open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM 6] The universe is ours
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:22:00 - [1]
 

Hello New Eden !

I'm proud to announce here that I will run for CSM 6, and hopefully represent you at the CSM. Here is a preview of my campaign message, so you can get the general picture about me more quickly :

Originally by: Gehen Sealbreaker
"The universe is ours."

With this simple motto, inspired by EVE's very own catchphrase, I can summarize the CSM's purpose : empowering the players.
Quoting CCP themselves, this universe is a sandbox for us to play with. My plan is : asking for shovels and buckits.

The man :
I'm French, and playing EVE since 2006. Since then I tried a bit of everything, from hisec to 0.0, from hunting sleepers to POS management, and from mining to gatecamps and roaming gangs.
I'm also a roleplayer, playing Gehen Sealbreaker, one of FCORD's board members, with friends in many other alliances, either carebears, pirates, or sov holders.

The plan :
I will listen to any EVE player, old or new, no matter his or her playstyle. My core electorate is roleplayers, as I like nothing more than a good story.
On a side note, as I speak French, I'll also be able to hear the voices of those who have trouble writing in another language.
I will not limit to those communities thus, and treat everyone equally.

See my website for more info and dates for upcoming public chats, where I'll happily answer more questions.


As it says, please proceed to my campaign website for details :)

I can see there is a lot of interesting (and perhaps less interesting ?) campaign threads starting here. Some by very well known characters, some completely unknown... And amongst those faces, I see some people I have a feeling I will enjoy working with. People who already carry the voices of a part of the community, people who are deeply invested in EVE... It gives me a good feeling about what your vote can make the CSM become. That said, of course, I can only suggest you voting for me ;)

Why voting for me ?
Because I care. I care for your voices, your ideas. Behind every crappy idea, there is a concern that can be refined to something insightful, useful to CCP.

I was carefully following posts from the previous CSM, particularly those of Mynxee and Meissa. And I know perfectly what I'm heading into. I know the CSM isn't a candyland where you ask for stuff and CCP makes it appear before your eyes. I know the atmosphere of the previous CSMs was sometimes a very hard one, with some members expressing a string disappointment at CCP's choices.
But no matter what you think, CCP cares about the CSM. And with your help, I can make a difference.

Like most of you, I read the Mittani's campaign message. He's not wrong, but a bit pessimistic. But rest assured people, contrary to what he suggests, I will not lie to you. I will not fix lag. I will not give Supercaps to everyone. But I will do everything I can to make sure EVE, which is one of the best games ever, get one step closer to perfection.

Let's make EVE, our EVE, the best game of all time. OF ALL TIME !

Karadion
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:28:00 - [2]
 

Your website hurts my eyes.

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.25 21:32:00 - [3]
 

Edited by: Two Shots on 25/02/2011 21:32:42
Demonstrate to me in a post in this thread how you intend to argue, convince, and debate among your peers and with CCP the points you wish to express better than a successful attorney could.

Because that's your opposition. Mittens is a lawyer. He is kinda smart. :3:

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.25 22:23:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Karadion
Your website hurts my eyes.

Originally by: Two Shots
Edited by: Two Shots on 25/02/2011 21:32:42
Demonstrate to me in a post in this thread how you intend to argue, convince, and debate among your peers and with CCP the points you wish to express better than a successful attorney could.

Because that's your opposition. Mittens is a lawyer. He is kinda smart. :3:


Laughing

I like how the two of you are quite busy reviewing all the CSM candidates topics. The mix of constructive / unrelated replies is also quite clever.
I have an habit of not feeding the trolls - which often amounts to not feeding the goons, here on EVE - but I'll humor you.

Actually, I don't believe Mittens is my opposition. He's kinda smart, indeed, and even if sometimes it's hard to tell when he's being serious and not, I have no doubts about that.
It may be misplaced pride, but I like to think I'm far from stupid myself, and sadly you've chosen the wrong question (in the limited set of questions you're copy-pasting on every candidate's post).

The CSM is not meant to be a huge fan pushing hot air. I strongly hope that, no matter how successful an attorney he is, the Mitanni doesn't plan to bore us to death with unnecessary court-like arguments. I don't want a seat at the CSM to argue, but to represent. My work as a CSM representative would not be to brainstorm with my peers, as it's not the purpose of this organ to decide what will be the next development for the game - something you're very aware of.

I will listen to the players, sort ideas, organize them, clean them, to find the hidden jewel lying under any poorly-expressed concern, and escalate them in the way described in the CSM white paper.
I'm not there to argue, convince, and debate about my personal ideas.

Karadion
Posted - 2011.02.25 22:32:00 - [5]
 

Edited by: Karadion on 25/02/2011 22:50:47
No, seriously dude, your website sucks. Transparent text is bad for the eyes when it constantly readjusts to the "changing" text. I design government websites and I don't deal with any of that BS. Scroll up and down and you'll see my point.

Edit: This is a good example of excellent web design. http://www.whitetreedesign.net/ Just a tip.

Profiteering
Posted - 2011.02.26 05:17:00 - [6]
 

Edited by: Profiteering on 26/02/2011 05:19:42
I like this guy, how do you make thumbs up and thumbs down stuff? Hope you support this. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1474019

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 05:28:00 - [7]
 

Originally by: Gehen Sealbreaker
Originally by: Karadion
Your website hurts my eyes.

Originally by: Two Shots
Edited by: Two Shots on 25/02/2011 21:32:42
Demonstrate to me in a post in this thread how you intend to argue, convince, and debate among your peers and with CCP the points you wish to express better than a successful attorney could.

Because that's your opposition. Mittens is a lawyer. He is kinda smart. :3:


Laughing

I like how the two of you are quite busy reviewing all the CSM candidates topics. The mix of constructive / unrelated replies is also quite clever.
I have an habit of not feeding the trolls - which often amounts to not feeding the goons, here on EVE - but I'll humor you.

Actually, I don't believe Mittens is my opposition. He's kinda smart, indeed, and even if sometimes it's hard to tell when he's being serious and not, I have no doubts about that.
It may be misplaced pride, but I like to think I'm far from stupid myself, and sadly you've chosen the wrong question (in the limited set of questions you're copy-pasting on every candidate's post).

The CSM is not meant to be a huge fan pushing hot air. I strongly hope that, no matter how successful an attorney he is, the Mitanni doesn't plan to bore us to death with unnecessary court-like arguments. I don't want a seat at the CSM to argue, but to represent. My work as a CSM representative would not be to brainstorm with my peers, as it's not the purpose of this organ to decide what will be the next development for the game - something you're very aware of.

I will listen to the players, sort ideas, organize them, clean them, to find the hidden jewel lying under any poorly-expressed concern, and escalate them in the way described in the CSM white paper.
I'm not there to argue, convince, and debate about my personal ideas.

What topics are you willing to concede to your peers so that you and your peers can present a unified voice to CCP?

Profiteering
Posted - 2011.02.26 05:31:00 - [8]
 

Two shots, your repetitive. Including the fact you didnt address his post about you and mittani.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.26 07:45:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Karadion
No, seriously dude, your website could recieve some minor improvements.


Just in case you're not trollin' :
Some of the other campaign websites here are gorgeous, that's true. I must concede that I am more at ease with code, and pretty much suck when it comes to designing interfaces and fancy pages.

Sadly, with both RL taking it's toll and me trying to spend time talking with the players when I'm on EVE, I am left with little time to work on a website. If you're willing to design me an awesome website so I can publish my ideas in a more fashionable manner, please do ! This would be very appreciated.

--------------

On to the deeper questions : (sry, content > presentation)

Originally by: Two Shots
What topics are you willing to concede to your peers so that you and your peers can present a unified voice to CCP?


It strongly depends of what we're talking about.

It seems critical to bring a unified voice to CCP in terms of what topics should be debated, what is a priority, and so on, if only for efficiency purposes. But in that case, there are multiple simple ways to make everyone agree on it, and we can even call the players for an estimation of how much a feature is needed / would be appreciated. (Remember the Prioritization Crowdsourcing ?)

When it comes to the details of a particular problem thus, I don't think it would be a good idea to come to CCP with a smoothed, united point of view. In fact, I'm certain of the opposite. EVE being what it is, it's home to a lot of different players, with different playstyles. Instead of making sure we all come to an agreement and convincing each other, CSM Representatives would probably waste less time and archive better results if bringing ALL those points of view to CCP, showing the multiple sides of a problem. Of course, part of the job is to organize those to present them in an orderly manner, preferably with some figures (people like figures).

This doesn't mean we should fight in the middle of meetings, although some dueling rules could make it enjoyable, but clearly conceding a point as a CSM member is only a good idea if you see you're mistaken. If I strongly believe that my opinion, although different, is carrying the voices of a sufficient number of players, I will insist for it to be added to the report. (Template : "So CCP, on the topic of X, it seems that Y, but also, some players may experience Z, and we need to take that into account.")

Originally by: Profiteering
Hope you support this. http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1474019


Thank you for your kind support, Profiteering Smile. Concerning the issue you just raised, I must admit I'm not completely sure of what you're suggesting exactly. Your post is quite short, and the second post of this topic, although more complete, may not reflect your opinion and lacks a bit of clarity.

What I can say so far : there is already plenty of modding available for ships, in the way of tech variants, modules, rigs, and in the case of T3, subsystems. It's undoubtedly a great feature of EVE to be able to custom our ships.
Even if it's not the purpose of the CSM to steer the whole CCP Game Design department, I have good hope that additional features in terms of customization will be added to the game anyway. For sure, other T3 hulls are coming. Two other possibilities that have been mentioned (but are less certain) are custom ship paint jobs (microtransactions ?) and ship crews (that could possibly be appealing to CCP with the upcoming Incarna content).
I don't think this issue really needs to be raised, as CCP has probably something in the pipes already. However I'll be happy to help them refine it so it suits the players' needs to the fullest.

Jazzael Loreweaver
Posted - 2011.02.26 12:20:00 - [10]
 

Hi Eve community

hello Gehen,

As a leader of our small comunity in game, you helped us discover EvE world and many involvment we may have in it.
As a friend, we discovered altogether Wormhole life, crafting experience of T3s, so i must say you have a fairly great knowledge of the game in itself.

Your knowledge of french comunity is important , but you re mostly an open minded guy, and your contacts with french comunity represent a small part of the people you deal with ingame.

if i write here, as a member of SoS, a wormhole french corporation, well established and a 0.0 discoverer, it s to ask you some questions:

1- Wormhole :

it seems a great way to amplify the pleasure of the game : risk and danger there makes it a tought challenge usualy and PVP delivers a lot of adrenaline.

What will you do to make CCP advance in Wormhole game design, game threat and interaction?

2- T3 :

You re one of the most prepared guy to the future T3 builds, like the "possible" frigate T3 project. The game got an interesting new interest when the T3 cruisers appeared. What do you think of this "project" and the way this frigate would enter actual gameplay ?

3- Games event :

You were one of the first when planetary interaction was released to try it and explore it. Your leaded most of us in the sansha's incursions' series of game events. Do you think the CSM should impulse be involved in the making/helping of such events? Do you think it's what players are looking for ? does it helps long time players to stay in EvE/ continue their roamming

4- PVP :

Actualy PVP can be done quite easily, in different standards. Massive region PVP ( select luxuary style PVP for larger corpos?) , nation wars ( easy to get involved in, not as dangerous as can be massive PVP though), Rat pirating, wormhole solar system controls, etc etc ...

Are there any new form of Players interactions (PVP or not anyway) you would like to discuss with CCp while in CSM ?


Anyway, as a friend of Gehen in game and in real, i would like to thank him for what he does to the community. As a long time EvE traveler (2004) i wished more CSM candidate would be less "weel known" by the community, but more "involved" in the "everyday" improvment of the game.

i ask my friends,the people i work with and play and enjoytime with, to ask gehen questions, to avoid judging him on how well known he is, but to discover the man, the player , and how he cares for people around him. You ll discover that usualy the best person are those that do the job, not those that spend time talking about it.

Ask Gehen, Listen his answerzs, and vote for him !

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.26 14:11:00 - [11]
 

Hello Jazz - Long time no see ! Still in SoS then ?
That's an awful lot of questions you've asked there :)

Originally by: Jazzael Loreweaver
1- W-space :

it seems a great way to amplify the pleasure of the game : risk and danger there makes it a tough challenge usually and PVP delivers a lot of adrenaline.

What will you do to make CCP advance in Wormhole game design, game threat and interaction?


As nothing is perfect, W-space could also receive some love from CCP. However, with the focus being on Lowsec balancing, 0.0 logistics and other related topics, I fear that W-space is not under the spotlights at the moment for CCP, and we may not see another iteration on this in the close future.

However, W-space will most definitely be impacted by some of these changes. A perfect example is 0.0 logistics. If force projection is nerfed (which is the way the CSM was headed so far), W tactical value as a "shortcut" in K-space is bound to increase. I'll make sure no-one overlooks that.

In short : unless CCP has plans I don't know about, I don't think there will be a lot done for W directly (Sorry, I just won't lie to you.) but I'll definitely make sure W-space residents are not forgotten when it comes to indirect changes.

Originally by: Jazzael Loreweaver
2- T3 :

You re one of the most prepared guy to the future T3 builds, like the "possible" frigate T3 project. The game got an interesting new interest when the T3 cruisers appeared. What do you think of this "project" and the way this frigate would enter actual gameplay ?


T3 frigates is indeed something I'm expecting eagerly on a personal level. I don't think the topic has been raised with the CSM so far (at least, not from what they disclosed), but obviously, introducing a new type of ships in a game with such a delicate balance is no easy task.
With the extensive use of Faction and T2 frigates in low / 0.0 small and medium gang warfare, and the various gates that only allow frigs in various contexts (FW, DED plexes...), it will be tough to produce something balanced. Let's wait and see.

Originally by: Jazzael Loreweaver
3- Games event :

You were one of the first when planetary interaction was released to try it and explore it. Your leaded most of us in the sansha's incursions' series of game events. Do you think the CSM should impulse be involved in the making/helping of such events? Do you think it's what players are looking for ? does it helps long time players to stay in EvE/ continue their roamming


Your question is a bit confusing (PI / Events ?).
About Events :
In the end, blowing up or mining stuff is always the same : pixels. But the social interactions, found through corp buddies, alliance diplomacy, 0.0 warfare, and roleplaying, are the endgame of EVE. What makes you stay when you tried everything.
Live Events created some good narration, stories of heroes and traitors, unfolding of a tale of epic proportions. They're definitely the kind of things that people enjoy, makes vets stay, and they should evolve to become more than a way to introduce new gameplay content.

Originally by: Jazzael Loreweaver
4- PVP :

Actual PVP can be done quite easily, in different ways. 0.0 sov wars, FW, piracy, wormhole solar system controls, etc etc ...
Are there any new form of Players interactions (PVP or not anyway) you would like to discuss with CCp while in CSM ?


They already have a lot planned I think. We all know CCP is pushing Incarna and DUST 514 forward. I will be happy to discuss those with CCP, and make sure they serve a proper function, and are not elaborated PR stunts or eye candy.

In a more general way, there is some room for additional "cooperative" player-to-player interaction, other than teaming up to defeat a stronger force. Perhaps in the field of industry.


As a conclusion, thanks for your vote and your confidence in my ability to represent the players. Smile I especially liked the part about me doing the job, not talking. Yep, that's what I do.

Two Shots
Caldari
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2011.02.26 16:31:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Gehen Sealbreaker
Originally by: Two Shots
What topics are you willing to concede to your peers so that you and your peers can present a unified voice to CCP?


It strongly depends of what we're talking about.

It seems critical to bring a unified voice to CCP in terms of what topics should be debated, what is a priority, and so on, if only for efficiency purposes. But in that case, there are multiple simple ways to make everyone agree on it, and we can even call the players for an estimation of how much a feature is needed / would be appreciated. (Remember the Prioritization Crowdsourcing ?)

When it comes to the details of a particular problem thus, I don't think it would be a good idea to come to CCP with a smoothed, united point of view. In fact, I'm certain of the opposite. EVE being what it is, it's home to a lot of different players, with different playstyles. Instead of making sure we all come to an agreement and convincing each other, CSM Representatives would probably waste less time and archive better results if bringing ALL those points of view to CCP, showing the multiple sides of a problem. Of course, part of the job is to organize those to present them in an orderly manner, preferably with some figures (people like figures).

This doesn't mean we should fight in the middle of meetings, although some dueling rules could make it enjoyable, but clearly conceding a point as a CSM member is only a good idea if you see you're mistaken. If I strongly believe that my opinion, although different, is carrying the voices of a sufficient number of players, I will insist for it to be added to the report. (Template : "So CCP, on the topic of X, it seems that Y, but also, some players may experience Z, and we need to take that into account.")


Your plan, as I understand it from this response, is to completely avoid taking a hard stance on the issue of uniformity.

In one sentence you state that you understand the importance of the CSM presenting an unified voice to CCP, and in another you state that you will exempt yourself from this if you personally feel that the need arises. From this I can see that you want to do a good job as a potential CSM delegate, and that you want to give voice to what the players want. If this were an ideal world, then that would be a great attitude to have and you would make the best possible kind of politician; but, this is not an ideal world. While in principle your stance is a good one, in practice it will lead to nothing but disagreement and friction on every single issue. Were you to be the only delegate who decides to take a tangential stance on some issue, then it would not be a big deal; but, you won't be. If we are to assume that it's a 'good idea' to elect you, a person who has openly stated that he will definitely go against the consensus of the CSM should his personal desire warrant it, then we must also assume that we would elect other delegates with the same intention and opinion.

In other words, by electing one CSM delegate who is willing to allow a fractured message, we give every other delegate carte blanch to do the same. While the result of a single CSM delegate voicing a different or even opposing view may not have much impact, the potentiality of every CSM delegate expressing a slightly different perspective or suggestion is exactly what will make the CSM useless. In your above 'template' example, you say these words exactly: "So CCP, on the topic of X, it seems that Y, but also, some players may experience Z, and we need to take that into account." This is exactly the kind of response that allows CCP to present a 'bad idea' to the CSM and then walk away from the discussion and honestly say that 'Game Mechanic Idea C7XF41 has met with some approval from the CSM'.

By providing an outlying opinion, you enable a quadmire. Please don't do it.

Saxton Hale
Posted - 2011.02.26 16:39:00 - [13]
 

Originally by: Two Shots
Edited by: Two Shots on 25/02/2011 21:32:42
Demonstrate to me in a post in this thread how you intend to argue, convince, and debate among your peers and with CCP the points you wish to express better than a successful attorney could.

Because that's your opposition. Mittens is a lawyer. He is kinda smart. :3:


He's not opposition to other candidates, his bloc makes him a shoe-in.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.02.27 11:07:00 - [14]
 

Originally by: Two Shots
Originally by: Gehen Sealbreaker
Originally by: Two Shots
What topics are you willing to concede to your peers so that you and your peers can present a unified voice to CCP?


It strongly depends of what we're talking about.

<anwser, stuff>


Your plan, as I understand it from this response, is to completely avoid taking a hard stance on the issue of uniformity.

<snip>

By providing an outlying opinion, you enable a quadmire. Please don't do it.


I understand your concern, but there is no need to worry that much. I feel like I did not express my position clearly enough :

In short (back to the original question) I don't think presenting a unified voice to CCP requires a lot of concessions amongst the CSM members.
This unified voice is important. I did not imply that I would take a tangential stance in any issue, what I meant was : I will make sure that the stance presented by the CSM is as thoroughly and carefully selected as possible.

It's a two-step process :

When the CSM is internally debating, I have good hope that the CSM representatives being sound and reasonable people, wishing to represent all players and not their sole interest, a consensus on what stance the CSM should adopt can be reached on most issues.
In the (hopefully rare) case that a reasonable consensus cannot be reached, what I meant was : it will be crucial to make sure that in the finally selected stance, all the (sometimes contradictory) opinions will be reflected, so that no-one is forgotten. I don't see this a fractured message, but as a complete one, and possibly suggesting CCP that some consequences of a particular change were overlooked. This is the kind of input they are bound to appreciate, as they use SCRUM method.

When the CSM is reporting to CCP, there will be only one message, possibly containing the word "but", which will encompass all the representatives' (and, incidentally, players) point of view.

A good example was the recent discussion about the Captain's Quarters. "We think it's a great idea for immersion and showcasing your new tech, and it would also improve the NPE, but this should not make any existing process more tedious : for example, no need to walk through all the station to speak to an agent."

Perhaps some CSM representatives, focused on immersion / enjoying the eye candy or focused on the kind of content this could bring, overlooked this particular point. But in the end, they presented CCP with a "yes, but"-type answer, which is exactly what I intend to do.

The CSM doesn't have the power to make CCP steer completely the Game Design to other topics or to refuse any new feature. But we can make sure every interest of the players is taken into account when we report about those.

"Microtransactions ? Yes, but only vanity items."
...

It was the type of answers provided by the CSM 5, which was, so far, the CSM advancing the most in terms of relationship with CCP, transparency, and efficiency.

What I implied in my answer was : I will just make sure no "but" is forgotten.
('cause sometimes, you know, people have huge buts)

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
Posted - 2011.03.03 16:28:00 - [15]
 

First let me say I find your site quite all right, and actually looks quite like that other one given as an example of a good site.

Second, I agree of your stance on "unified voice". I think it's the very reason why the CSM is more than just one person.

Third, it is because at this time that you seem to be the only candidate to make sure the RP-ers perspective and side of things isn't overlooked that you will probably get my vote.
Still, I would like to know more about what you think the biggest issues for RP-ers and immersion are in EVE.

Ily Backbreak
Posted - 2011.03.03 18:14:00 - [16]
 

As a minmatar, I don't expect to vote for you.
So what will you do for Minmatar communities to get their votes ?

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.04 19:43:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Gehen Sealbreaker on 04/03/2011 19:43:37
Originally by: Ily Backbreak
As a minmatar, I don't expect to vote for you.
So what will you do for Minmatar communities to get their votes ?


As much as I enjoy roleplaying, and try to consider all matters from an IC (In-Character) perspective ingame, the CSM election is, by nature, something that can only be OOC (Out Of Character).

I assume that your declaration meant that you would not vote for me because your main character is Minmatar, while mine is Amarr. While an unfriendly relationship between our characters would be very understandable, please remember that you would be vote for me, Silver Quettier, and not my character, Gehen Sealbreaker.
I have many friends playing Minmatar characters, amongst which some are members of EM / UK, and some of their characters truly hate mine. It's all part of the story, a story that, as player, we're writing together. No faction will be overlooked by me as the voice of roleplayers, from the gigantic Amarr Empire, to the tiniest of players factions.

People who "feel" Minmatar will vote for me because they know I will carry their voices as roleplayers.
If a display of goodwill is required, I can offer this : I will do what it takes to convince someone at CCP to give back Malaetu Shakor his lost dignity.

Originally by: Che Biko
(...)It is because at this time that you seem to be the only candidate to make sure the RP-ers perspective and side of things isn't overlooked that you will probably get my vote.
Still, I would like to know more about what you think the biggest issues for RP-ers and immersion are in EVE.


Thank you for your kind support.

"The biggest issues" for roleplayers is a hard to define concept, because they are divided in so many factions. Many small factions are extremely overlooked (Ammatars ? Intakis ?) while some other, although much bigger, still have internal incoherences. (What is the Court Chamberlain still doing out there ?)

What I meant by being the "voice of roleplayers", amongst other things, it to make sure that a proper explanation can be found to every change brought to the game, especially gameplay-centered ones, and try to have every change and proposal made in a way that would add to the EVE world's atmosphere, not remove from it.

If the CSM as a whole was given the chance to work on a specific RP problematic of our choice, and I would have to pick one, I'd say "our" biggest problem is the way information is scattered and sometimes, even incoherent. CCP Abraxas has already set things in motion to make the EVE universe easier to approach, and roleplaying easier. If elected, I will ask CCP to offer him the CSM's assistance, or, should the other representatives think little of this project, my personal help.

Lyn Farel
Knighthood of the Merciful Crown
Posted - 2011.03.06 21:54:00 - [18]
 

Hello,

Your immersive and roleplay point of view may be invaluable in a CSM. It is a good thing for roleplay, and thus story and fiction to be represented, but it is extremly important for me to know some people can have an insight based on immersion and how we, players, feel in the game, how we directly enjoy it by being part of a universe. How to forget a little the 'microsoft excel in space' bit at the benefit of immersion.

Good luck for your candidacy.

Kuzim Blaky'all
Minmatar
Recycling and Recovery
Posted - 2011.03.07 09:11:00 - [19]
 

sup dawg, i got a quick q
That's q to the E-S - Question fo you
what do you think about recyclien folk?
think recyclien is serious, or else jus a joke?
cause dig it, CSM numba 5
brought a dawg the nocus, (sweet recyclien ride!),
but re-re posses need to evolve
we got a eve side problem what needs to resolve
so what kind of mad space gear or bicyclien,
would you suggest for a posse whose recyclien?
And maybe dawg dig it, if you got time dats free,
how would a dawg enhance recovery?

myself, a dawg wants to better slip by
a dawg who puts bubblz up in da sky
but in him reaper (fear dat boat, its what I fly).

be safe.

thanks dawg, mi ain so hot at doin writin but if a dawg got question a dawg gets him evegate mails so y'all ask a dawg what a dawg want a dawg to dig, dig it, dont want no trubblz up in here but a dawg want to dig what dawgs down wit.

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
Posted - 2011.03.07 22:07:00 - [20]
 

Originally by: Kuzim Blaky'all
sup dawg, i got a quick q
That's q to the E-S - Question fo you
what do you think about recyclien folk?
think recyclien is serious, or else jus a joke?
cause dig it, CSM numba 5
brought a dawg the nocus, (sweet recyclien ride!),
but re-re posses need to evolve
we got a eve side problem what needs to resolve
so what kind of mad space gear or bicyclien,
would you suggest for a posse whose recyclien?
And maybe dawg dig it, if you got time dats free,
how would a dawg enhance recovery?

myself, a dawg wants to better slip by
a dawg who puts bubblz up in da sky
but in him reaper (fear dat boat, its what I fly).

be safe.

thanks dawg, mi ain so hot at doin writin but if a dawg got question a dawg gets him evegate mails so y'all ask a dawg what a dawg want a dawg to dig, dig it, dont want no trubblz up in here but a dawg want to dig what dawgs down wit.

I'll try roughly translating this in case there's a need for someone to do it:
________________
Question(s?)
What do you think about salvagers? Is salvaging serious business or a joke? 'Cause I like it, CSM 5 gave us the Noctis (nice salvaging ship!).
But my corp needs to evolve, EVE needs to get fixed. So what kind of ships and equipment would you like to see for salvagers? How would you enhance salvaging?

I would like to be more able to slip past gate camps. I fly reapers (Fear my reaper).

Be safe.

Thanks man, I'm not good at writing, but if you want to ask a question then you get evemails so you'll ask a guy what a guy wants a guy to like, understand? I'm not trolling but a guy that wants to know what you think are good ideas.
_____________
ConfusedOh well, I tried.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.08 09:38:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Che Biko
Originally by: Kuzim Blaky'all
sup dawg, i got a quick q
That's q to the E-S - Question fo you
what do you think about recyclien folk?
think recyclien is serious, or else jus a joke?
cause dig it, CSM numba 5
brought a dawg the nocus, (sweet recyclien ride!),
but re-re posses need to evolve
we got a eve side problem what needs to resolve
so what kind of mad space gear or bicyclien,
would you suggest for a posse whose recyclien?
And maybe dawg dig it, if you got time dats free,
how would a dawg enhance recovery?

myself, a dawg wants to better slip by
a dawg who puts bubblz up in da sky
but in him reaper (fear dat boat, its what I fly).

be safe.

thanks dawg, mi ain so hot at doin writin but if a dawg got question a dawg gets him evegate mails so y'all ask a dawg what a dawg want a dawg to dig, dig it, dont want no trubblz up in here but a dawg want to dig what dawgs down wit.

I'll try roughly translating this in case there's a need for someone to do it:
________________
Question(s?)
What do you think about salvagers? Is salvaging serious business or a joke? 'Cause I like it, CSM 5 gave us the Noctis (nice salvaging ship!).
But my corp needs to evolve, EVE needs to get fixed. So what kind of ships and equipment would you like to see for salvagers? How would you enhance salvaging?

I would like to be more able to slip past gate camps. I fly reapers (Fear my reaper).

Be safe.

Thanks man, I'm not good at writing, but if you want to ask a question then you get evemails so you'll ask a guy what a guy wants a guy to like, understand? I'm not trolling but a guy that wants to know what you think are good ideas.
_____________
ConfusedOh well, I tried.


Thank you, I must admit I was still struggling at understanding some parts.

So, my personal opinion about salvaging :

Salvaging is a good and interesting part of EVE, of course. It can be used by newcomers to significantly boost their income at the game start, or embraced as a full-time career by Noctis-flying salvage masters :)

However, I'm not sure that salvaging needs any improvements at the moment : with the addition of the Noctis and T2 salvagers, someone can really spend his day salvaging without too much hassle. Were you thinking about something in particular ?

Ninja salvaging is also an important part of it. A reflexion of what kind of aggression mechanisms should be triggered by salvaging someone else's wreck could be interesting, but so far I find it to be an effective yet not too bothersome way of bringing some challenge to these hisec missions.

Norman Vales
Minmatar
Xim-Retni
Posted - 2011.03.10 23:52:00 - [22]
 

Edited by: Norman Vales on 11/03/2011 01:09:09
I must admit, this is the first one I have read in full.

Two important questions I have are about the station and gate turrets found in high and low security systems selecting their targets: Why do they not solely focus the majority of their vollies (fire) on the aggressor? Particularly with departure jumps. I have taken station sentry fire for defending my frigate against a battlecruiser pulling a station jump. My frigate didn't last much more than a few seconds under a complete tackle and heavy fire. Granted, my frigate's shields were about cruiser-grade.

My other question: Should station turrets be more powerful? In my opinion, they should be able to more easily melt and/or rip apart the ships of those who attack others departing the station.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.11 12:08:00 - [23]
 

Originally by: Norman Vales
I must admit, this is the first one I have read in full.


Thank you :)
I can only hope that this interest will grant me your vote for the CSM :)

Originally by: Norman Vales
Two important questions I have are about the station and gate turrets found in high and low security systems selecting their targets: Why do they not solely focus the majority of their vollies (fire) on the aggressor? Particularly with departure jumps. I have taken station sentry fire for defending my frigate against a battlecruiser pulling a station jump. My frigate didn't last much more than a few seconds under a complete tackle and heavy fire. Granted, my frigate's shields were about cruiser-grade.

My other question: Should station turrets be more powerful? In my opinion, they should be able to more easily melt and/or rip apart the ships of those who attack others departing the station.


These are very specific questions !

Before answering, I think that these concerns, although important to you and highly influential of your game experience, should not be the main thing dictating who will receive your vote in the CSM.

To give you my personal opinion about these matters : I strongly believe in the Sandbox.
Rules of Engagement and firing power of station and gate turrets should be variable, especially in 0.0 - I'd be delighted to see Dominion's system upgrades allowing for turret placement and configuration in claimed systems.
When it comes to high and low security space, I believe they are quite balanced at the moment. Perhaps it would be a good idea to increase their damage and reduce their ability to hit small ships, so the damage is a bit more even on various shiptypes. Any changes to the turrets would have to be closely calculated thus, as EVE has a very fragile balance.

Additionally, it makes no sense that someone docked in a station cannot look out a window to see who's camping outside. It's a whole new game mechanic, but I feel such a thing should be implemented, which would change the way station blockades are made. Of course, such radical additions to the gameplay require a much in-depth analysis, and the will to evolve in that direction from CCP.

The Moonshiner
Posted - 2011.03.12 14:13:00 - [24]
 

Hi

I like your presentation and I have voted for you because I think you would make a serious and welcome addition to the CSM being another helping hand between players and CCP.

I do ask you though for some reflections on the following.

As a roleplayer I'm disturbed by the lack of physical realism this universe has to offer.
The real universe is a dynamic place in which moons orbit planets orbiting stars that vaporize any spaceship coming too close Shocked I miss bad spaceweather induced by the local star[s] making it hard to navigate, don't wanna see the nebulea as we saw them in the early '60 ugh Red plasma planets in young solar systems with lots of astroids, blue plasma in nebulous systems with lots of gas and ice and - by jove - ice astroids always farest away from the star.

Ofcourse gameplay and the war on lag are of utter importance but since none of the CSM candidates have mentioned these, do YOU think physical realism will get a place on your agenda ?




Make Love not War
And fly safe while doing it

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.13 00:37:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: The Moonshiner
I like your presentation and I have voted for you because I think you would make a serious and welcome addition to the CSM being another helping hand between players and CCP.


Hello there ! Thanks for your vote, it's very appreciated. :)

Originally by: The Moonshiner
As a roleplayer I'm disturbed by the lack of physical realism this universe has to offer.
The real universe is a dynamic place in which moons orbit planets orbiting stars that vaporize any spaceship coming too close Shocked I miss bad spaceweather induced by the local star[s] making it hard to navigate, don't wanna see the nebulea as we saw them in the early '60 ugh Red plasma planets in young solar systems with lots of astroids, blue plasma in nebulous systems with lots of gas and ice and - by jove - ice astroids always farest away from the star.

Ofcourse gameplay and the war on lag are of utter importance but since none of the CSM candidates have mentioned these, do YOU think physical realism will get a place on your agenda ?


Honestly, "no". Let me elaborate a bit :

While physical realism is something no-one can really dislike, I fear that correcting the astrophysics of EVE is too big of a task, for a too small public. Most of the players, even amongst the roleplayers, are quite happy with a vaguely realistic universe, without entering too much in the details.
For example, I'm sure a much greater proportion of the roleplayers would enjoy seeing binary stars first. Remember, ALL those systems are binary starsystems. Although I believe that it would be so much of a change that they'll retcon everything eventually.

A dynamic universe is a big no-no in any case : this was discussed before, and CCP stated that not only having the celestials moving would cause much more stress on the servers, it would also render the current bookmark system completely useless. So unless they someday want some kind of grand change to the bookmark system for other reasons, I don't think they'll invest the development resources in such a feature.

Don't lose hope thus : other improvements are on the way !
Some of the things you mentioned may be in the pipes :

There was recently a debate concerning accessibility in EVE, which was not made very easy by the nebulas. Also, the recent addition in terms of effects (such as God Rays) and new texture sizes are all factors pointing toward an iteration of our space background someday. Maybe towards more realism. (Something like stars relative luminescence would be pretty cool)

Also, I remember reading that CCP was rather dissatisfied with the current look of stars. This, along with the addition of large-scale game effects, could pave the way for a redo of the stars, possibly with effects such as thermal damage when too close, solar flares, etc...

All this is pure speculation based on a few facts thus. I think the best advances we will get during the CSM 6 term in terms of rolepalying will be through Incarna. But who knows ? If CCP opens the discussion about physical realism, I'll be glad to weigh in.

Darranibal Colpia
Caldari
Acute Damage
Posted - 2011.03.13 10:36:00 - [26]
 

Having held many conversations with Gehen, I am impressed with his commitment and interpretation of CCP's guidelines, and will be voting for him. I urge my friends and colleagues to do likewise.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.13 20:18:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Darranibal Colpia
Having held many conversations with Gehen, I am impressed with his commitment and interpretation of CCP's guidelines, and will be voting for him. I urge my friends and colleagues to do likewise.


Thank you Darranibal. :)

I'll also use this opportunity to thank the other players who have sent me emails of support, and the kind players at EVE-University who I had a very nice chat with.
I welcome all players unsure of my dedication to EVE and my selfless commitment to it's improvement in case of an election to ask me further questions :)

Snowy TheFlake
Posted - 2011.03.14 19:55:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Gehen Sealbreaker
Originally by: The Moonshiner
I like your presentation and I have voted for you because I think you would make a serious and welcome addition to the CSM being another helping hand between players and CCP.


Hello there ! Thanks for your vote, it's very appreciated. :)

Originally by: The Moonshiner
As a roleplayer I'm disturbed by the lack of physical realism this universe has to offer.
The real universe is a dynamic place in which moons orbit planets orbiting stars that vaporize any spaceship coming too close Shocked I miss bad spaceweather induced by the local star[s] making it hard to navigate, don't wanna see the nebulea as we saw them in the early '60 ugh Red plasma planets in young solar systems with lots of astroids, blue plasma in nebulous systems with lots of gas and ice and - by jove - ice astroids always farest away from the star.

Ofcourse gameplay and the war on lag are of utter importance but since none of the CSM candidates have mentioned these, do YOU think physical realism will get a place on your agenda ?


Honestly, "no". Let me elaborate a bit :

While physical realism is something no-one can really dislike, I fear that correcting the astrophysics of EVE is too big of a task, for a too small public. Most of the players, even amongst the roleplayers, are quite happy with a vaguely realistic universe, without entering too much in the details.
For example, I'm sure a much greater proportion of the roleplayers would enjoy seeing binary stars first. Remember, ALL those systems are binary starsystems. Although I believe that it would be so much of a change that they'll retcon everything eventually.

A dynamic universe is a big no-no in any case : this was discussed before, and CCP stated that not only having the celestials moving would cause much more stress on the servers, it would also render the current bookmark system completely useless. So unless they someday want some kind of grand change to the bookmark system for other reasons, I don't think they'll invest the development resources in such a feature.

Don't lose hope thus : other improvements are on the way !
Some of the things you mentioned may be in the pipes :

There was recently a debate concerning accessibility in EVE, which was not made very easy by the nebulas. Also, the recent addition in terms of effects (such as God Rays) and new texture sizes are all factors pointing toward an iteration of our space background someday. Maybe towards more realism. (Something like stars relative luminescence would be pretty cool)

Also, I remember reading that CCP was rather dissatisfied with the current look of stars. This, along with the addition of large-scale game effects, could pave the way for a redo of the stars, possibly with effects such as thermal damage when too close, solar flares, etc...

All this is pure speculation based on a few facts thus. I think the best advances we will get during the CSM 6 term in terms of rolepalying will be through Incarna. But who knows ? If CCP opens the discussion about physical realism, I'll be glad to weigh in.


I am going to vote for you - mainly due to your representation of the RP element of the game but also because of an overall well balanced representation. However I think you are wrong to disregard the potential for atmosphere generated by a better, more detailed environment, particularly on RP gameplay!

I for one second 'The Moonshiner' - lets have more tangible and physical hazzard and beauty! Reality is in the detail.

Gehen Sealbreaker
Amarr
Posted - 2011.03.15 10:45:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Snowy TheFlake
I am going to vote for you - mainly due to your representation of the RP element of the game but also because of an overall well balanced representation. However I think you are wrong to disregard the potential for atmosphere generated by a better, more detailed environment, particularly on RP gameplay!

I for one second 'The Moonshiner' - lets have more tangible and physical hazzard and beauty! Reality is in the detail.


Thank you for your vote, Mr Snow ! Smile

About the RP benefits of a more realist universe, it's not so much that I disregard them, but I know for a fact that most of these things will not be accepted by CCP for the moment.
Also, I have a strong feeling that before adding such changes, much simpler yet critical changes could go great good.

For example, as far as microtransactions go, one things that was recently discussed was the possibility of switching bloodline / race for a PLEX. This is an idea I fully support, for a lot of the roleplayers I know picked up the wrong race / bloodline when creating their character, due to a newcomer's view on the background, and couldn't trash their character when they understood their mistake, as the SP loss would be too much to bear. I myself biomassed my first iteration of Gehen, made before understanding that he had to be Amarr.

In that same vein, but requiring more work, would be the implementation of the missing bloodlines. I'm afraid CCP might scream at the "wait so we must do new 3D characters templates ?" part, thus.

I very much agree that devil is in the details, but I precisely think that some smaller and easier to fix systems could use some detail work before taking on something as big as the physics engine.

Che Biko
Humanitarian Communists
Posted - 2011.03.15 23:17:00 - [30]
 

Hmm, you did quite good for me in the Vote match thing, better than the other guy I might vote for. And the other guy is kinda quiet on his "important to him" roleplay subject.
If you get elected, I will fill you in on my gripes in relation to RP.


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