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

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
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.04.29 03:53:00 - [31] Originally by: SirMolle InaCustard 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? Which timers specifically? I'm already proposing that CCP add a new UI console for tracking reinforcement timers for one's Alliance. Whether it is POS, iHub, or Station.
Tenbux Tincan	Posted - 2010.04.29 04:15:00 - [32] Will you propose that destroyers be changed to not suck?
Flikoo	Posted - 2010.04.29 19:21:00 - [33] Originally by: Avalloc Originally by: SirMolle InaCustard 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? Which timers specifically? I'm already proposing that CCP add a new UI console for tracking reinforcement timers for one's Alliance. Whether it is POS, iHub, or Station. He might mean the session change timers. I've found they are terrible and aren't accuracte at all (It displays a 15 seconds session change timer when I jump in through a gate. A cloak should be 30 seconds, and I should be seeing around 25s when I actually load grid and such.) Also, can you ask for Market UI improvements? I find the market EXTREMELY laggy when loading up info on the products such as buy/sell orders, and price history and the such. I'm curious as to if you or and of the other members every inquired about removing some of the session timers (like joining a fleet) or even shortening them.
rochrius Caldari Skies Tis Moiras Amici Noctis	Posted - 2010.04.29 23:17:00 - [34] Would you do anything to also improve the station inventory? Right now, even though you can search, I think it needs different tabs where we could get goods ready to ship. This would greatly help with organization when making a contract for example. As it is now it is very clustered looking at upwards of 500 items at once. Would you do anything to try and make drone control a little bit easier for the use. In this thread or somewhere else someone mentioned the idea of more video tutorials for new players. Would you also try and get more videos released by CCP who's main intent is to further the storyline or give new players a brief rundown of past events?
SirMolle InaCustard	Posted - 2010.04.30 07:58:00 - [35] Originally by: Flikoo Originally by: Avalloc Originally by: SirMolle InaCustard 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? Which timers specifically? I'm already proposing that CCP add a new UI console for tracking reinforcement timers for one's Alliance. Whether it is POS, iHub, or Station. He might mean the session change timers. I've found they are terrible and aren't accuracte at all (It displays a 15 seconds session change timer when I jump in through a gate. A cloak should be 30 seconds, and I should be seeing around 25s when I actually load grid and such.) Also, can you ask for Market UI improvements? I find the market EXTREMELY laggy when loading up info on the products such as buy/sell orders, and price history and the such. I'm curious as to if you or and of the other members every inquired about removing some of the session timers (like joining a fleet) or even shortening them. wow, my question was really poorly worded and i was quite stoned. i was indeed referring to session change timers, although aggression timers really need to be clearly visible, as well as your proposal for the alliance side timers. these are all sorely needed as they affect gameplay so much, whether on the personal or alliance level. for instance aggression/session change timers could be centralised around the rest of the ship readout hub, giving clear data as to when they run out. these timers are often a case of life and death for a pilot trying to run through a gatecamp, and are so poorly representated as to be almost useless in curent form. i also like the idea of the alliance level stuff :)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 02:15:00 - [36] Edited by: Avalloc on 01/05/2010 02:15:15 EVE Tribune Interview that was conducted last week.
Ratnose Banker	Posted - 2010.05.01 12:51:00 - [37] Nice website as always. Dominion was supposed to attract more people to 0.0(just like Exodus), obviously didn't. What do you think can be done to get more people to move out of empire space?
Yristor	Posted - 2010.05.01 13:46:00 - [38] What are your views on the amount of communication - devblogs, forum announcements, new features pages etc - that CCP provides? (Setting aside tutorials etc, as you stated above that improving documentation could be one area to improve...)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 22:21:00 - [39] Originally by: CobraStylez 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? CCP is working on the lag impact brought on by Dominion. They have been hosting test sessions on Singularity though to gather data. What they're doing behind the scenes, Ii don't know. CSM5 will no doubt ask for an update during the first Summit coming up in June. Originally by: CobraStylez 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? Only CCP knows the answers to these questions since they have the accurate data. Players can only speculate. Originally by: CobraStylez 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? I believe that the impact of fighter bombers on POS modules needs to be looked at by CCP. It'll be something I'll bring up (along with other CSM, no doubt.)
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 22:34:00 - [40] Originally by: rochrius Would you do anything to also improve the station inventory? Right now, even though you can search, I think it needs different tabs where we could get goods ready to ship. This would greatly help with organization when making a contract for example. As it is now it is very clustered looking at upwards of 500 items at once. I'd be willing to bring it up for a vote and see what CCP would be willing to do. Perhaps tabs could be created and a menu system added that is similar to how you setup an Overview. "Only show: Blueprint Originals" Originally by: rochrius Would you do anything to try and make drone control a little bit easier for the use. I would like to see special hotkeys for drone control become a reality along with an even better ui for using them. Originally by: rochrius In this thread or somewhere else someone mentioned the idea of more video tutorials for new players. Would you also try and get more videos released by CCP who's main intent is to further the storyline or give new players a brief rundown of past events? I'd make the suggestion and try to gather numbers to show CCP that the players want more videos.
Avalloc GoonWaffe SOLODRAKBANSOLODRAKBANSO	Posted - 2010.05.01 22:42:00 - [41] Originally by: Ratnose Banker Nice website as always. Dominion was supposed to attract more people to 0.0(just like Exodus), obviously didn't. What do you think can be done to get more people to move out of empire space? Thank you for the compliment, Ratnose. :) Better documentation of what life in 0.0 entails for one. No-one wants to go out in 0.0 without knowing how the mechanics of that area work because they may risk losing everything they own. And I'm concerned about how the addition of Treaties will impact 0.0 living. Sure, it'll bring people out but it'll strengthen power blocks even more. You won't have combat going on like it should in 0.0 but rather constellations/regions of people playing SimEVE.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.02 18:30:00 - [42] Edited by: Avalloc on 02/05/2010 18:30:34 Originally by: Tenbux Tincan Will you propose that destroyers be changed to not suck? How (in your opinion, and please elaborate) are Destroyers sucking at the moment?
Ratnose Banker	Posted - 2010.05.02 22:11:00 - [43] I think main problem people have with destroyer hull is that it has no tank and the sig of a cruiser. Personally sabre is one of my favorite ships and with the upcoming insurance changes which sound like increased insurance for dictors I will fly it even more. On the other hand I have gone on many roams in a thrasher and been near instapopped by a bc/bs which I think is kind of stupid because they aren't really so superior to frigates to justify that level of fragility. A second T2 destroyer with more interceptor-like bonuses (-% mwd sig modifier, tracking bonus, etc) with no ability to fit sphere launcher would be very nice imo.
H Tecon	Posted - 2010.05.03 18:19:00 - [44] Hello Avalloc, Just a quick message to offer my support to your efforts for re-election. There has been some mention of the issues involving mining. One thing that I see that I really would like to see changes or at least clarified for my own knowledge is the problem of "bot" miners. Is using a 3rd party program to run your mining ship day and night acceptable in CCP's view? The first time I lost a Hulk in high sec during the first Hulkageddon I was really taken by surprise. It was by a very well organized hunting pack that locked me down, warp scrambled me and had me sitting in my pod in under 8 seconds. I wont go into the details of my emotions moments after that. It has occurred to me after learning to live with it and then move on that Hulkageddon is really the only true equalizer for honest miners and "bot" miners. As a hard core industrialist with 3 mining accounts I welcomed Hulkageddon 2 with open arms. I watch their kill board daily hoping to see the names of the many "known offenders" bot mining, that I see daily while mining. But this still remains a ongoing problem because most bot miners don't use hulks. I am not sure what the answer is. Do you have any suggestions or ideas on this? Thanks, Noceth-
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.03 20:01:00 - [45] Originally by: H Tecon Hello Avalloc, Just a quick message to offer my support to your efforts for re-election. There has been some mention of the issues involving mining. One thing that I see that I really would like to see changes or at least clarified for my own knowledge is the problem of "bot" miners. Is using a 3rd party program to run your mining ship day and night acceptable in CCP's view? CCP doesn't find the use of botting acceptable and I plan to question them about their detection methods because I hear from a lot of players that mining bots a continuing problem. Originally by: H Tecon The first time I lost a Hulk in high sec during the first Hulkageddon I was really taken by surprise. It was by a very well organized hunting pack that locked me down, warp scrambled me and had me sitting in my pod in under 8 seconds. I wont go into the details of my emotions moments after that. It has occurred to me after learning to live with it and then move on that Hulkageddon is really the only true equalizer for honest miners and "bot" miners. As a hard core industrialist with 3 mining accounts I welcomed Hulkageddon 2 with open arms. I watch their kill board daily hoping to see the names of the many "known offenders" bot mining, that I see daily while mining. But this still remains a ongoing problem because most bot miners don't use hulks. I am not sure what the answer is. Do you have any suggestions or ideas on this? I would like to see a system added to reward miners for being "active" during the mining process. Say add a small mini-game while the lasers are hitting the rocks. If you do well in the mini-game you'll pull in more ore than normally. This would help make mining a little more interactive too. Thank you for your support, H Tecon!
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.04 19:55:00 - [46] Week 3 entries for Plex Promotion end tomorrow.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.05 01:44:00 - [47] voting is open http://www.eveonline.com/council/voting/Vote.asp?c=292
Lee Anderson	Posted - 2010.05.05 02:08:00 - [48] 1st off you have my support will you be bring ideas to the board this time around that will help newer alliances to get a foot hold in null sec? I.E. sov bills don't cost as much?
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.05 04:49:00 - [49] Originally by: Lee Anderson 1st off you have my support will you be bring ideas to the board this time around that will help newer alliances to get a foot hold in null sec? I.E. sov bills don't cost as much? Yes, I believe the Sov costs needs to be adjusted. There needs to be better incentive for new Alliances to venture out into 0.0 and I feel Dominion missed the mark.
Hurff Blurff	Posted - 2010.05.05 19:58:00 - [50] Avalloc, you have my vote, even though you're a Goon.
Mynxee Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2010.05.06 05:20:00 - [51] Although I am a competing candidate, just wanted to say good luck in your campaign! If we both get elected, I look forward to working with you on CSM5. Life In Low Sec
Caldari Deteis2105	Posted - 2010.05.06 12:02:00 - [52] I normally wouldn't like a goon, but you come across as very friendly and honorable. Good luck in your campaign!
Retlok	Posted - 2010.05.06 18:44:00 - [53] Hello Avalloc. I'd like to thank you for your plex promotion. It was the catalyst in spurring me to be more active in the CSM process, I'm not sure that I'd have actually posted questions of my own without that little nudge. As for my question for you, I would appreciate it if you would discuss your position on the issue of transferable kill rights and the fixing/creation of a viable bounty hunter system. My own personal feelings are that this would increase pvp in low/hisec and adds a very sandboxy game play element into EVE that is weak if not missing currently. Thanks!
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:04:00 - [54] Originally by: Retlok Hello Avalloc. I'd like to thank you for your plex promotion. It was the catalyst in spurring me to be more active in the CSM process, I'm not sure that I'd have actually posted questions of my own without that little nudge. And thank you for taking advantage of the promotion and helping the CSM process grow. Originally by: Retlok As for my question for you, I would appreciate it if you would discuss your position on the issue of transferable kill rights and the fixing/creation of a viable bounty hunter system. My own personal feelings are that this would increase pvp in low/hisec and adds a very sandboxy game play element into EVE that is weak if not missing currently. Thanks! I'm for transferring kill rights. It would add a new dimension to the PVP in Empire. It would promote a whole new occupation of players acting as vigilante.
Vladimir Logoffski	Posted - 2010.05.06 20:43:00 - [55] Avalloc once pulled me from a burning building. True story.
Xyfu Minmatar Shadow's of Ezra On the Rocks	Posted - 2010.05.07 08:18:00 - [56] Originally by: Vladimir Logoffski Avalloc once pulled me from a burning building. True story. Avalloc saved my pregnant cat from a burning building when he had no unbroken limbs, using nothing but his teeth. He also gave me 5 dollars. It was a good day. _____ ^ That is a sig line. It should be there without me having to put one in.
xDiakonu	Posted - 2010.05.07 16:49:00 - [57] I am sure that the issue has been brought a number of times before but I wonder about your comment over the issue. I am talking about the amount of armor, shield, energy logistics have contributed to the battle. If the amount is recorded into the kill mails somehow then many players would enjoy flying logistics and this would result in much longer lasting and satisfying battles. This could basically be done by adding the player to the kill mail if he has repped a player who had aggro on the target/damage dealers in the km; same thing seems to work when repping someone in empire - then the repper gets aggro too. Healing (or armor/shield rep as it is known in EVE) and buffing (or warfare bonuses) are very old and well known concept in most of the MMORPG world. A wise developer would make people comfortable playing "healers" since this makes the game much more deeper and interesting for everybody. Playing healing character is not that rewarding in most of the games (compared to the damage dealers) but in EVE it is even worst. Virtually you get no record for your contribution to the battle.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.07 19:20:00 - [58] Originally by: xDiakonu I am sure that the issue has been brought a number of times before but I wonder about your comment over the issue. I would support any proposal to give "healers" in EVE some recognition for their efforts. However I can't think of a reasonable way of doing it which wouldn't or couldn't result in killmail whoring. If you showed up on killmails for repping the guys who killed the target you would only have to pulse your reps once on the big damage dealers to show up. And if you showed up on the lossmail it'd be a "welp" situation since you obviously didn't heal the guy enough. Again, I wouldn't reject either of these in hopes CCP could come up with a solution that works. The key here is creating a proposal which states that the playerbase wishes for repping to have some static proof of participation in EVE and let the Devs sort out the how. In nearly every MMO I've played I have personally played the healer role. I have many fond memories of epic battles in EverQuest with my cleric and also in WoW with my priest. Thank you for taking the time to ask this question, xDiakonu.
Adolf Shtinkenfinga	Posted - 2010.05.09 06:40:00 - [59] How do you feel about changing the fact that you can't rename your ship unless you are inside it?
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.10 18:10:00 - [60] Originally by: Adolf Shtinkenfinga How do you feel about changing the fact that you can't rename your ship unless you are inside it? I support making that alteration to the game code if CCP can do it. You should be able to change ship names from anywhere via assets panel.
Management Pro	Posted - 2010.05.11 16:50:00 - [61] Can you try to get CCP to release more info on DUST if you are elected? Regular updates for that would be a welcome addition.
Avalloc	Posted - 2010.05.12 20:40:00 - [62] Week 4 entries close tonight at Midnight, EST http://www.avalloc.net/?p=1248
admiral gokchansu	Posted - 2010.05.20 02:31:00 - [63] getting ccp to release any in depth documentation about any of the features they are implementing would be nice, will you be pushing for this?

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one 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: