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


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Hardin
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 13:32:00 - [1]
 

Jim Rossignol - long term EVE player and writer for PC Gamer UK and various other gaming publications - has penned an article about the CSM on Eurogamer.

You can view the article here:

http://www.eurogamer.net/article.php?article_id=139700

As an aside I have updated my blog with a link to the article and also added a few more sigs to the site (you need to scroll down to view sigs)

www.hardinfaq.blogspot.com

Cheers


Hamfast
Gallente
Posted - 2008.05.13 13:43:00 - [2]
 

good article... did I miss 30+ people dropping out of the race or is that just the ones that don't seem to be putting an effort into running...Oh, and I thought Goumindong was running on his own without the backing of the goons... they were voting for others... then again, it could all be a scam...

Xennith
Imperial Logistics and Supply
Posted - 2008.05.13 14:06:00 - [3]
 

from the comments section
Quote:
Canditates should really come from the larger guilds


kill it with fire!

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 14:26:00 - [4]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
I thought Goumindong was running on his own without the backing of the goons... they were voting for others


I am running without the backing of the goons. The article got that point wrong.

Atolie
Amarr
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.05.13 14:30:00 - [5]
 

Comments section:
Quote:
Now a few people with personal bias will have influence on what the rest of us do? No thanks.


This!




Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:05:00 - [6]
 

Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Hamfast
I thought Goumindong was running on his own without the backing of the goons... they were voting for others


I am running without the backing of the goons. The article got that point wrong.


Fact checking, who needs it?

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:35:00 - [7]
 


Well I'm generally happy with my section of the article - were a few glaring factual inaccuracies in general though. Maybe it needs a bit of a corrective edit?


Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:46:00 - [8]
 

Quote:
A vote for Jade is a vote for supporting the little guy.


Is this one of the glaring factual inaccuracies you refer to?

Quote:
... and a lot of the current space-alliances have become overused to safety and security and the knowledge that their holdings are effectively invulnerable and persistent. I think we've got to return to the notion that if you put something in open space, it's open to attack, and empire builders must be able to defend their empires...


Or maybe this part?

I must be playing a different version of Eve than you are...

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 15:54:00 - [9]
 


Arithron, I've absolutely no interest in getting involved in a petty sniping match with you. I'd advise you to stick to the issues and positive campaigning and don't demean yourself in this way.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:01:00 - [10]
 

My intention wasn't to snipe, sorry for any offence. You just said two things which I am wondering about...

How do you represent the little guy?

And..

In which ways do you think that currently, something in open space is not open to attack?

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

zoolkhan
Minmatar
Mirkur Draug'Tyr
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:10:00 - [11]
 

Originally by: Hamfast
good article... did I miss 30+ people dropping out of the race or is that just the ones that don't seem to be putting an effort into running...


I thought i am putting effort into it.

Heck, we life in times where not thoughts and actions decide, but "fame"

Soon we will know what the voters think. They will get what they deserve - by definition Wink

I just hope that the game returns to a state where it is fun again as a consequence.




Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:15:00 - [12]
 

Originally by: Arithron
My intention wasn't to snipe, sorry for any offence. You just said two things which I am wondering about...



Arithron, you have to understand something about Jade Constantine. Whenever anyone challenges her with actual reason she simply deflects the question.

What you read was Jades way of saying "I don't have an argument so please don't challenge me on it"

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:31:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 16:55:49

Originally by: Arithron
My intention wasn't to snipe, sorry for any offence. You just said two things which I am wondering about...


Okay, apology accepted, but calling somebody's honest statement on campaign priorities a "factual inaccuracy" wasn't the best way to start a productive discussion you know.

Quote:
How do you represent the little guy?


My experience and focus and general aspiration for the future of the game is based around small-unit combat and enhancing conflict opportunity and variety for the "little guy". I outline a number of areas of of interest to these themes in my CSM manifesto; ranging from refinements to 0.0 warfare emphasizing distributed objectives and engagement variety, in empire warfare with changes to the bounty system, objectives for war-decs, encouragement for player mini-professions and generally aiming at giving the average player more scope for involvement in fighting outside of the giant blobs and lag fests of traditional territorial warfare.

Even my interest in solutions to the omnipotent local chat system and reducing "gods-eye" map info and making it more difficult to patrol space for interlopers - these are things aimed at making space "bigger" and reducing the ability for huge organizations to dominate space with a couple of spy alts in each system and open map view. Small scale corporations and individual pilots will find it easier to exist as stainless-steel rats in the wainscotting of imperialist powers.

I could go on all day on the specifics of these things Arithron (and I do in the manifesto document believe me) - and you are quite welcome to come and have a read and ask specific questions in my thread. If you do come and have a read you'll notice I'm currently up to 7 pages of individual responses to the "little guys" playing Eve where I listen to and answer queries diligently and remain open-minded on a whole raft of suggestions and feature items and technical gameplay issues.

Quote:
In which ways do you think that currently, something in open space is not open to attack?


Because pretty much everything is based around POS, - attacking POS is an immense chore, and its not enough to reduce these things once, you have to do it again several days later at a time to suit the defenders in the knowledge you will be facing an uber-blob of the defenders + NAP partners a giant laggy battle of unpleasant proportions. In essence it means that every tower in 0.0 is going to be defended by a blob when it comes from reinforced mode and while yes - technically its "attackable" in the reinforcement battle its hardly "open to attack" from anything smaller than a much larger blob in a mechanic that actively disenfranchises anything but the largest powers and refers us neatly back to your first question.

Anyway, hope that helps and any further questions feel free to ask in my Jade Constantine for CSM thread - (this one is about the Eurogamer article and shouldn't be further derailed.)

All the best .

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:35:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Kelsin on 13/05/2008 16:57:35
Arithron, just check out Jade's manifesto. Point #3 (edit: under the "Dynamism in 0.0" section) is a pretty great idea for the "little guy" - I love the mobile infrastructure concept to give small corps some tools to dive into 0.0.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:45:00 - [15]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 16:45:41
Originally by: Kelsin
Arithron, just check out Jade's manifesto. Point #3 is a pretty great idea for the "little guy" - I love the mobile infrastructure concept to give small corps some tools to dive into 0.0.


That was iirc the original intention of titans, if I'm interpreting "mobile infrastructure" correctly. I liked it when the devs had it.

I think we'll find there needs to be a balance between work and payoff, which isn't to say I disagree per se. I loved the idea of the Titan as a mobile attack platform as opposed to an AOE instant death machine. I also think though that insinuating that "little guys" should be able to challenge the sov of vast swaths of space with an IMMENSE investment made in it is flawed. It's just as one-sided as if I were to say the opposite as it doesn't take into account the other guy's frame of reference.

I mean, we have drama threads all over this forum about OH GOD SOMEONE KILLED MY MINING VESSEL IN LOWSEC YOU ARE A RACIST SATAN, but then "the little guys" want destructible outposts? I'm a bully just for suiciding a few hulks. I can't wait to see the fallout when I start popping outposts left and right.

Suffice it to say that the current mechanics aren't going to be changed with the flip of a switch because too many people have invested too much in the current system. A phased approach would have to be the way to go and a my way or the highway attitude won't cut it. Simplifying or revisiting POS warfare itself would be a good start. Making it so you didn't need 1000 people simply to run the pos's for a region would increase the number of organizations who could hold space, which would increase the number of people who are attacking space, which would help to prevent the current, single alliance holding 20 outposts across 10 regions conundrum.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:53:00 - [16]
 

Darius, I don't think proposals for changes to Sov warfare and Outposts are what the little guy comment in the article is referring to. I'm sure that comment stemmed from Jade's support for small-gang combat, etc.

As for mobile infrastructure, check out Jade's manifesto, the part I was referring to is this:

Quote:
Where are the cloaked pirate bases? The mobile refineries? The guerrilla resistance movements operating from converted freighters in enemy space? Smugglers and blockade runners, spies and assassins, rogue traders and loners scraping an existence from the underbelly of these empires?

There should be advantages for the fixed power, but there should be options and alternatives for the mobile force. A balance needs to be rediscovered and the high level content options for Eve need to be widened and made more diverse to maintain its appeal for existing and new players. Owning sovereignty 4 and an invulnerable outpost should not be the universal endgame for every organisation in Eve.


Those sorts of ideas pay needed attention to the needs and playstyle of small corps, and are likely what the "little guy" assessment was derived from.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:57:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 17:00:51
Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 16:57:37
Originally by: Kelsin
Darius, I don't think proposals for changes to Sov warfare and Outposts are what the little guy comment in the article is referring to. I'm sure that comment stemmed from Jade's support for small-gang combat, etc.

As for mobile infrastructure, check out Jade's manifesto, the part I was referring to is this:

Quote:
Where are the cloaked pirate bases? The mobile refineries? The guerrilla resistance movements operating from converted freighters in enemy space? Smugglers and blockade runners, spies and assassins, rogue traders and loners scraping an existence from the underbelly of these empires?

There should be advantages for the fixed power, but there should be options and alternatives for the mobile force. A balance needs to be rediscovered and the high level content options for Eve need to be widened and made more diverse to maintain its appeal for existing and new players. Owning sovereignty 4 and an invulnerable outpost should not be the universal endgame for every organisation in Eve.


Those sorts of ideas pay needed attention to the needs and playstyle of small corps, and are likely what the "little guy" assessment was derived from.


Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up.

I've also only heard it mentioned in the context of Sov warfare, and to be frank won't be reading every candidates 500 page "manifesto".

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 16:59:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 13/05/2008 17:00:17
Originally by: Kelsin
Darius, I don't think proposals for changes to Sov warfare and Outposts are what the little guy comment in the article is referring to. I'm sure that comment stemmed from Jade's support for small-gang combat, etc.



These are one and the same thing.

Originally by: "Darius"


Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up.


Yes, the original intent of titans was to be mobile stations.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:04:00 - [19]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up.


No you are right, that was the original intention for the Titan. I remember the prototype discussions of moving station/ships like Motherships from Homeworld etc etc. Still the Titan we have today is something that people have trained for a long time to master, and many alliances have invested a huge amount of time and effort to secure. So I don't honestly think its fair or reasonable to alter the existing ship class in a radical way that makes a mockery of player training and deployment aspiration. What we need of course is other alternatives in the Titan (class) and some of these should certainly be the mobile station style options we once heard about at the beginning of the game.

On gameplay diversity and mobile infrastructure glad we're on the same page there Darius. Its a very important topic in my opinion and we definitely need alternatives to fixed sovereignty level 4 capital system stuff as an end-game aspiration for current alliance and individual effort.


Serenity Steele
Dynamic Data Distribution
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:04:00 - [20]
 

Hardin, Kudos for getting an interview with Jim and promoting EVE. Even if the article is a little, Jades idea of a collective edit should fix that. Wiki anyone?


Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:08:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Still the Titan we have today is something that people have trained for a long time to master, and many alliances have invested a huge amount of time and effort to secure. So I don't honestly think its fair or reasonable to alter the existing ship class in a radical way that makes a mockery of player training and deployment aspiration.



CCP has never done this for any group of players doing any type of training. There is no reason they should start now when the effect on gameplay that is had more detrimental than anything we've seen before.

Arithron
Gallente
Gallente Trade Alliance
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:20:00 - [22]
 

Quote:
Because pretty much everything is based around POS, - attacking POS is an immense chore, and its not enough to reduce these things once, you have to do it again several days later at a time to suit the defenders in the knowledge you will be facing an uber-blob of the defenders + NAP partners a giant laggy battle of unpleasant proportions. In essence it means that every tower in 0.0 is going to be defended by a blob when it comes from reinforced mode and while yes - technically its "attackable" in the reinforcement battle its hardly "open to attack"


So you would like to see POS and other structures attackable and defeatable in one attack? How does this support small corps, who spend considerable time, effort and ISK putting the POS up in the first place? We all work in different timezones, and can't be on 24 hours a day to defend our structures in space- hence the reinforced mode. This gives a corp a chance to defend its property.

I'm not interested in reading your manifesto, tbh. I personally don't think its our place nor job to come up with new directions and ideas for the game- the PLAYERS will do this. Our job is to decide which of these issues has the support of the players or is important to be brought to CCP's attention.

Take care,
Bruce Hansen (Arithron)

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:22:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: Jade Constantine on 13/05/2008 19:38:36

@Arithron re your specific Candidate Q/A questions, I'll reply on my CSM thread so we don't drag this one off-topic now:

Response to Arithron

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:25:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON
Yeah it's a no brainer. Again I believe items such as this were the original intention of the Titan, but that may just be my horribly spotty memory. I'm completely on board with the concept of gameplay diversity and the concept of mobile infrastructure. I was when the devs first brought it up.


No you are right, that was the original intention for the Titan. I remember the prototype discussions of moving station/ships like Motherships from Homeworld etc etc. Still the Titan we have today is something that people have trained for a long time to master, and many alliances have invested a huge amount of time and effort to secure. So I don't honestly think its fair or reasonable to alter the existing ship class in a radical way that makes a mockery of player training and deployment aspiration. What we need of course is other alternatives in the Titan (class) and some of these should certainly be the mobile station style options we once heard about at the beginning of the game.

On gameplay diversity and mobile infrastructure glad we're on the same page there Darius. Its a very important topic in my opinion and we definitely need alternatives to fixed sovereignty level 4 capital system stuff as an end-game aspiration for current alliance and individual effort.




The only item I'd like to comment on here is that the titan itself is a mockery of player training. The introduction of an AOE death machine was ridiculous and even post nerf it's a problem when combined with other mechanics such as the const sov system and mod upgrades. I believe in early failures and it takes a set of balls to admit you were wrong. Delaying it until I can build up enough of them to abuse the mechanic even more simply because a few guys trained for something completely unbalancing isn't the wisest course of action.

Personally I'd be just as happy to see the sov 4 concept go away. I'll use it while it's there and wish it wasn't. Mobile stations are a p. cool concept but need to be treated carefully as they, much like the titan, have the ability to change the entire face of the game if they are ill thought out.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:26:00 - [25]
 

Arithron, I've gotta say - if you're going to needle a candidate on their views, the least you can do is actually read their campaign material, even if it's just skimming it. After all, if the voters are taking the time to check out the candidates you might put in something approximating the same effort.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:30:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
Arithron, I've gotta say - if you're going to needle a candidate on their views, the least you can do is actually read their campaign material, even if it's just skimming it. After all, if the voters are taking the time to check out the candidates you might put in something approximating the same effort.


Expecting people to read something that long is a bit much. There's a happy medium in there and when that medium is found and some brevity is used to express views I'm sure more people will take the time to do so. Until then don't be surprised when nobody wants to read a mile of :words:.

Jade Constantine
Gallente
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:37:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Expecting people to read something that long is a bit much. There's a happy medium in there and when that medium is found and some brevity is used to express views I'm sure more people will take the time to do so. Until then don't be surprised when nobody wants to read a mile of :words:.


Well you know, I've actually read pretty much everything the other candidates have said and every response to my thread. Maybe I'm some kind of a reading-addicted mutant but I actually quite enjoy getting a sense of what people are saying and believing in the context of Eve gameplay development Cool

Brevity absolutely has its role in face to face debate and quick answers on specific points - but that doesn't rule out the purpose of a big fat manifesto as a foundation to let people who want an in-depth understanding of a Candidate's mindset and aspirations read that from the public words.



Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:41:00 - [28]
 

Originally by: Jade Constantine
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Expecting people to read something that long is a bit much. There's a happy medium in there and when that medium is found and some brevity is used to express views I'm sure more people will take the time to do so. Until then don't be surprised when nobody wants to read a mile of :words:.


Well you know, I've actually read pretty much everything the other candidates have said and every response to my thread. Maybe I'm some kind of a reading-addicted mutant but I actually quite enjoy getting a sense of what people are saying and believing in the context of Eve gameplay development Cool

Brevity absolutely has its role in face to face debate and quick answers on specific points - but that doesn't rule out the purpose of a big fat manifesto as a foundation to let people who want an in-depth understanding of a Candidate's mindset and aspirations read that from the public words.





Oh don't get me wrong. I'm sure a big fat manifesto has its place. My only point being that by being overly long winded you can run the risk of minimizing your audience. I haven't read everything everyone's written because to be frank, I'm not sure the CSM candidates job is to write manifestos and I don't find it to be a constructive use of my time. Personal preference. If you want to write a book it's certainly not my place to insinuate that you shouldn't. I'm merely expressing that I wouldn't do it, nor if I did would I take offense to people not reading it because it's long.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:41:00 - [29]
 

Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Personally I'd be just as happy to see the sov 4 concept go away. I'll use it while it's there and wish it wasn't. Mobile stations are a p. cool concept but need to be treated carefully as they, much like the titan, have the ability to change the entire face of the game if they are ill thought out.


Isn't changing the entire face of the game the idea?

The main problem with titans mobile stations is that as a player ship they need to be destroyable[especially as its movable infrastructure which is basically logistics]. And as a station they need to be persistent. These are two conflicting points which cannot easily be resolved, if they can be at all.

Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.05.13 17:44:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Darius JOHNSON on 13/05/2008 17:44:31
Originally by: Goumindong
Originally by: Darius JOHNSON

Personally I'd be just as happy to see the sov 4 concept go away. I'll use it while it's there and wish it wasn't. Mobile stations are a p. cool concept but need to be treated carefully as they, much like the titan, have the ability to change the entire face of the game if they are ill thought out.


Isn't changing the entire face of the game the idea?

The main problem with titans mobile stations is that as a player ship they need to be destroyable[especially as its movable infrastructure which is basically logistics]. And as a station they need to be persistent. These are two conflicting points which cannot easily be resolved, if they can be at all.


Changing the face of the game yes. Breaking it no. Context. I was referring specifically to changing it in a bad way due to lack of proper foresight.

I think the idea may be that when in motion they're different than when they've been anchored. Think transformers. POS's are destroyable yet persistent. Where's the conflict?


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