open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked CSM5 - TeaDaze
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3

Author Topic

Ecatherina W
Gallente
AAA.FSI Holding
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2010.04.30 14:31:00 - [31]
 

First: Thank you for your answer. It is clear to me that you take the time to think about what to write and do not just give a political answer, but a thought-through and in-dept answer. This is how I like it.

Grinding structures unopposed or nearly so is nearly as boring as grinding standing in my opinion, but if it serves a purpose (such as the restructuring of Providence) it is tolerable for a while. But I can clearly see why a smaller alliance would find settling in 0.0 hard under the current sov system.

Now my follow-up: Do you have any ideas that might make it easier for smallish alliances - such as Agony fx. - to take and maintain sov?

Hel O'Ween
Men On A Mission
EVE Trade Consortium
Posted - 2010.04.30 16:08:00 - [32]
 

Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 30/04/2010 16:09:07
Quote:

I'm in favour of (where possible) buffing a weaker item instead of nerfing stronger ones. I feel that not all ships need to be good at solo PvP and that racial differences should be maintained rather than homogenizing everything. That said balance is important and must be maintained in some way.



I disagree with that PoV. It's like in IT if the software doesn't do its job (proper resource handling/usage), throw more hardware at it. You don't cure the cause that way, only the symptom. Or at a music gig: turn up the volume of one instrument instead of turning down the rest: you'll end up either with a giant feedback or messy sound that way.

There's of course always the exception to that rule, but it should be an exception: if you can't hear the guitar at all right from the start, put it's volume on par with the rest of the band.

That said, I have no issues with your candidacy at all. I personally just feel you tackle this issue from the wrong side. Good luck to you (and most of the other candidates).

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.04.30 17:24:00 - [33]
 

Edited by: TeaDaze on 30/04/2010 17:25:23
Originally by: Hel O'Ween
Edited by: Hel O''Ween on 30/04/2010 16:09:07
Quote:

I'm in favour of (where possible) buffing a weaker item instead of nerfing stronger ones. I feel that not all ships need to be good at solo PvP and that racial differences should be maintained rather than homogenizing everything. That said balance is important and must be maintained in some way.

I disagree with that PoV. It's like in IT if the software doesn't do its job (proper resource handling/usage), throw more hardware at it. You don't cure the cause that way, only the symptom. Or at a music gig: turn up the volume of one instrument instead of turning down the rest: you'll end up either with a giant feedback or messy sound that way.

There's of course always the exception to that rule, but it should be an exception: if you can't hear the guitar at all right from the start, put it's volume on par with the rest of the band.

That said, I have no issues with your candidacy at all. I personally just feel you tackle this issue from the wrong side. Good luck to you (and most of the other candidates).

I did qualify that statement with "where possible" Smile Of course there will always be specific examples such as the types you list.


But I think balance in Eve is more like your counter argument (everything else is too quiet) than the main one (one thing is too loud). In general there are ship classes where one or two ships are fine but the others are not. In your IT example if the cause is known to be a weakness in one area of code then by removing that weakness you can get it to use the resources more effectively.


Specific Eve example: The thrasher is acknowledged to be the best destroyer for PvP whilst the others have various issues with fittings, slots etc. Do you upgrade the other destroyers to better match the thrasher's capabilities (maintaining some racial differences of course) or do you simply nerf the thrasher?


Again it is situational as it depends on the changes but as a general principle (and where possible) I prefer things to become better not worse Smile

Retlok
Posted - 2010.05.01 00:17:00 - [34]
 

Thank you for the response. I really appreciate your take on the transferable kill rights. I like the idea of them being contracted out.

Mostly I appreciate your thoughtful answer. You are polling very well in the noobs-Retlok-brought-to-the-game voting bloc, for what it's worth. Razz

Asuri Kinnes
Caldari
Adhocracy Incorporated
Posted - 2010.05.01 20:02:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Mynxee
Your work on CSM4 has been extraordinary and raised the bar considerably with regard to keeping players informed about CSM activities. If I wasn't running for CSM5 myself, I'd vote for you (again!). Best luck, TeaDaze. Hope to be buying you a drink in Iceland in June.


I've been lucky enough to fly with both of these people. In my experience, both are dedicated, driven, informed (and balanced!), and smart enough to listen when that is whats required.

Confirming that votes for Tea and Mynxee will benefit all of Eve.

True Rasta
Posted - 2010.05.03 11:27:00 - [36]
 

What will be the carrot for low sec?

Can u you tell us more detail?

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.04 13:18:00 - [37]
 

Originally by: Ecatherina W
Do you have any ideas that might make it easier for smallish alliances - such as Agony fx. - to take and maintain sov?


Originally by: True Rasta
What will be the carrot for low sec?


Short answer to both of these questions - I'm not claiming to have all the answers but if voted back into CSM I will continue to support proposals relating to these issues. The most important point is I have relevant experience in both of these areas.


However I do have a few specifics for those wondering about my position on things.


Sov for smaller Alliances
Actually taking Sov without help is most likely out of the question at the moment and I'm not sure it should be. The issue is that if a group of 50 active players could take Sov then 500 players will be able to take Sov with no trouble at all - and that is ignoring any people trying to defend.

I'm willing to look at ideas around this but for now it isn't realistic for smaller entities to take and hold Sov without initial help from other alliances. If the promised formalised treaty system was in place this could open the playing field a bit.


Lowsec
The first major issue here is to define what lowsec actually is (other than 0.1 to 0.4 space Razz). In lowsec you of course have PvP and pirates but you also have Factional Warfare (split between PvP, mission running and plexing), Industrial Pos (moon mining, reactions, Drugs), Agents (all missions up to and including L5s), logistic bases (carrier jumping assets to 0.0) and so on. The PvP is a bit different in lowsec to 0.0 but that is down to removal of bubbles and bombs (and currently doomsdays) and the addition of the global criminal flag.


CCP seem to treat lowsec just as a stepping stone to 0.0. However I understand that for some people 0.0 Sov war is not the Eve endgame!


So which of the areas of lowsec needs to be improved?
Lowsec needs different things added to it to give the various inhabitants reason to stay. In addition there needs to be a clear divide between lowsec and 0.0. This means adding things to Lowsec not available in 0.0 (the reverse is already true). Lets have a look at specific areas.


  • Pirates: We hear a lot of people talk of consequences for your actions, but when players choose to become pirates they don't really gain anything Wink. I believe that as Highsec is closed off to a -5 and below pirate that something should open up in return. I have mooted the idea of pirate only stargates which would link different systems than the usual gates. This would give pirates a mobility advantage when stalking their prey or when being chased. It would also open a potential flashpoint in systems for anti-pirates to lurk. The idea isn't fully formed as yet but I have been discussing it with pirates to get feedback.
    For anyone wondering, my sec status is +5 and so this wouldn't actively benefit me Wink


  • Industry: I'm not sure what to suggest here, much depends on how Planetary Interaction turns out. Any improvements to POS mechanics would be a welcome boost but that isn't unique to Lowsec. If players have good ideas for this I will give them serious consideration.


  • Factional Warfare: I have run FW missions but unlike other candidates I have also participated in the ad-hoc fleet fights and had fun shooting other players Wink. FW has the potential to be so much more than the current system allows, it should be the best place to pick up a quick fleet and go PvP till your ship explodes. Unique navy items were a nice boost for the mission runners but the PvP side seems to lack rewards and many of the FW mission runners are not willing to PvP. More dynamic missions or missions that put opposite faction players in direct competition could be interesting.



Hopefully that gives some answers though of course it does open questions too Wink

TL:DR
If elected to CSM5 I will support proposals to improve Lowsec

Nareg Maxence
Gallente
Posted - 2010.05.04 20:25:00 - [38]
 

The problem is the steamroller mechanics of sov warfare. If you have enough momentum, you will plow through an entire region and there is nothing a small alliance can do to defend.

So the issue is, something radical is needed. PI+Dust is supposed to influence system sovereignty, but how will being able to defend a few planetary installations stop a giant cap-blob from denying you access to the planets anyway? Seems like an issue.

Personally I think, if you want to hold space, you actually have to be there to keep sovereignty up. It should be more than just planting a flag.

On the other hand, if people are supposed to live in more confined areas, in order to make room for more diverse alliances, there has to be more stuff to do than just grinding one sanctum after another in your Thanatos, cause I'd imagine that gets rather boring in the long run.

Crystal Tigress
Posted - 2010.05.05 06:53:00 - [39]
 

How do I get you to take on a proposal? I have some issues with corp deliveries - I want to be able to sort them by region. Is that something you would be taking on, even if you are not (I presume) a trader?

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.05 12:56:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Crystal Tigress
How do I get you to take on a proposal? I have some issues with corp deliveries - I want to be able to sort them by region. Is that something you would be taking on, even if you are not (I presume) a trader?


The procedure for any proposal is to raise the issue in the assembly hall. Check the sticky post at the top of this forum for hints and tips on raising issues.

As far as getting somebody to pick it up, you can eve mail the proposal link to the CSM reps in game and one of them should raise it. I do pick up stuff outside my core gameplay when I feel it is being ignored.

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.05 13:00:00 - [41]
 

For those interested I did an email interview with Keith Neilson. There are other candidate interviews to read too and I'm glad to see the Eve blogging community taking the CSM process to heart Smile

Amanda Wilkins
Caldari
Dromedary Goat Albatross and Fish
Big Bang Quantum
Posted - 2010.05.05 20:18:00 - [42]
 

Voted a couple of times for you. Go-go Teadaze, best of luck!

Baka Lakadaka
Gallente
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.06 03:23:00 - [43]
 

I just noticed your thread was in danger of slipping off the front page and didn't want that to happen. So this is a blatant bump.

You have my full support.

Scrobes
Posted - 2010.05.06 11:06:00 - [44]
 

TeaDaze you have a solid outlook and impressive dedication.

You got my two votes just now. :)

Wyke Mossari
Gallente
Posted - 2010.05.06 14:26:00 - [45]
 


Your manifesto states you prefer to avoid Nerfs. The nerf T2 BPO thread has a clear majority against this nerf. However Vote Match states you are strongly in favour of nerfing T2 BPOs.

How do you justify this inconsistency?

On what other issues would you ignore voter sentiment to pursue your own personal agenda?

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.06 16:07:00 - [46]
 

Edited by: TeaDaze on 06/05/2010 16:10:27
Originally by: Wyke Mossari
Your manifesto states you prefer to avoid Nerfs. The nerf T2 BPO thread has a clear majority against this nerf. However Vote Match states you are strongly in favour of nerfing T2 BPOs.

How do you justify this inconsistency?

Firstly I never said I won't support any nerfs just as I won't support every buff. As I stated, I prefer to buff other items instead of nerfs. However in some instances CCP feel action has to be taken even if we as the players dislike it.


On the subject of T2 BPOs I agree with a number of players that it is time they were changed into high run BPCs or remove the penalties on invented T2 BPCs instead. The thread you mention makes a reasonable request and has more supports than many of the issues raised by CSM so why should it be ignored?


Originally by: Wyke Mossari
On what other issues would you ignore voter sentiment to pursue your own personal agenda?

But I'm not ignoring voter sentiment! I'm choosing in this instance to support a group of people who you appear to disagree with. On other issues the reverse may be true. The wonderful thing about the CSM is that all views are taken into consideration and because it is rare for 100% of players to agree on anything there will always be somebody who "loses".


I don't have any personal agenda of pet projects to push through CSM. I am running as I did last time on the platform of ensuring the CSM process is adhered to, well documented and that everyone has the chance to have their views represented.


It is my belief that if an issue gets a good number of supports then it should be dealt with, even if it ends up being raised and rejected (which would block it being raised again for a while Wink).

Daemonspirit
Six Degrees of Separation
Posted - 2010.05.06 16:08:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Wyke Mossari

Your manifesto states you prefer to avoid Nerfs. The nerf T2 BPO thread has a clear majority against this nerf. However Vote Match states you are strongly in favour of nerfing T2 BPOs.

How do you justify this inconsistency?

On what other issues would you ignore voter sentiment to pursue your own personal agenda?


Sometimes in *leading* it is necessary to ignore voter sentiment (making empire safer than it is now is popular with some people, for instance).

Lady Thunder
Posted - 2010.05.06 16:35:00 - [48]
 

To not go with the majority of the voters is not to ignore the voters. It is to take a stand.

I would not want to vote for a person, who would only propose majority proposals. Such a windbag would be of no use to anyone.

Azual Skoll
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.06 19:16:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Azual Skoll on 06/05/2010 19:16:51
I cannot possibly vote for Teadaze!

Ever since he was elected to CSM4 he has spent so much of his time on it he seems to hardly ever have time to PVP with us anymore!

On a serious note, the amount of time and effort Tea has put into CSM this last term has been phenomenal - I know people who put less time and effort into their jobs! Tea is a really realiable guy, he's got a solid understanding of Eve and I've repeatedly been impressed by the way he's handled things in his last term, especially with regards to building legitimacy for the CSM process.

Take my admittedly biased view for what it's worth, but a vote for Tea is a vote well placed.

Poppy Seedz
Posted - 2010.05.06 19:22:00 - [50]
 

2x for TeaDaze. Cool

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.07 03:00:00 - [51]
 

Thanks for all the messages of support Smile

For those who haven't yet decided, another plug for Vote Match - though I urge you to support me so I can continue to spend many hours a week writing up your proposals and publishing meeting minutes etc Smile

Xyfu
Minmatar
Love From Above
Posted - 2010.05.07 07:51:00 - [52]
 

Edited by: Xyfu on 07/05/2010 07:56:49
You say the UI will not be completely overhauled, and I agree, but no-one can deny that it's not perfect. What would be your stance on an EVE UI version of the recent "One hundred papercuts" approach, that Canonical used for Ubuntu?

(Users submitted tickets marked as one hundred papercuts, detailing the small annoyances that existed, and Canonical worked on fixing them for the next release.) http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/06/canonical-to-boost-ubuntu-usability-by-tackling-papercuts.ars

Air Thin
Posted - 2010.05.07 11:04:00 - [53]
 

x3 for TeaDaze

Muad' Dib
Gallente
PWNED FACTOR HOLDINGS
Posted - 2010.05.07 12:05:00 - [54]
 

Bump for one of the AT7 comentators that knew his stuff. Did not see your app for CSM untill now, good chances i'll end up voting for your Mynxee - haven't seen Mynxee's platform but how much can it suck ?. :)

Aineko Macx
Posted - 2010.05.07 12:28:00 - [55]
 

I was going to squeeze you with some tricky questions like last election, but that's not needed IMO, you did great during this CSM.
+3 for Tea! Cool

Fake edit:
With stakeholder status, which issues will you try to unburrow from the depths of the backlog the most?

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.07 23:11:00 - [56]
 

Originally by: Xyfu
You say the UI will not be completely overhauled, and I agree, but no-one can deny that it's not perfect. What would be your stance on an EVE UI version of the recent "One hundred papercuts" approach, that Canonical used for Ubuntu?

Short term this could address the most pressing issues, but at some point CCP will have to bite the bullet and commit to a full overhaul of the core UI. If we are lucky they might be able to come up with a roadmap of building replacement UI elements in stages and effectively phase in a new UI over time.


Only CCP can decide when to commit to this, but until then I am willing to support (and have already supported) proposals related to UI improvements.


Whilst on the hot button issues, I also support (and CSM4 already discussed it at length with CCP at the summit) issues relating to Lag reduction.

No candidate is going to deny that lag isn't an issue for many people. However the fact is the CSM can't fix lag. The CSM can keep pressure on CCP to investigate solutions but only they can deliver a working solution. Anyone outside of the CCP dev team doesn't have the knowledge to design a fix and whilst ideas seem obvious on paper they have likely been discussed already.

I am restricted by what I can discuss on the subject because we had a detailed presentation before the lag discussion (at the level of showing various performance numbers) and I'm not going to risk leaking NDA information. Of course this allows people to claim I'm ignoring the issue Sad


Anyway, thanks again to my supporters and I hope some of the potential supporters can see my commitment to the CSM process Smile

Silvara Shade
Posted - 2010.05.08 06:34:00 - [57]
 

Edited by: Silvara Shade on 08/05/2010 06:34:11
Originally by: TeaDaze


However the fact is the CSM can't fix lag.


This deserves repeating... So many of the CSM candidates seem to make promises that sounds almost like regular politicians promising fair weather on Sundays and wind always on your back when biking up hill...

TeaDaze, you are refreshingly honest.

Zothike
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2010.05.08 22:37:00 - [58]
 

Edited by: Zothike on 08/05/2010 22:38:25
voted for you because your meeting minutes pdf are awesome work :)

if u could eventually have a look on this proposal
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1040532
not a big change, not hard to do for dev (i this but can be wrong), and would make many player and server load happy = win for everybody Cool

regards


Ni'to
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:13:00 - [59]
 

Got my vote. Good luck!

TeaDaze
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2010.05.08 23:53:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Zothike
if u could eventually have a look on this proposal
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1040532
not a big change, not hard to do for dev (i this but can be wrong), and would make many player and server load happy = win for everybody Cool

This would be a nice addition. However for me to raise it at the next CSM meeting it needs to be posted as a proposal in the Assembly Hall forum (I'd suggest putting a link to the proposal in your ideas thread so people can support it). I prefer players to post their ideas directly so I don't take the credit Wink

Once it is in the Assembly Hall forum I can get things moving Smile


Pages: 1 [2] 3

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