EVE Search - Avalloc declares that he's running for CSM again!

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Jita Park Speakers Corner

Avalloc declares that he's running for CSM again!

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:09:00 - [1] Edited by: Avalloc on 14/04/2010 07:14:16 Hello again! I am pleased to announce my candidacy for CSM5. You may remember me from CSM3 in which I represented the interests of a broad array of EVE Online players. I did not immediately run for CSM4 so that I would have the opportunity to sit back and consider for a time how I could champion the desires of the Community once again. I also wanted to take my time creating ways to help stir up additional interest in the whole CSM process for the average player. With your support I hope to succeed by being re-elected and bringing more players into the voting process for CSM candidates. Why should you re-elect me to the CSM? I feel that I was successful during my first term in listening to the interests of players and bringing them to vote with the Council and then on to CCP. There were 21 individual issues which were represented by me (click this link to view a list of them via my web site.) And they covered aspects of the game which sorely needed some attention from CCP. My attendance for CSM meetings were stellar save for one case in which I was absent for one of the meetings which was fortunately rescheduled due to others not showing up either. I hope these two examples demonstrate the dedication I showed to my role as a member of CSM3 and my ambition to continue taking the responsibilities seriously for CSM5. By having already served on the CSM I have the benefit of my past accomplishments showing I can get results rather than making promises for what I "could" do if you voted for me. CCP has plenty of new things planned on the horizon for EVE Online. I will insure the interests of the playerbase are conveyed to CCP concerning development of EVE Gate, Incarna, DUST514, and Tyrannis. You can read more about my campaign as I continue to update my web site at http://www.avalloc.net.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:14:00 - [2] Here are a few of the (new) big points I will be focusing on should I be elected this upcoming term. Documentation from CCP Since EVE Online was released the players have had to practically fend for themselves in learning how to use new features that are added to the game. CCP has slowly become better about informing the players but they still have a long way to go with improvements in this area. The trial-and-error of learning the game is fine for voluntary aspects of the game like researching, manufacturing, mission running, and other similar things. However when it comes to "features" and "changes" which are forced on the players there needs to be documentation from CCP (more than patch notes) for how everything functions. Case in point? Dominion. CCP forced sweeping changes on the playerbase with how Sovereignty would be handled in 0.0 space without providing adequate documentation on how the new mechanics worked. The story of Goonswarm losing Sovereignty across Delve is a good example of players suffering for CCP's negligence with documentation. Players might be more encourages to venture out into 0.0 space if they had this information available too. Having documentation ready to go for the release of Tyrannis expansion would be a great place for CCP to start. Evelopedia would be a great place to host this, Contract System Improvements There are three big improvements that I'd like to see done to the Contract system. First I would like to see the ability to pull a target from the address book when designating who the contract is to. Having to type names in repeatedly for same person is silly and it would also cut down on having to select the character when his name is John and you have to select it among every other John*** out there. Next I would like to see the creation of special shrink-wrapping from your own hangar. Select a bunch of items, right click, shrink-wrap option selected, voila! If you can rename the shrink-wrap it'd be even better! This would make Contracting prep work easier as well as dividing things up for hauler/freighter transport. Lastly, I would like the option of having contents (which aren't in a container) of a Contract you're accepting shrink-wrapped before they enter your hangar. Two contracts with similar goods could be safely accepted at the same location without them becoming mixed together. Wouldn't that be great? Red Zealots POS and Sovereignty Structure Management With the release of Dominion the notification mails for POS stats was improved by the new mail system CCP added. But this is far from ideal especially when you get the dreaded "Couldn't read notification ######### because of bad format, check logs for details." I want to see a new UI window added to the client where we can monitor: POS fuel levels, POS reinforcement timer status, Station & iHub reinforcement timer status, and whatever else deemed necessary for this category. This would be a benefit for all players, whether directly or indirectly. More UI Improvements There are a few more ways that I feel the game UI can be improved for everyone's enjoyment. One thing is the ability to opt-in for email reminders when your account subscription (via plex or gtc) is nearing an end. This would be a boon for players who don't use all of their accounts frequently and would miss the notification at the login screen. Next I would like to see the maximum number of allowable tabs in overview increased from 5 to 10. The overview could also do with having the function(filter) to only show war targets. And finally it would be nice to be able to fit out a ship via a saved fitting without boarding the actual ship. Accessibility Group During my previous term I sponsored a proposal to have CCP create some form of accessibility focus group for the game whether it be in-house or external to the company. I have a personal stake in this issue to insure that EVE Online remains not only playable for individuals with physical disabilities but also enjoyable. Being re-elected to the CSM will help me fulfill this. Following Up on Old Issues Now that the CSM has been granted stakeholder status within CCP I want to go through the backlog with my fellow CSM members and push to get things the playerbase wanted added/fixed taken care of. And Much Much More I learned quite a bit about the whole CSM process during my first term. This experience will allow me to better address the ideas and concerns of my fellow players should I be successful in being elected to serve a second term. I implore you to ask any questions you may have. You may contact me via this thread, evemail, or on my web site. I've also created a channel in-game where I can be reached: Avalloc4CSM**.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:23:00 - [3] Edited by: Avalloc on 14/04/2010 07:24:04 Re-energizing the CSM Election: I've given quite a bit of thought to how I can help generate some excitement for not only my own campaign for CSM but the whole process. Therefore I am putting into effect two promotions which I hope will have a positive impact for everyone involved in the election. Bi-Weekly Q&A Session In-Game: I will be hosting a Q&A session every other week starting on the 20th of April. Anyone and everyone is welcome to join the channel Avalloc4CSM where I will answering any questions that may be asking. I plan to rotate between Euro and American friendly times for these meetings. Following each meeting I will make the transcripts available on my web site. Win a Plex Promotion: Each candidate for the CSM will hopefully have a thread posted in the Jita Park Speakers Corner forum. And so each week until the election ends I'm going to be giving away one Plex to two lucky players who took the time to engage a CSM candidate (not just me) with a serious question. The questions will be tracked by my web site at http://www.avalloc.net where you must link the forum post you want to have considered as a valid entry. The rules are as follow: Each week a Blog entry will be created on http://www.avalloc.net starting on as the clock hits midnight on Wednesday EST. To be considered for the Plex you must post a reasonable question in a CSM5 candidate's announcement thread within the following forum: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=channel&channelID=759778 Once you have entered your question you must link the question via the pertaining Blog post on http://www.avalloc.net before the following Wednesday at Midnight EST. You may only enter contest once each week. Your account name for the blog post must match the character name you posted the question with. The winners will be selected using the random number generator located at http://www.random.org/ I reserve the right to invalidate any entries that are suspect or not following the spirit of this promotion.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:29:00 - [4] Reserved for more content. :)
Lucas Tigh GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.14 07:41:00 - [5] MY CSM. (3:32:54 AM) avalloc: trzzbk promised red zealots (3:33:00 AM) avalloc: he didn't deliver (3:33:04 AM) avalloc: I shall (3:33:39 AM) Trzzbk: I ****ing told Noah about the Zealot all the time (3:33:42 AM) Trzzbk: in meetings (3:33:44 AM) Trzzbk: in bars (3:33:47 AM) Trzzbk: in restaurants (3:33:51 AM) Trzzbk: in hotel lobbies
Hratli Smirks GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.14 08:10:00 - [6] Dominion had the initial goal of dramatically increasing the number of players that could be supported in a given upgraded 0.0 system through anomalies. The target number per system was repeatedly lowered until it was stated that a system would support 5 or so players running the highest level anomalies (a fraction of the anomalies spawned by an upgrade) at a target income comparable (though not superior) to running level 4 missions in high-sec. The financial incentives Dominion offered for the average 0.0 player in 0.0 do not seem commensurate with the higher risks and inherent costs of 0.0, at least to me. What is your take on this?
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.15 04:33:00 - [7] Week 1 period for the Plex Promo has begun! You can read more at: http://www.avalloc.net/?p=1238
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.16 04:32:00 - [8] Originally by: Hratli Smirks Dominion had the initial goal of dramatically increasing the number of players that could be supported in a given upgraded 0.0 system through anomalies. The target number per system was repeatedly lowered until it was stated that a system would support 5 or so players running the highest level anomalies (a fraction of the anomalies spawned by an upgrade) at a target income comparable (though not superior) to running level 4 missions in high-sec. The financial incentives Dominion offered for the average 0.0 player in 0.0 do not seem commensurate with the higher risks and inherent costs of 0.0, at least to me. What is your take on this? As far as I'm concerned Dominion failed to hit the mark on a number of promised features. But to answer your question the anomalies bit is one of the big ones that failed to deliver. First it requires the ability to run scans. (I'll spare you my comments on the scanning system and how unfriendly it is for people who are mobility impaired.) So you either fit scanning on your combat ship or you have to dock and change ships constantly. This is if you're doing this solo and only have one account. Second, like you said the new system doesn't scale to the number of players running the anomalies unlike Empire missions where it is unlimited. I would suggest the solution of scaling the number of anomalies for a 23 hour period following downtime based on the number of jumps the system had the previous day. High traffic system equals more anomalies, obviously.
Yristor	Posted - 2010.04.16 10:52:00 - [9] Edited by: Yristor on 16/04/2010 10:56:33 What are you views on improving the current state of lowsec? I consider this one of the key issues for those of us who like pvp but not 0.0 style warfare. PS: What are your thoughts on removing Cynos from lowsec as one possible upgrade?
Kytanos Termek Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2010.04.16 17:27:00 - [10] Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 16/04/2010 17:27:42 It's commonly known that only 40% of the mineral's in eve infact come from mining, eve's purpose gathering profession. While they are taking steps to rectify this in tyrannis I feel it may end up as a small band aid on a gaping wound. In addition mining is one of the least updated and supported "features" in eve. It is in desperate need of a revamp, or at least something to make it more exciting than staring at rocks until your strip miner 1 finish's it's cycle. What is your opinions and stance on the industrial gatherer profession?

Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.18 23:54:00 - [11] Originally by: Yristor Edited by: Yristor on 16/04/2010 10:56:33 What are you views on improving the current state of lowsec? I consider this one of the key issues for those of us who like pvp but not 0.0 style warfare. I believe lowsec needs some loving from the Game Design department at CCP. But the problem is CCP has to be careful in how they improve this area of the game. In Dominion they attempted to boost individual income for pilots in 0.0 while increasing the cost of maintaining Sov too. I wouldn't call what they achieved to be a success. So any increase in income potential for lowsec might be BETTER than what 0.0 is right now. Lowsec right now is where the protection of law (Concord, etc) whittles away until you hit the threshold of 0.0 space. I say add some mechanics in there where players can influence it in either direction. An organized crime/pirate Syndicate could strip away station and gate guns for an area and truly make things seedy. Where on flipside players who want more protection could boost it. There was a great player-created suggestion for Lowsec created at EveVegas09 and you can read writeup at the following link: http://www.tentonhammer.com/node/67950/page/2 Originally by: Yristor PS: What are your thoughts on removing Cynos from lowsec as one possible upgrade? That would be horrible for lowsec. Logistics go in and out of Empire through cynos in lowsec.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.19 00:02:00 - [12] Originally by: Kytanos Termek Edited by: Kytanos Termek on 16/04/2010 17:27:42 In addition mining is one of the least updated and supported "features" in eve. It is in desperate need of a revamp, or at least something to make it more exciting than staring at rocks until your strip miner 1 finish's it's cycle. What is your opinions and stance on the industrial gatherer profession? Personally I'd like to see mining become a little more interactive. Add in a mini-game for the player who is mining which could yield more rock if they play well. CSM3 asked CCP about what happened to the promised "Industrial Expansion." Hopefully Tyrannis helps things followed by Incarna whenever it is coming out. So yes, I believe the industrial gatherer profession needs some attention and I will support any proposals that help this.
Dark HicQuaVideeum	Posted - 2010.04.19 02:53:00 - [13] Given the though on structure management, what are your ideas when Tyrannis comes and you add to the mis the PI structures, which from initial testing they are going to be lots of them? _____________________________ Dark Designs. For all your needs in Web Services
Herschel Yamamoto Agent-Orange Nabaal Syndicate	Posted - 2010.04.20 05:57:00 - [14] After having some chances to play with the post-Dominion sovereignty mechanics, what is your opinion of them? Do you believe that they still need work going forward, and if so, what direction do you believe that CCP should go with future improvements to the system? Best of luck on your campaign.
Aynen	Posted - 2010.04.20 06:35:00 - [15] I love your 'win a plex promotion' Idea. Although I wonder what you will do to make sure the whole playerbase knows about this contest, as the people that come to this section of the forum are usually allready politically active.
mazzilliu Caldari Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2010.04.21 19:42:00 - [16] avalloc was great to work with on the CSM3. He's intelligent and gets the job done. I hope we both win again for the CSM5, because that would be pretty awesome.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.21 21:53:00 - [17] Originally by: Herschel Yamamoto After having some chances to play with the post-Dominion sovereignty mechanics, what is your opinion of them? Do you believe that they still need work going forward, and if so, what direction do you believe that CCP should go with future improvements to the system? Best of luck on your campaign. Prior to Dominion sov relied on POS towers and the timing of stront. There was a strategy to it as a defender or attacker that no longer exists. The attacker had to consider whether the tower would be "timed" to come out of reinforce at a timer beneficial to them or the defender. With Dominion the attacker has no control over when the Station or iHub (which control Sov) leave reinforced state. And now it is truly a timezone war. Americans will have a hard time taking Sov from Russians as an example. So unless you are facing a foe in the same general timezone the defender has a huge advantage. Especially with there being multiple reinforce timers to overcome before the attacker can take Sov in a system. So yes, I believe the system still needs work. They need to figure out a way to give attacker the possibility to influence reinforce times without screwing the defender. How do they do this? I don't know.
Seslana	Posted - 2010.04.22 11:27:00 - [18] Originally by: Avalloc Lowsec right now is where the protection of law (Concord, etc) whittles away until you hit the threshold of 0.0 space. I say add some mechanics in there where players can influence it in either direction. An organized crime/pirate Syndicate could strip away station and gate guns for an area and truly make things seedy. Where on flipside players who want more protection could boost it. Though an interesting idea, dont you think that if an organized crime/pirate Syndicate could strip away station and gate guns for an area then it would soon become one avoided by PVE'rs, upon who many of these seedy players rely on to come to lowsec as a source of amusement and income? My other thought (especially for 0.0) is that plexing drops should increase slightly as with Officer spawns. As the numbers in 0.0 have grown and there are numerous players myself included unfortunately who can spend hours plexing and get multiple crappy drops (or none at all). Perhaps the percentage of drops for plexing at least should increase for each plex where no drop occurs (then reset once a faction drop occurs)? The counter argument is that it would drive prices lower if the drops occur more, but at least more people get a piece of the pie. Your thoughts? PS. you have my vote mate.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.23 03:59:00 - [19] Originally by: Aynen I love your 'win a plex promotion' Idea. Although I wonder what you will do to make sure the whole playerbase knows about this contest, as the people that come to this section of the forum are usually allready politically active. Promoting it will pose to be a challenge because word-of-mouth advertising will hurt a person's chance of winning. Every person you tell (if you're participating) hurts your odds. There were seven entries for Week 1 and two of them won a Plex! I'm working on ways to get the word out on the Promotion. If it only brings a few players into the whole voting process that normally wouldn't have then the promotion is a success in my eyes.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.24 01:52:00 - [20] Originally by: Seslana Edited by: Seslana on 22/04/2010 11:40:15 Originally by: Avalloc Lowsec right now is where the protection of law (Concord, etc) whittles away until you hit the threshold of 0.0 space. I say add some mechanics in there where players can influence it in either direction. An organized crime/pirate Syndicate could strip away station and gate guns for an area and truly make things seedy. Where on flipside players who want more protection could boost it. Though an interesting idea, dont you think that if an organized crime/pirate Syndicate could strip away station and gate guns for an area then it would soon become one avoided by PVE'rs, upon who many of these seedy players rely on to come to lowsec as a source of amusement and income? That is why CCP should allow for multiple ways to influence a given constellation (or system) in lowsec. 0.0 right now is purely PVP for determining who controls an area. Why not create a mixture in lowsec where industrialists can assert influence just as much as PVPers. How? The transporting of trade goods (or supplies) into the system which impacts Concord's logistics in a positive way. The progression or deterioration of a system would be a slow one which might take a month to swing any large amount in one direction. The more hospitable an area is the better the reward/standing for mission running could be too. This could be a way for 0.0 empires to have some influence over their lowsec supply systems. And on the same count a way to make those systems harder for those entities to operate from if you're a pirate. I'm going to expand on this whole line of thought on my web site this week, so stay tuned if lowsec development interests you! Originally by: Seslana My other thought (especially for 0.0) is that plexing drops should increase slightly as with Officer spawns. As the numbers in 0.0 have grown and there are numerous players myself included unfortunately who can spend hours plexing and get multiple crappy drops (or none at all). Perhaps the chance of drops for plexing at least should increase for each plex where no drop occurs (then reset once a faction drop occurs)? The counter argument is that it would drive prices lower if the drops occur more, but at least more people get a piece of the pie. Your thoughts? If it can be tracked in a reasonable manner then I have no problem seeing the drop rate increased. The problem I forsee however is multiple people running a plex together and the potential to game system if it guarantees a drop after x number of completed complexes.

xena zena Comparative Advantage	Posted - 2010.04.24 04:09:00 - [21] Eve is known for it's learning curve, I think we've all seen the humorous graphic about it. It has always been a stumbling block for many of my friends I've tried to introduce eve too, and they never was able to get past it and continue playing, they've time and time given up. Do you feel CCP has done enough in recent expansions to address this stumbling block for new players, and if not what do you think they should do to increase new player retention? Specifically what comes to mind is the new PI for the next expansion adding an addtional layer of complexity to the game. It seems every expansion adds something more complex, and increases that learning curve.
Rime	Posted - 2010.04.25 20:57:00 - [22] What would be your opinion on Black/Red manticores? I like the focus on the User Interface and options for accessibility. They might not be as glamorous as giant space lasers but in the end I think people will appreciate more a game less painful to play.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.26 02:16:00 - [23] Originally by: xena zena Eve is known for it's learning curve, I think we've all seen the humorous graphic about it. It has always been a stumbling block for many of my friends I've tried to introduce eve too, and they never was able to get past it and continue playing, they've time and time given up. Do you feel CCP has done enough in recent expansions to address this stumbling block for new players, and if not what do you think they should do to increase new player retention? Specifically what comes to mind is the new PI for the next expansion adding an addtional layer of complexity to the game. It seems every expansion adds something more complex, and increases that learning curve. First I believe CCP needs to do a big Documentation injection into the Evelopedia and make it easily accessible from within the game. New players can be intimidated by the unknown especially with a game as sophisticated (and rewarding) EVE Online. I too have had many friends gush about how awesome EVE looks BUT they don't have the time nor desire to learn it from practically trial and error. And so they go play another MMO that spoon-feeds them the content. So no, I don't think CCP has done enough. I would like to see interactive video tutorials for the broad array of mechanics in EVE. Here is a list of examples: Setting up a POS Various combat scenarios for PVP: tackling, sniping, dictoring, probing, understanding UI Manufacturing Market Use Mission Running Wormhole Life Differences between highsec, lowsec, and nullsec life. I could go on and on here. I want these videos to have voiceover, close captioning, and clear identification of what you're seeing as it plays. Hell, if CCP won't due this I may just put together a team to do it myself. The only hiccup is fact CCP knows (or should) how everything works so they can provide 100% accurate information.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.26 02:25:00 - [24] Originally by: Rime What would be your opinion on Black/Red manticores? I would like to see the manticore model redone in a similar manner as the Scorpion too! Originally by: Rime I like the focus on the User Interface and options for accessibility. They might not be as glamorous as giant space lasers but in the end I think people will appreciate more a game less painful to play. Keeping EVE accessible to everyone is an issue very near and dear to my heart. Especially since I personally have suffered in gameplay due to CCP changes. Before the redid the scan probing system I was freaking rockstar probing ship down? Now? It is too difficult for me physically complete the task due to combined use of keyboard/mouse in moving probes and resizing them. I will do WHATEVER I can to keep this game accessible for everyone who wants to play it. And hopefully CCP will promote the creation of a focus group for this purpose.
Hratli Smirks GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.27 00:12:00 - [25] Edited by: Hratli Smirks on 27/04/2010 00:15:25 Sensor Booster graphics. This apparently has been brought up several times before, but can you elaborate on why CCP feels we need the whole world to know we have an active sensor booster? The graphic is so obnoxious that it actually detracts from the gaming experience. Will you bring this up (again)?
SirMolle InaCustard	Posted - 2010.04.27 01:15:00 - [26] User Interface one thing that particularly bothers me is the visibility/accuracy of the various timers. these are tucked away where they are barely visible. can you clonk some heads to sort this out?
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.27 07:21:00 - [27] Originally by: Hratli Smirks Edited by: Hratli Smirks on 27/04/2010 00:15:25 Sensor Booster graphics. This apparently has been brought up several times before, but can you elaborate on why CCP feels we need the whole world to know we have an active sensor booster? The graphic is so obnoxious that it actually detracts from the gaming experience. Will you bring this up (again)? CCP agreed to do something about many of the graphical effects in-game from ships. Hopefully you'll be able to disable effects based on their type. For example turning of sensor boosters but keeping remote rep visuals. And yes I will ask them for an update on this change.
CobraStylez Caldari GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.27 20:45:00 - [28] Avalloc, I have a couple things... Right now I think the main thing facing players in 0.0 space is the introduction of terrible lag with Dominion. There has always been lag when looking at massive fleet battles (500+ in a system) however since the last major patch having 150-200 people in a system engaged in combat seems to now cause significant lag. Many pilots are now reluctant to engage in large-scale fleet battles for fear of jumping/bridging into a system only to load a black screen. With conflict be spurred by fights over moon resources and sovereignty structures which require capital ship fleets or large battleship fleets to effectively attack or defend, what is being done to resolve the crippling lag issue? Or will POS and sovereignty structures be rebalanced to move fleet combat away from large fleet combat and towards smaller, more strategic fleets? The value of moon minerals changed with Dominion such that certain minerals which are regional became more valuable than other minerals of equal or greater rarity. Technetium being the prime example. Was this intentional or an unforeseen consequence of the re-balancing? Will we same the same un-even distribution of valuable resources with the introduction of Planetary Interaction? The re-balancing of super capital class ships and the introduction of fighterbomber drones has changed how capital fleet engagements are fought. A super carriers make great anti-capital ships with fighter bombers however they can also be used to incapacitate POS modules (turret batteries, ECM batteries, anything that is anchored outside the POS shields) and can easily shoot incapacitated modules through 99% resists and destroy them. A well fit super carrier can also tank a well armed POS. I understand the need for an anti-capital ship weapon such as fighter bombers, and the need for a super capital class ship to have a reasonable tank, however it seems out of balance for both to be use simultaneously with no drawbacks. While I think the re-balance of super capital ships (super carriers AND titans) has been overall a good thing, are super capital ships and fighter bombers going to be revisited for a "fine tuning" pass any time soon? Thanks! Signature removed. Needs to be EVE Related. Zymurgist
The PitBoss Caldari Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2010.04.28 15:01:00 - [29] I also endorse this CSM Candidate Thank-You, The Pitboss (Space between The & Pitboss) Signatures by: Kalen Vox
Larkonis Trassler Genos Occidere HYDRA RELOADED	Posted - 2010.04.28 15:30:00 - [30] Will +1 only on the condition that Goons reform as an Alliance which doesn't break the tables on the forums... On a more serious note Avalloc is a stand up guy with plenty of decent ideas. It was a pleasure to work with him on CSM 3 and I wish him all the best with his candidacy. Please resize your signature to the maximum file size of 24000 bytes. Zymurgist No. Larkonis



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.

Why should you re-elect me to the CSM?

Re-energizing the CSM Election:

The rules are as follow: