lowsec at all, or think it's fine as is? And if any changes, which, and why?


Do I believe in the CSM? In my own way yes, but I do not believe that it can do what some seem to expect from it. In CSM 4 I was really optimistic but after the Iceland visit and talking to many vets I grew suspicious. The confrontation with Oveur in June (the whole '18 months' thing) shook the place and if I am to believe some, it's still rippling out through CCP. In December again, the Incarna talk caused a lot of rabble which I am confident will turn out to have been a good thing. So I do believe that the CSM is necessary to provide a voice to CCP, to let them know when we think they are screwing up and get them back down to earth when visions of awesomeness take them adrift.

The resources spent on the CSM are trivial compared to the cost of running a scrum team for one development cycle, so I disagree that those could be 'better spent'. The CSM provides a unique and relatively cheap perspective and should be used as much as possible by CCP.

On the topic of lowsec. I think a lot can be done by introducing a more suitable gradient of risk/reward for missions, complexes, moons et cetera. Worm holes offer a great way of getting in and out of lowsec while bypassing the usual camps, and this could be expanded upon by for example adding more connections between hisec - losec - 0.0. For many people, the thought of jumping into a .4 and losing your ship immediately after uncloaking because there happened to be a hictor & friends hugging the gate is quite appalling.


Pages: [1] 2

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only