Vote match for CSM

Preamble: I’m running for CSM; in case you missed this, I thought I’d point it out before I got started today. I haven’t made a big deal about it because that’s not what this blog is about for me. I do have a page devoted to my platform, but by and large this is about my experiences in EVE and the mechanics I’d like to see change –whether I am a member of the CSM or not.

Diedra Vaal (also a candidate for CSM) has given every pilot in EVE a wonderful gift; vote match asks you to agree or disagree with a series of statements to determine your opinion on a variety of New Eden’s issues — then compares your answers against the CSM 5 candidates to see which candidate best matches your view.

Thankfully, I match myself pretty well — though I come in at only an 83% match to myself. This is partly because the questions can be interpreted in different ways depending on your mood, and partially because when I went through the questions as a “potential voter” I didn’t use any strong likes or dislikes.

It’s the interpretation factor which led me to write this entry because I think that within a different mental context many of these issues can be answered both ways by the same candidate. So, I am putting forward a brief explanation of every answer I made.

All level 4 missions should be moved to low-security space.

I disagree with this; as it stands, there isn’t room in low-security space to house all the level 4 mission agents. There are some people who just want to fly around and blow stuff up. Doing this in high-security space already gives a lower reward than doing this in low-security or null-security space; I could get behind a movement to increase the disparity between the rewards in different regions, but not putting them all in a cart and hauling them to low-security space. At least, not without a host of other changes.

Local chat should be changed to delayed mode.

I really believe that local should just go away. I’ve talked about this on my blog before. It’s a crutch used both by hunters and the hunted, and it’s infallible. Clearly this eliminates risk in any equation you want to write — but it doesn’t do anything to reward. It’s not rewarding to have the same infallible intelligence tool that everyone else has and know the pilot’s name, rank and serial number the second he jumps into a system with you — before he’s even loaded the system himself.

Reprocessing of non-drone compounds should yield a lot less minerals.

I agree in the context of meta 0 loot dropping from NPCs; but changes are afoot which stop these drops — in that light, I don’t think that meta 1 through 4 loot ought to be changed. I do understand there’s a whole “ore compression” issue here as well, but I don’t think it’s important enough to merit a reprocessing nerf.

CCP should devote an expansion cycle to revamping the User Interface.

Of course CCP should revamp the user interface; it’s old, it’s clunky and it needs a facelift (as well as a restructuring of the underlying muscles).

Scamming should be prohibited.

There is absolutely no reason to prohibit scamming. It would be nice, however, if there was a way to get back at the scammers. As it stands now, scammers don’t have to fly a ship — ever — which would be the only way of taking any form of revenge. And if they do, it probably isn’t worth anything. There’s absolutely no way to get revenge for the vast majority of scams. And, when the day is through the scammer can recycle the character and start fresh. These are the reasons I did not strongly disagree.

Suicide ganking should be a viable tactic.

Sure, suicide ganking should be a viable tactic — but what does “viable tactic” mean? If insurance gives you back the majority of your loss, then you haven’t really lost anything. Suiciding on a miner doesn’t really have much place in the game — unless you’re a rival miner and just want them out of your space; and if that was the case, then you wouldn’t mind taking a loss to show them the door. Plainly said, I think insurance should not be paid to pilots who lost their ship to CONCORD. The upcoming insurance changes will clearly have some impact here; what they are remains to be seen.

Suicide gankers should not receive a full insurance payout.

In my mind, this is the same issue as above; it really plays into the same question about how suicide ganking should work.

0.0 infrastructure should only be vulnerable to large fleets of organized players supported by capital ships.

If this stays true, then small ships will continue to have a very small role to play in what many consider to be EVE’s end game (I don’t, but that’s another story). I’d like to see some bits of the infrastructure be vulnerable to smaller fleets without capital support.

Pirating as a profession needs some love from CCP.

Pirates, or criminals, are everywhere. It’s obviously not an unloved profession. If you peruse the recruitment forums, every second post is from a pirate corporation. Sure, it would be great to see some support here for things like ransoming, but it’s not necessary — at least not at the expense of other professions which could use a lot more help.

Bounty Hunting as a profession needs some love from CCP.

Clearly there is something broken about bounty hunting. I’d love to see changes here as there is a plethora of pilots who would love to make a profit from hunting criminals. One aspect of this is kill rights; I’d certainly love to see a kill rights trading system — for some it would be great to sell off your kill rights and make a profit on being blown up, for others it would be worthwhile to pay someone to take the kill rights for you and get a little revenge. Either way, bounty hunting needs some support.

The war-dec system is unbalanced in favour of the agressor and should be changed.

I agree; war declarations are in favor of the aggressor. This is not a problem in and of itself, but the fact that it can be used to find easy targets for PvP is a problem. It’s a problem because there is no way to capitulate. There is no way to ensure that if you pay off the extortionist he won’t come back again and ask you for more money. To this end, there should be treaties to account for this or terms for surrender. War should not be just a license to kill other pilots, it should be a means to an end — and there is currently no end.

Mining in it’s current form is not profitable enough.

I tentatively disagree with this statement. There are miners. They mine. When more minerals are needed, the profits go up. When less minerals are needed, the profits go down. The changes to meta 0 loot will be an excellent boost to miners. If there are more necessary changes, we’ll see that after the changes shake their way into the market.

Core combat model of EVE lacks complexity and is too simple.

There is plenty of complexity there; you just have to look for it.

Point income sources like R64 moons and static complexes were main conflict drivers and their nerfs were wrong.

If you think the conflict drivers are gone, you ought to check on the progress of the NC vs. the SC. There’s a war going on. There is always a war going on. Solar systems are conflict drivers. Boredom is a conflict driver. Spreading out the wealth is good for everyone.

Level 5 missions should be available in high security space.

There is no reason to add more reward to high-security space. Leave level 5 missions the way they are. If you want to do them, find a group who will help keep the pirates off your back. Missions, in general, are the problem with putting PvE content in space where the probability for PvP is high.

PvE content should be more varied and dynamic than the current static missions and exploration sites.

Everybody engages in a little PvE now and then. Who wouldn’t want a little more variety? As PvE stands now it’s not very risky; you go to a web site, it tells you exactly what to do, then you do it. Please, make it a little more dynamic than that.

POSes in Wormhole Space should be exposed to more danger.

I’m ambivalent. Somebody convince me.

Bombs should be usable in low sec.

In general I think this is what null-security space is for. But i could be convinced. As a deterrent to large fleets I suppose they could be useful in low-security space — but your bomber is not going to fare well against gate guns.

CCP needs to change game mechanics so that blobbing is no longer effective.

First, we would need to agree on what a blob is. That’s not possible between any two pilots; nobody agrees on exactly what a blob is — but generally it’s that the other guys are always in blobs and your side is always in a reasonably sized fleet. I don’t want to see large fleets discouraged or ineffective — I do want to see them made more interesting. As it stands now, it’s generally a variation on ‘line them up and knock them down’ where a fleet commander calls primaries and everybody else generally does what he says. There’s very little room for personal heroics or small-unit tactics; it’s generally why I stay out of large fleet combat even when I’ve been invited to participate (as part of any of the alliances I’ve been involved with). So when I agree with this statement, it’s for that reason and not because I only ever want to see even sides or tiny fleets.

Warp disruption fields should be usable in low sec.

If they were usable, how would it be any different than null-security space except that you can’t own it. And if it’s no different than null-security space you can’t own, how is it different from NPC null-security space? There are differences between the different areas, and it should stay that way.

The amount of public NPC station production and research slots should be increased.

There are more research slots in low-security space and null-security NPC space; this is invention PvP. If you think differently, convince me.

All existing Tech II BPO’s should be converted into high run BPC’s.

On the day I answered the survey, I agreed with this; other days I don’t agree. In general, I’ve seen good arguments both ways. When I agree with this statement, it’s because there is no way to produce a T2 blueprint original and they’ve been phased out as the standard means of producing an item — I could wait until they’ve all been destroyed in tragic accidents and not be terribly unhappy. When I disagree with this statement, it’s because somebody has invested a lot of funds in a BPO and there are plenty of cases for inventors making more money than a BPO owner (which, of course, discount the possibility that the BPO owner might also be doing invention and has this background thread producing T2 items without the invention overhead).

Game mechanics should be developed to support a banking system in Eve.

I’m ambivalent. It would be interesting to see a bank based on game mechanics, but there are issues which are hard to deal with for some services normally handled by a bank (such as loans in a world where anybody can give money away and then flush themselves into a pool of biomass). In any case, much more explanation of what this means would be necessary before I could truly agree or disagree.

Low security asteroid belts should include a limited amount of 0.0 ores.

I agreed; but perhaps it makes more sense that they are only found in gravimetric sites as is already the case. Putting null-security ores in a low-security system will clearly give unaffiliated miners the chance to obtain the ores, but it will also give pirates a change to earn some isk.

All forms of personal passive income (such as RnD agents) should be removed.

I’m not a fan of passive income such as research and development agents. I’m not actively against them, though. In general I think that it keeps an element of slogging through missions to raise your standings — and anything that is described with the word ‘slogging’ has to be bad.

Invention and production should be made more profitable.

Are they not profitable? Then people should stop doing it. If people stop doing it, it will become profitable. And so the cycle goes.

Capital ships should not be insurable.

I’ve since been convinced that changing insurance on capital ships is not necessarily the way to go (cheers to you Ivan). Reduction in insurance only serves to cement the power of the most wealthy entities (whether player or alliance) in the game. And while that’s a good analogy for the real world, it doesn’t necessarily make for a lot of fun. In the end, I’m not on a crusade in either direction and I’m not pushing for a change.

The game needs more PvE (missions, exploration) content.

Well, duh.

CCP should spend more time fixing old content and less time introducing new content.

This depends on what you mean by ‘fixing old content’. If you mean iterating on existing mechanisms and adding more meat to them, then I agree — but I consider that to be ‘introducing new content’. If, instead, you mean fixing bugs (which I think was the meaning), then I disagree. I’m a software engineer, and I know that if my whole team concentrated on fixing the same bug, we’d trip over each other. If, instead, part of the team concentrated on fixing the bug and another part of the team worked on new content, we’d come out of the process with a fixed bug and new content — it’s a win-win.

PvE (missions, exploration) should be made more like PvP.

Ah, my favorite issue ever. Why do mission runners have so much problem with people scanning them down and destroying them? Because they aren’t fit for PvP; they’ve fit specifically for a mission, don’t have any PvP-centric modules (electronic warfare of any kind including web and warp disruption), and are being engaged by dozens of NPCs. It’s not exactly the greatest time to be detained by another player who doesn’t have to do much work other than applying a point and adding to the already intense damage being inflicted. Sure, there are other reasons, but the combination of large numbers of rats slowly overwhelming you and lack of PvP fit are the primary reason PvE players who might otherwise be open to PvP dislike it so much. Making PvE more like PvP is one of many steps on this road.

And in closing

Thanks, Diedra Vaal, for providing this convenience for players who want to vote, and care to pick a good candidate, but have trouble sifting through 53 candidates.

WTF thought of the day: I also came out as a pretty close match to Fatmarrow; really? I’m a close match to the guy who’s advertisement on Kieth Nielson’s web site is, “You’re on a drone boat”? Sorry Fat! I’m sure you’re a great candidate.

~ by paritybit on 2010/05/05.

One Response to “Vote match for CSM”

  1. I support paritybit and encourage you to cast your vote!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: