Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dierdra Vaal
Veto. Veto Corp
76
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 19:41:00 -
[1] - Quote
So, for several CSM elections now I've run my Vote Match! website. For those of you who don't know it, it's a website that aims to match the user to a CSM candidate based on both of their answers on a questionaire. The concept is based on the real world dutch Stemwijzer and the british Vote match. For Eve it can be especially useful because of the large number of candidates in each election can be quickly reduced to a shortlist of people that match your outlook on Eve.
I'm planning on running it again this year but I want to update the questionaire to more accurately reflect the state of the game, the state of the CSM and CCP and as such better reflect the various positions of the candidates. You can find the questionaire for the previous elections here, for reference.
This is where you, pilots of Eve, come in. I'm looking for suggestions for statements that I can use in my questionaire. Statements need to follow these rules:
- Statements should be unambiguous (meaning: no more than one interpretation)
- Statements should not have only one reasonable answer (the goal is to show differences between candidates, which doesn't work if everyone answers it the same way)
- Statements are preferably about divisive issues (see above)
- Answer range is ONLY 'strongly disagree', 'disagree', 'no opinion', 'agree', 'strongly agree'. As such statements need to be simple. No multi-part statements, no open questions.
I can only make the questionaire as good as the questions on it, and if that is based only on what I can come up with we're all in trouble.
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
Seismic Stan
15
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 20:15:00 -
[2] - Quote
- Live events are an important part of EVE's gameplay.
- Incarna development (WiS) should continue.
- The lore and backstory of New Eden is important.
Writer of Freebooted blog. Co-Creator of Tech4 News podcast. Former Co-host of Voices From the Void podcast. Author of Incarna: The Text Adventure. |
Zagam
Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension
479
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 20:19:00 -
[3] - Quote
- Hi-sec needs more attention for iteration of current content and expansion content. - Mining is neglected, and largely overpowered by minerals from the drone regions. - Current null-sec sovereignty mechanics are in dire need of a revision and update. - Null-sec wields too much of an influence upon the CSM. - There should be "PvP-safe" zones in Hi-sec.
(As a note, I do not personally agree with several of these statements, and am only proposing them as ideas for the questionaire) |
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
531
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 20:34:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zagam wrote: - There should be "PvP-safe" zones in Hi-sec.
OK but no trolling here...OK |
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Important Internet Spaceship League
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 20:59:00 -
[5] - Quote
A few divisive topics I've seen discussion about recently:
Titans are balanced.
Super Carriers are balanced.
Hybrids need a niche.
Missiles mechanics should be overhauled.
Tier 3 BCs are balanced.
The drake is balanced.
Faction Warfare should be different than sov warfare in null.
NPE should be better protected from interference by other players.
Incursions should be redistributed to be more common in low sec than high sec.
Sov warfare iteration should be a major focus in the next expansion.
Faction Warfare iteration should be a major focus in the next expansion.
Mission iteration should be a major focus in the next expansion.
Changes to income mechanics to reduce botting should be a major focus in the next expansion.
Fleet travel in W-space should be made easier.
Moon Ore should be overhauled. |
Morganta
Peripheral Madness The Midget Mafia
899
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 21:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
beer = how much will you consume in Iceland? ponies = would you want them on ships? pew = does it need to be cheaper? tears = are there enough, can there ever be enough? FW = does it exist? FIS = is this your priority? The American public's reaction to the change was poor and the new cola was a major marketing failure. The subsequent reintroduction of Coke's original formula, re-branded as "Coca-Cola Classic", resulted in a significant gain in sales, leading to speculation that the introduction of the New Coke formula was just a marketing ploy |
Aylat
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 21:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Bagehi wrote: Titans are balanced.
Super Carriers are balanced.
Not only people who think that titans or supercarriers are too weak but also those who think they are too strong will disagree with this statements.
There should also be a statement that reflects the candidate's opinion about the fact that sub capital blobs can only be killed if you have a bigger sub capital blob.
|
Bagehi
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Important Internet Spaceship League
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 22:18:00 -
[8] - Quote
Aylat wrote:Bagehi wrote: Titans are balanced.
Super Carriers are balanced.
Not only people who think that titans or supercarriers are too weak but also those who think they are too strong will disagree with this statements. There should also be a statement that reflects the candidate's opinion about the fact that sub capital blobs can only be killed if you have a bigger sub capital blob.
Fair point. Fixed. |
Factor Fett
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.01.25 23:37:00 -
[9] - Quote
I do not believe in surveys that can be manipulated, I would rather see candidates past actions, read the candidates plan of actions, and take my own choice. |
Dierdra Vaal
Veto. Veto Corp
77
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 10:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
thanks for the suggestions everyone. keep them coming!
Veto #205 * * * Director Emeritus at EVE University * * * CSM1 delegate, CSM3 chairman and CSM5 vice-chairman |
|
Raid'En
Apprentice Innovations
170
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 11:57:00 -
[11] - Quote
* a revamp of the science and industry UI is a priority
* you should be able to have sov only on a system you use
* low sec need to be something by itself, and not only something between high and null |
WarProfit
Ubuntu Inc. Lonely Maple Conglomeration
1
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 15:17:00 -
[12] - Quote
CSM should have no corporate / alliance affiliation as that would present a conflict of interests. Each member should be part of a CSM corporation and alliance only. If you say they wont be able to play the game with there friends in that corporation then I say you are wrong. Let them roll an alt and then they can play. Its like putting Herman Cain in office while he is still CEO of godfathers, before you know it godfathers would be served in every school lunchroom, granted im sure the kids would love it but pizza hut would be pissed.
Oh boy here come the Trolls :)
|
Tiberius Sunstealer
Phantom Soulreavers Axiom Solaris
93
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 15:28:00 -
[13] - Quote
WarProfit wrote:Oh boy here come the Trolls :) They have come but they are not trolling. I agree with this statement. I also believe that only one person per alliance should be a member of the CSM. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
289
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 15:35:00 -
[14] - Quote
- NPC owned null sec should be developed into providing its own unique PvP combat experience, different from player sovereignty warfare and low sec.
- Titans and mother ships should no longer be able to enter low security system.
- Pirate NPC faction agents in low sec.
- Moon materials deplete and redistribute.
Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local Break-A-Wish Foundation
264
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 15:38:00 -
[15] - Quote
Just make My Little Pony references and it won't matter what your positions are you'll get loads of votes from dribbling, basement dwelling neckbeards.
Like me. |
ShipToaster
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 15:44:00 -
[16] - Quote
I would like to see some questions about the core fundamentals of the EVE universe as these appear to be changing. Something like these.
Rewards should always scale based on risk with no exceptions. EVE must remain primarily a PvP focused game. Consensual PvP must never be allowed into EVE. EVE should remain a sandbox with player designed goals, not CCP imposed goals.
EVE was a harsh place once.It is soft now. HTFU. CCP should.
WarProfit wrote:CSM should have no corporate / alliance affiliation as that would present a conflict of interests. Each member should be part of a CSM corporation and alliance only. If you say they wont be able to play the game with there friends in that corporation then I say you are wrong. Let them roll an alt and then they can play. Its like putting Herman Cain in office while he is still CEO of godfathers, before you know it godfathers would be served in every school lunchroom, granted im sure the kids would love it but pizza hut would be pissed.
Oh boy here come the Trolls :)
Not really the thread for this type of comment. Incursion math? part 1 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=678400#post678400 part 2 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=698871#post698871 |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
204
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 15:56:00 -
[17] - Quote
- Eve is a PvP game
- The CSM is a corrupt shadow illuminati of nullsec alliances trying to get CCP to stack the odds in their favour
It saddens me that I have to suggest these as serious questions, but have you read these forums lately?
|
Valei Khurelem
227
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:04:00 -
[18] - Quote
It's called PR, I do agree with you though, CSM are pretty much acting on their own and doing as they damn well please, pretty much reminds me of most western governments in real life really so I don't know why anyone is surprised about this.
"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP." -á - CCP Ytterbium |
Jack Tronic
borkedLabs
40
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:08:00 -
[19] - Quote
Raid'En wrote: * you should be able to have sov only on a system you use
This is a really silly statement mainly because there's is so many ways to define "use". EVE is a sandbox and many things can happen, an system with no apparent ratting or mining in it can easily be the home of an entire capital fleet logged off in space. |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
1216
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:14:00 -
[20] - Quote
No microtransactions in Eve Ever. This includes game-effects and so-called "vanity" items.
Alliance/corp logos should be provided in the client for the regular subscription fee.
Ship skins should be provided within the client for the regular subscription fee + gameplay - earned through faction lp stores for example.
The NeX store should be scrapped and all clothing resources moved to the character designer.
Low sec requires immediate attention and detailed improvements.
All moon mineral mineral harvesting should be moved away from POS's and made a player led profession. This will involve moon-mining barges sucking up the minerals that are vulnerable to counter action.
Faction warfare needs to expand to involve pirate factions against empires.
CCP should hire a proper RP events team again.
System security level should be dynamic and change under certain player led actions.
Outposts should explode.
Blob-fighting needs some kind of nerf to targetting efficiency.
Local chat should become a paid service for sovereignty holders (default off/delayed w-space style)
Transferable kill rights need implementing right now.
Soverignty system REQUIRES targets that small gang warfare can interact with.
Shooting structures with massive hitpoint buffers should never again be part of game design.
Occupancy should create sovereignty. Absenteeism should lose it.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
|
Grumpy Owly
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
117
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:36:00 -
[21] - Quote
Jafit McJafitson wrote:If elected to CSM I will strive to implement some kind of basic IQ test or critical thinking exam before people are allowed to post on the Eve-O forums.
Atypical arrogance from this idiot and even more funny when considering he couldn't pour water out of a boot with instructions on the heel.
But then he could never be considered as an opinionated control freak I suppose?
Reverse psychology correction therapy exert XBY-14
As to sensible suggestion to the topic it might be interesting to see some ethical dilemma questions aswell as the listed topical material. I personally consider that although valid, its too debilitating to simply stick to current issues only, as the idea of CSM is to propose uinque ideas and express themselves with solutions to issues in the playerbase. So whilst its important to be aware of the current picture it is more vital to understand a person's view to EvE.
That I realise may not be an easy ask to simply place into a questinairre, which is why I might be skeptical to its benefit. I'd prefer like others to see the campaigners manifesto in a holistic manner than pandering to individual opinionated limitations. After all if you want someone to be able to think out of the box, surely better to not place them in one to begin with?
"All griefers are lazy cowards with the current climate of broken player policing systems." |
Velicitia
Open Designs
455
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
ShipToaster wrote: Consensual PvP must never be allowed into EVE.
Well, there goes the whole FiS aspect of the game... unless "Undock" doesn't mean "I want to enter the PvP zone"?
These may have already been mentioned in some form or other:
1. Mineral (Trit, Mex, etc) sources (mining, loot repro, drones, etc) need looked at, and potentially re-balanced. 2. Lowsec needs more "draw" of some sort. (No, I'm not saying "force people to low") 3. Corp Management (incl. POS) need a serious revamp. 4. S&I window needs attention too. |
Xenuchrist
STK Scientific
7
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:51:00 -
[23] - Quote
* Allowing SP Respec, aside cases where skills are removed from the game, would be decremental to the game.
---á "In human stupidity, when it is not malicious, there is something very touching, even beautiful... There always is." /Tolstoy |
Aineko Macx
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
125
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 16:54:00 -
[24] - Quote
- Reducing mudflation in eve is important. - ISK faucets vs. ISK sinks needs balancing. - New ships or changes should only be introduced if they don't obsolete existing ships in their role. - The CSM voting mechanics should be changed. - Revamping low-sec is a priority - The wormhole mechanics that set W-space apart from 0.0 should be protected - paraphrasing Trebor: "sov shouldn't be something you use to control space; sov should be something you get from controlling space"
Also, most of what Jade proposed. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
345
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 17:03:00 -
[25] - Quote
VOTE SKIPPERMONKEY FOR CSM - TERRIBAD AT EVE BUT GREAT AT FORUMS |
Havegun Willtravel
Mobile Alcohol Processing Units
47
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 17:09:00 -
[26] - Quote
All forms of personal passive income (RnD agents, moon mining, POCO's ) should be modified to require regular player interaction.
The industry side of Eve has suffered from long term neglect and needs more game design attention and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements.
Mining in its current form is boring and bottable and should be changed to be more challenging
The war-dec system is unbalanced in favour of griefing and should be changed to fix this.
CCP needs to change loot drop mechanics so that blobbing is no longer profitable.
Suicide ganking is to easy and risk free as a viable tactic and gameplay style.
Local chat in null sec should be eliminated unless upgraded, and should be changed to delayed mode everywhere else.
Improving low sec is long overdue. CCP should survey the player base for simple easy to implement improvements as part of a long term strategy to make the region more relevant. |
Skippermonkey
Tactical Knightmare
346
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 17:18:00 -
[27] - Quote
Havegun Willtravel wrote:All forms of personal passive income (RnD agents, moon mining, POCO's ) should be modified to require regular player interaction.
The war-dec system is unbalanced in favour of griefing and should be changed to fix this.
CCP needs to change loot drop mechanics so that blobbing is no longer profitable.
Suicide ganking is to easy and risk free as a viable tactic and gameplay style.
theres a whole lot of personal butthert spilling out in that post
VOTE SKIPPERMONKEY FOR CSM - TERRIBAD AT EVE BUT GREAT AT FORUMS |
Carcosa Hali
True Slave Foundations Shaktipat Revelators
12
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 17:24:00 -
[28] - Quote
You can count on Jade to pretty much cover it all. Also, for kicks...
Hulk Smash! |
Andski
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
1697
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 17:47:00 -
[29] - Quote
PvE (ratting, missions, incursions, anomalies) is too predictable. High-sec PvE is, in its current state, tipped towards too high of a reward for little risk. The GM team is in need of more transparency. Supercapital ships are becoming exceedingly common. Sovereignty mechanics are in serious need of work. Nullsec should continue to be a major focus for the development team. "Flavor of the month" fleet/gang compositions are indicative of poor game design. . |
ShipToaster
121
|
Posted - 2012.01.26 18:12:00 -
[30] - Quote
Andski wrote:The GM team is in need of more transparency.
This one deserves some pretty serious forum thread time and attention. Incursion math? part 1 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=678400#post678400 part 2 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=698871#post698871 |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |