Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Dierdra Vaal
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
196
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 20:01:00 -
[1] - Quote
Hi everyone.
Every election since the CSM4 elections I've ran CSM Vote Match, a website where you can match your views and opinions about Eve with the views and opinions of the candidates. Since the Vote Match website looks like it is from 1997 I'm currently building version 2.0 from scratch which will offer much greater functionality and more nuanced matching! You can preview the new website here, but keep in mind it's currently still filled with placeholder and mockup content.
But I need your help!
I need statements to present to the candidates (and the voters), and I like them to be as diverse and useful as possible. It's not easy coming up with 40 statements by myself so that is why I am asking you.
I am specifically looking for statements that:
- Are unambiguous and clear in their meaning
- Can be answered with "Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "No opinion", "Agree", "Strongly agree"
- Do not require a full paragraph of text to explain themselves
So a good statement would be:
Quote:A complete POS overhaul should be a priority for the summer expansion This statement is clear in it's meaning, can be answered as needed and is fairly succinct.
Additionally, I am also including open questions in Vote Match this year. The open questions will not be used in the matching process but will be visible on each candidate's profile page. So I also need suggestions questions you would like all candidates to answer.
Please help, because the questionnaire will only be as good as the statements we can come up with!
TL;DR I need you to give me statements that can answered with "Strongly disagree", "Disagree", "No opinion", "Agree", "Strongly agree" for use in CSM Vote Match. Also I am looking for open questions to ask the candidates.
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Rhavas
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
93
|
Posted - 2012.12.15 23:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
"As part of a POS revamp plan, I believe you should/should not have "inside" docking." - in other words, should docking games come to wspace.
Also "As part of a POS revamp plan, I think POS placement should/should not be decoupled from moons."
I think you will get very different opinions on these. |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
974
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 01:32:00 -
[3] - Quote
Rhavas wrote:"As part of a POS revamp plan, I believe you should not have "inside" docking."
^this is by far the most important one IMO. absolutely do not want any form of docking in POSs.
|
Derath Ellecon
Washburne Holdings Situation: Normal
513
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 02:47:00 -
[4] - Quote
Jack Miton wrote:Rhavas wrote:"As part of a POS revamp plan, I believe you should not have "inside" docking." ^this is by far the most important one IMO. absolutely do not want any form of docking in POSs.
Unfortunately I don't see it happening any other way... |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
976
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 03:10:00 -
[5] - Quote
Yeah, unfortunately youre probably right. Still needs to be said. |
Messoroz
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
315
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 07:09:00 -
[6] - Quote
We could just permacamp AHARM poses and keep podding TwoStep until he realizes how dumb the idea is. |
Paikis
Vapour Holdings
339
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 08:25:00 -
[7] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:We could just permacamp AHARM poses and keep podding TwoStep until he realizes how dumb the idea is.
By the time we can do that, it'll be too late to change it. |
Janus Nanzikambe
Fer Lomarcan Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
23
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 09:04:00 -
[8] - Quote
I realise it's partially the same point Rhavas made, but I would prefer the wording be less ambigous and perhaps split into two points, something like:
"Regardless of any plans to re-vamp Player Owned Starbases, online players must remain externally visible."
and:
"If a re-vamp of Player Owned Starbases includes removing the forcefield then effort must be made to preserve the defending players immunity to targetted modules within a certain range of the POS."
I think responses to those two will address the CSM candidates exact stance on two of the most prevalent concerns regarding the POS revamp.
Personally, I'm not particularly concerned about the station games aspect seeing as someone wanting to do that would have to bring sufficient force to incapacitate the POS defenses in which case they have de-facto control of the grid the POS is on , if they wish to camp it - they've earned that right imo.
|
Ossirrus
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 10:46:00 -
[9] - Quote
Janus Nanzikambe wrote:
"Regardless of any plans to re-vamp Player Owned Starbases, online players must remain externally visible."
and:
"If a re-vamp of Player Owned Starbases includes removing the forcefield then effort must be made to preserve the defending players immunity to targetted modules within a certain range of the POS."
If anybody disagrees with these 2 statements not only would i question their CSM aspirations i would question if they played the same game as i do |
Jack Miton
Aperture Harmonics K162
978
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 10:46:00 -
[10] - Quote
Messoroz wrote:We could just permacamp AHARM poses and keep podding TwoStep until he realizes how dumb the idea is.
It really isnt TwoStep's call... be my guest tho ;) |
|
chris elliot
EG CORP Talocan United
60
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 12:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
I remember during ATX someone saying he started playing in wormholes and realized how utterly terrible the current pos mechanics are for the wormhole community.
Hopefully that person is someone of influence in the conversion process and CCP does not go full jackas.s on the revamp on us.
That or with any luck Fozzie will manage to get involved, he seems to have done a standout job so far on the ship balancing. I wouldn't put it past him to do the same standout job on not ruining pos's. |
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Swift Angels Alliance
695
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 22:53:00 -
[12] - Quote
Here's a statement:
"C4's should get a transient connection to k-space. You know, to help the kids in the ghetto." Taking submissions for "Trinkets friendly Advice Column" via evemail or private convo in-game. Anonymity sorta guaranteed. http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Wolvun
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
88
|
Posted - 2012.12.16 22:57:00 -
[13] - Quote
Trinkets friend wrote:Here's a statement:
"C4's should get a dual connection to wh-space. You know, to help the kids in the ghetto."
I fixed that one for you. |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 00:14:00 -
[14] - Quote
chris elliot wrote:I remember during ATX someone saying he started playing in wormholes and realized how utterly terrible the current pos mechanics are for the wormhole community.
Hopefully that person is someone of influence in the conversion process and CCP does not go full jackas.s on the revamp on us.
That or with any luck Fozzie will manage to get involved, he seems to have done a standout job so far on the ship balancing. I wouldn't put it past him to do the same standout job on not ruining pos's.
It was sound wave that made the statement during ATX, but i think he was referring to the BM system at the time? but he will have rather a large degree of input into the new system.
And I'm not sure if Fozzie has had any time in WH's or not but i expect any input he will be giving is from the view of Null sec, and the two environments i think would want different things. Don't forget they want a unified system for all of space and as WH dwellers are in the minority our requests will probably be put aside for the sake of Null sec.
The question i would ask in this instance is during the creation of the new outposts will there by any system put in place in the coding to allow for variations in the functionality of them.
EG: In a worm hole system undocking from a outpost has the same rules as jumping WH's once you have undocked your hull polarizes preventing you from docking again until timer is up.
(just want to point out this isn't a suggestion was just trying to think of an example of how there could be differences between W and K space)
On a related note i would love for us to have more W-Space dwelling CSM members i don't feel one truly represents us on the CSM we need more voices! |
QT McWhiskers
Hard Knocks Inc.
49
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 02:51:00 -
[15] - Quote
I think the most important question... Will we have wis in our wormhole posses, and it so, will we be able to all sit in our main pos and play poker? Can see it now. "we have a carrier tackled at the sun..." A few seconds of silence go by. "but I have 4 aces." |
Tas Nok
Hedion University Amarr Empire
39
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 06:30:00 -
[16] - Quote
QT McWhiskers wrote:I think the most important question... Will we have wis in our wormhole posses, and it so, will we be able to all sit in our main pos and play poker? Can see it now. "we have a carrier tackled at the sun..." A few seconds of silence go by. "but I have 4 aces."
Been out of WH for a little while but this is part of the question stated earlier, if you can have WIS and play poker, then you get a smaller version of an outpost not our current 'stick in space' with the FF and various mods scattered about and all the station games included.
Getting back to the OP request here are questions I'd want asked:
--Would you favor making Rorquals able to use their clone bays to jump into/out of WH space?
--As part of the POS revamp will a module be allowed in WH space to allow clone jumping?
--Would you support WH iteration in the next 12 months (perhaps sleepers return, T3 frigs/BS, new WHs?)
just my 2 bits, if the banking and medical clone systems work out in WH space why can't the rorq? and why can't we have mini-outposts with a clone bay? I suspect iteration is alot further than 12mo away and will occur when CCP is ready for another series of T3 madness. For the POS revamp I actually hope they keep the FF, but just make the POS and its mods more central and connected, but UN-dockable. That FF is a key piece of real-estate both offensively and defensively for the POS, if there is no room to maneuver then the idead is DOA.
|
ma perke
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 11:41:00 -
[17] - Quote
intro: WH has too much advantage over k-space and too low risk to live in. Lets say your corp lives in a class 5 wh, where only the loot from a rat BS is 50Misk. You do all the anomallies which are active and instead of waiting for another spawn next day you just scan for the wh in your own system. If it is again class 5 you go and do the anomalies there. If by some chance it leads to undesirable space - like goon space for instance - you jump a carrier through in and out and close the WH. There is imediately another one spawning leading to some other place. There is no need for system upgrades, no need for soverenity warfare nothing. 20man corp can make tons of money and avoid all undesirable fights. Hence WH should be nerfed - TOO MUCH ISK for too small risk involved!
Here are the statements:
- The number of WH connecting K-space should be increased in order to increase pvp. - Player induced closing of a WH should be nerfed. - WH should be more accessible. - POS mechanics in WH should be changed, so that it can be killed in a single day as long as a WH lasts. |
Server Marcune
Marcune Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 11:44:00 -
[18] - Quote
Dierdra Vaal wrote:Hi everyone. Every election since the CSM4 elections I've ran CSM Vote Match, a website where you can match your views and opinions about Eve with the views and opinions of the candidates. Since the Vote Match website looks like it is from 1997 I'm currently building version 2.0 from scratch which will offer much greater functionality and more nuanced matching! You can preview the new website here, but keep in mind it's currently still filled with placeholder and mockup content. But I need your help!I need statements to present to the candidates (and the voters), and I like them to be as diverse and useful as possible. It's not easy coming up with 40 statements by myself so that is why I am asking you. I]...]
I just want to say one thing;
I think creating new topic over old topics is not going to help a change, but create more confusion
First of all there are alot of "opnions" here in the forum dating back since the new forum got up. Those were never answered or are closed due inactivity.
While i do have to say that creating a pol is an excellent idea I do hope that the people who posted there ideas wont get ignored.
|
Wolvun
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
89
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 11:57:00 -
[19] - Quote
ma perke wrote:intro: WH has too much advantage over k-space and too low risk to live in. Lets say your corp lives in a class 5 wh, where only the loot from a rat BS is 50Misk. You do all the anomallies which are active and instead of waiting for another spawn next day you just scan for the wh in your own system. If it is again class 5 you go and do the anomalies there. If by some chance it leads to undesirable space - like goon space for instance - you jump a carrier through in and out and close the WH. There is imediately another one spawning leading to some other place. There is no need for system upgrades, no need for soverenity warfare nothing. 20man corp can make tons of money and avoid all undesirable fights. Hence WH should be nerfed - TOO MUCH ISK for too small risk involved!
Here are the statements:
- The number of WH connecting K-space should be increased in order to increase pvp. - Player induced closing of a WH should be nerfed. - WH should be more accessible. - POS mechanics in WH should be changed, so that it can be killed in a single day as long as a WH lasts.
So WH's should make so little isk that large groups can't sustain themselves? They should have no defence apart from having a large fleet ready to go at all times of the day? They should have no way to close a WH to look for PVP? Ohh wait we close them to avoid it, right.......
Stay in null or lay off the drugs.
|
ma perke
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 12:00:00 -
[20] - Quote
Here are some other statements not connected to WH:
- All reinforced structures in Eve should be visible in a public list, so that everybody interested could join the fight. - Industry in 0.0 should be more profitable then low sec, which should be more profitable than hi sec. - There should be an option to democratically elect corp/alliance leaders. - Fleet Commanders should be rewarded in some form by CCP for leading fleets. - Broadcasting primary/logistiscs in a fleet fight should be limited to wing level, so that more people can bring their input apart from the FC alone. - Fleet size should be decreased to wing level in order to involve more people in the fight. |
|
Dierdra Vaal
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
196
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 12:38:00 -
[21] - Quote
Server Marcune wrote:Dierdra Vaal wrote:Hi everyone. Every election since the CSM4 elections I've ran CSM Vote Match, a website where you can match your views and opinions about Eve with the views and opinions of the candidates. Since the Vote Match website looks like it is from 1997 I'm currently building version 2.0 from scratch which will offer much greater functionality and more nuanced matching! You can preview the new website here, but keep in mind it's currently still filled with placeholder and mockup content. But I need your help!I need statements to present to the candidates (and the voters), and I like them to be as diverse and useful as possible. It's not easy coming up with 40 statements by myself so that is why I am asking you. I]...] I just want to say one thing; I think creating new topic over old topics is not going to help a change, but create more confusion First of all there are alot of "opnions" here in the forum dating back since the new forum got up. Those were never answered or are closed due inactivity. While i do have to say that creating a pol is an excellent idea I do hope that the people who posted there ideas wont get ignored.
I think you might be misunderstanding what this is for. I'm gathering questions with which I will build candidate profiles when the CSM elections roll around (february/march). Based on those profiles I can then provide users with an automated system to match them to the candidate who most closely shares their views.
This is not somehow gathering WH related topics to present to the CSM, or to CCP, as action items.
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Kalel Nimrott
EG CORP Talocan United
96
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 13:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
Wolvun, dont evev bother answering him. He may be one of the hisec incursion players that are still butthurt for the nerf.
Shooooooooooo!!, Go away!!!, Shooooooo! |
Zara Arran
Aperture Harmonics K162
7
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 15:08:00 -
[23] - Quote
To make the "match" as realistic as possible, please consider adding (if you haven't already) a certain feature where the CSM candidate also scores which statements are more important to him/her (or give a top 3 or something). A CSM candidate can agree strongly or disagree with a WH statement, yet if they themselves are located in K-space and the statement does not influence them at all, I doubt you will see a lot of effort on the matter. Aperture Harmonics - Recruitment Officer & Corp Diplomat Recruitment status - Open -á http://dontshootx.com/index.php?board=42.0 |
Kalel Nimrott
EG CORP Talocan United
96
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 15:20:00 -
[24] - Quote
They could be located on k space, where they can run stuff more efficiently, but could be having alts living in wspace. So, the last statement doesnt sound too good to me
|
Xuse Senna
Mind Games. Suddenly Spaceships.
546
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 15:25:00 -
[25] - Quote
QT McWhiskers wrote:Can see it now. "we have a carrier tackled at the sun..." A few seconds of silence go by. "but I have 4 aces."
This ^^ I need a Stupid Quote Here - Some Stupid Guy |
Dierdra Vaal
Koshaku Gentlemen's Agreement
196
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 17:33:00 -
[26] - Quote
Zara Arran wrote:To make the "match" as realistic as possible, please consider adding (if you haven't already) a certain feature where the CSM candidate also scores which statements are more important to him/her (or give a top 3 or something). A CSM candidate can agree strongly or disagree with a WH statement, yet if they themselves are located in K-space and the statement does not influence them at all, I doubt you will see a lot of effort on the matter.
Candidates (and users!) can set custom weights for all the questions, indicating which are more or less important to them.
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
|
CCP Eterne
C C P C C P Alliance
1001
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 17:55:00 -
[27] - Quote
I have deleted an off-topic post. Community Representative GÇ+ EVE Illuminati GÇ+ Fiction Adept
@CCP_Eterne GÇ+ @EVE_LiveEvents |
|
Robot Monster
Aperture Harmonics K162
1
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 19:10:00 -
[28] - Quote
In a side note we don't need more then one csm.... There's this thing called vote splitting and it is bad |
Ayeson
Hard Knocks Inc.
80
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 19:14:00 -
[29] - Quote
QT McWhiskers wrote:we have a carrier tackled at the sun..." A few seconds of silence go by. "but I have 4 aces."
Prob wouldv'e saved us 4 bhaal's tbh...SHIP IT Ask me about Rengas-dar, HRDKX's Most recent, groundbreaking, game-changing, wormhole-collapsing research endeavour. |
MadbaM
Hard Knocks Inc.
10
|
Posted - 2012.12.17 20:40:00 -
[30] - Quote
Robot Monster wrote:In a side note we don't need more then one csm.... There's this thing called vote splitting and it is bad
It think we have more then the numbers required to get a second WH CSM candidate, I'm not sure where all the votes came from last CSM but didn't TwoStep get the second most votes? I will have to see who puts themselves forward before i decide but i will probably be splitting my votes regardless next CSM. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |