Hi. Apparently I'm first.

What are your opinions on and desires for PVP in high security space?

i will vote for you if you support some of my ideas

What I am looking for a candidate is for them to:

1. support some sort of casual pvp via a contract system
2. enhance WIS
3. upgrade the mission system
4. make PI more like sim city/civ V
5. push to open up story lines for jove (possible WH expansion)
6. make FW include pirate missions like (kill so many people in system A)
7. make referendums for important CSM decisionsGǪ (if its real important we should all vote for it) this would be for major game changing things such as refocus and such
8. eliminate/reduce clone costs for players over 4 years old (to encourage pvp for old vets)
9. gethe fith subsystem for Tech III ships
10. kill all super caps (as in a real counter to them not this crap that I will only fly super caps now so give me back my sp cuss I cant use drones sh*t)
11. a way to integrate PI and ship crews and have an effect on your ships performance

Basically a CSM who represents the old vet casual pve/pvper

+1!

Looks to be an interesting campaign year coming up! GL!

Questions for you:

How do you see wormhole space being developed in the coming year? Any specific changes in mind?

What are your thoughts on the UI? (For example, I would hate for CCP to open the UI to 3rd party modders - That leads to "must have" UI mods). Some updating would be great, but I don't favor 3rd party mods...

What about Hi-Sec? War-Dec mechanics/exploits/ and the relative dangers/lack of danger in Hi-Sec?

What about Low-Sec? I like the idea of it, but as it is now, there is nothing to do in Low-Sec, that can't be done better in Hi-sec/null-sec?

Goals/thoughts on Null-sec iteration? (Whatever happend to farms and fields?).

guess that's enough for now...

Again, GL!

i will vote for you if you support some of my ideas

What I am looking for a candidate is for them to:

1. support some sort of casual pvp via a contract system
2. enhance WIS
3. upgrade the mission system
4. make PI more like sim city/civ V
5. push to open up story lines for jove (possible WH expansion)
6. make FW include pirate missions like (kill so many people in system A)
7. make referendums for important CSM decisionsGǪ (if its real important we should all vote for it) this would be for major game changing things such as refocus and such
8. eliminate/reduce clone costs for players over 4 years old (to encourage pvp for old vets)
9. gethe fith subsystem for Tech III ships
10. kill all super caps (as in a real counter to them not this crap that I will only fly super caps now so give me back my sp cuss I cant use drones sh*t)
11. a way to integrate PI and ship crews and have an effect on your ships performance

Basically a CSM who represents the old vet casual pve/pvper

First off, thank you for not trying to take credit for CCP waking up and realizing they were ruining the game like some of the other current CSM members running for CSM7.

One of the most boneheaded things that CSM6 proposed was destroyable player stations. Really? Who does that benefit. I hope you weren't one of them.

1. You can already casual PvP in wormholes, lowsec, mutually agreed upon wardec, joining Red vs Blue (or FW) or simply by can stealing. I'm not sure a contract system would add much.
2. In due time, when the rest of the game is fixed.
3. Yes and no. There needs to be more content, more diverse content, but some players like the predictability of the current missioning system and those needs are as valid as the ones who wish for more challenge.
4. Yes
5. Depends, I favour improvements on the storyline, but I don't think Jove is the way to go, that card can be only played once and I'm not sure now is the time
6. Pirate missions and more engaging pirate content, yes. The basic FW is in direst need of an overhaul however. So it's a question of resource allocation. I'm not opposed to it.
7. Most of the things we do is not deciding things, it's giving feedback, explaining what we want, but most of all *WHY* we want it so CCP can make a decision. Any candidate who tells you we decide things is lying, we influence the decision process thourgh advise and feedback, which is very different. When the points of view are diverse and no clear picture exists, we recommend CCP take it to the forum to get a wider set of opinion (and they do it)
8. I agree it's an issue, the way I proposed it be changed is to make the clone cost be a rent instead of a buy, the base price of which is the current value of a clone divided by its average "life expectancy". So it wouldn't be a cost on podding, yet the cost should still increase over time as you get more skills.
9. Yes, but not as much of a priority as the rest.
10. I don't like them, I'd rather they hadn't existed, but since they're here, I'd rather make them useful in a way that doesn't require more supers on the field. ie, decreased return on extras being fielded, much in the same spirit (but not form) as there is a decreased return for fielding fleet command ships.
11. I don't see how to integreate PI with ship fittings, and for ship crews, it's a fun/good iea, but it's difficult to balance. Not sure it's a priority

2. In due time, when the rest of the game is fixed.

Isn't that a bit too broad and dismissive? How can we determine when the "rest of the game" can be considered already "fixed" so WiS is fixed too? One year? Two years? Don't care?

And now, seriously...

WiS era s+¦lo un truco de marketing, -+verdad? NUNCA pretendieron en serio que tuviera contenido o fuera de alguna utilidad, -+s+¡? Por eso justo ahora hay 5 pobres diablos (Team Avatar) a los que les han cargado el muerto de intentar dotar a WiS de algo de contenido... -í-+tres a+¦os despu+¬s de iniciar el desarrollo de WiS!?

I want the wardec system to change from a griefing system it is today, to a war system it should be. I have been an advocate of that for the past years (along with Dierdra Vaal, of Eve Uni) and CCP seems now intent to grant us that wish. The way I would like to see it changed is to provide end conditions to war, alter the pricing structure and provide a way for "defenseless" corporations to defend themselves by proxy (mercenary market) should they so desire (this would be a boon both for mercenaries, for warring groups, and remove the need to "corp hop" by industrial alliances constantly wardecced by 2-member corporations). A number of suggestions have been made by CCP on that subject I am in favour of but can't relay here as my own.

As far as "non-consensual pvp" aka griefing/ganking is concerned, I believe this is a very important part of Eve that needs to be presere (the idea that no space should be safe), but in continuation with past recommendations and changes to that effect, I want ganking to be an option, not a profit source (except when preying on careless people with more money than sense).

How can a member of the dreaded CSM5 argue to have any pros?

"last csm (and in your blog) you wanted a wh stabiliser, no mention of this for this csm have you dropped this idea since 99% wh peopel hated the idea or are you still for this change, if it isnt in the small changes you want, why did you drop the idea"

As I said in my blog post, I don't care about a stabilizer, I want to see if a way can be found to prevent people from walling themselves in to an extent such that they are safe from harm.

However, if someone wants you, they can still get you. A sufficiently motivated group can find your WH and bring with it enough firepower to stop you from closing it.

How can a member of the dreaded CSM5 argue to have any pros?

Why do you think none of the current CSMs has endorsed you for re-election?
Why did neglect actively participating in Assembly Hall almost completely?

Why do you think none of the current CSMs has endorsed you for re-election?
Why did neglect actively participating in Assembly Hall almost completely?

Meissa is extremely analytical, well-versed in game mechanics and cause-and-effect of those mechanics, and able to express himself and his ideas very well.
His game knowledge is excellent and approach to presenting/supporting his opinions both in our internal forums and at Summits is very effective. So while he's one of the "quiet" CSM members, he contributes a lot of value.

-- Mynxee, CSM 5 chairwoman

Meissa, despite not being a good or well known poaster is very dedicated, knowledgeable and, something which will be VERY important this time around, pretty impartial and balanced in his views (perhaps frustratingly so at times ). He's also a very nice chap and good fun on the lash for a Belgian.

-- Larkonis Trassler, CSM 3

He knows the part of eve that he plays really well and he makes sound arguments even if i dont agree with them, and i think you should vote for him

-- Mazzilliu, CSM 3 and 5

Can you shortly expand on that. Because while I am no expert, as I see it there is no safe in WH space. Yes given sufficient people you could theoretically keep your WH isolated 24/7 by collapsing every new K162 that appears and not opening your statics.

However, if someone wants you, they can still get you. A sufficiently motivated group can find your WH and bring with it enough firepower to stop you from closing it.

It is just a matter of how much effort each party wants to undertake in either defence or offence. Neither side has a overwhelming advantage. While defence might have the bonus of location and thus hardware, the offensive side has the bonus of time of engagement and as such can dictate when and if the battle happens.

Could you tell us a little bit more of what you think should be done to WH mechanics to improve them without breaking them ?
I believe things like interactive broadcasts and 15ppl watchlists come from you initiative (both these features are awesome btw), do you have some other ones in mind ?

This year I'll be voting for you again, thank you for your hard work

hi while i will give you my support just one question which is as follows :

what do you think should be done about the large allainces controlling most of null sec should they be limited to how big they can grow and also should they be limted on how many R64 moons they can hold as they now hold the strangelhold over the whole of eve.

So what do you plan to do to help incursions as part of CSM7?

Do you plan to push hard for implementation of the modular Corp and POS system so that smaller corps can isolate potential spiez without shutting them out of everything if they are indeed legit?

Could we count of CSM7 to SERIOUSLY push the botting and RMT issue? I am sick of tired of hearing people say "Nothing CCP can do bout it" And even alliances having rules against reporting Blue Bots.

What has the progress been on improving industry in null sec and getting people to move there since the previous elections ?

How high is finding a sollution to automated gameplay that makes actuall player involvement useless in all it's inefficiency ?

Eve is pvp, in every aspect. Some aspects just dont use guns or missiles.

As far as R64 moons are concerned, I strongly favour a rebalancing of "alliance earning" mechanics. As it is, alliance income comes from such resources as R64s, while personal income derives from activities such as ratting, plexing and, for the 3 people who do it, PI. I have been working with CCP to try and make alliance income more aligned with personal income. At the same time, R64 serve currently as focus points where conflict happens (and that's much needed, PvP is the fuel needed for industry to be meaningful, it's also very fun). So, these are the paths I would pursue rather than placing hard limits on number of R64s held by a single entity.

Posting in the hope for a candidacy view on the following: Bounty Hunting

What I'm doing is looking if a way can be found to address the issues that exist without negatively impacting the current playstyle. ... if a way can be found, good, if one can't, then the current situation is better than a botched change.

N'h+¬sitez pas +á me contacter pour plus d'information.
Contactame para obtener m+ís informaci+¦n.
Bitte kontaktieren Sie mich f++r weitere Informationen.

Agreed, if you reduce the value, then no one cares about the moons anymore and a decision point is eliminated.
Do you have a specific proposal for how to deal with this problem?

What do you think of the recent changes to Super capitals and what other changes would you like to see done in the future?

It's probably time for you to take a break from the whole CSM thing. Your 3+ years in the counsel really didn't accomplish anything of note and your entire platform has been "I've been here forever, vote for me (again)".

I say you haven't accomplished much of note because from CSM 2 through 5, about the only thing of note that got accomplished was skill queues. You completely screwed up jump bridges by advocating for something you had no knowledge or experience with. Luckily for nullsec alliances CCP added their own flavor of stupid and mistakenly sort of made them easier to manage.

In CSM 6 you spent your time berating all of the candidates except for Mittani, because you knew you didn't have the political tact to make an opponent of him and acted like a French jackass otherwise. Most of the major accomplishments would have occurred without your voice, certainly without your input since none of the ideas were specifically yours and I honestly can't find a reason that people should continue to vote for a lame duck incumbent when there are exciting prospects like Hans who can bring some fresh perspective to the table.

Dan ben je Belg en dan niet eens in het Vlaams? Zei de suffe Hollander....

But anyway, yes, you have my vote. You are one of the very few people that have voiced intelligent (and well written) view points on a very broad spectrum of this game.
At least with you on the CSM it will not only be about 'Me, myself and I', about glorified self interest.
It will be about the game as a whole.

Good luck.

The current system of POS research labs managemnet is flawed.

You ether have full access or you don't, the pos' have a public option but it doesn't work. How would you improve the R&D at pos' if you were eleted to CSM 7.

You have my vote, but i would like to know how you would improve capital warfare. For example when you cyno in massive fleets everyone bumps off and flys everywhere if jumping to the same cyno.

you can count on me and mine for votes!

what is your stance on introducing additional alliance-level income source? as it stands right now, highend moon minerals are the only commodity in the game qualified for that criteria. more resource to fight over means more fight, and that's generally good for business.

You can count on my vote dude!

Definitely the best candidate and the most helpful person I know in EvE universe.

Oh and he's also belgian, what indicates that he has Beer Appreciation skill lvl V

And alcohol resistance IV after downing half a dozen Chimay Bleue like I did yesterday. At least I wasn't hungry after that (those who know the beer will understand)

8. I agree it's an issue, the way I proposed it be changed is to make the clone cost be a rent instead of a buy, the base price of which is the current value of a clone divided by its average "life expectancy". So it wouldn't be a cost on podding, yet the cost should still increase over time as you get more skills.

Meissa comes off as very sensible when he's campaigning but then comes off as arrogant and aloof once he gets elected.

Anyway, clones should be insurable. That would solve the problem so that vets who PVP regularly will have a cheaper option while more risk averse vets who hardly ever PVP will still pay a significant cost for their hundreds of millions of sp.

Lost In Eve podcast

Meissa, I heard your debate/interview on LIE today. First off I just wanted to share my sympathy with you having to debate Riverini. No one should have to be exposed to that.

But aside from that, I wanted to make a comment about two things you said.

1) Increasing the number of copy slots in high sec to improve access to invention BPCs. There are three major problems with this. The first is that there are already relatively simple routes to get BPCs for invention even without a POS. You could buy them from a POS owner that grinds out BPCs on the side, or you could use the 15-18 day wait stations that exist in highsec and create copies with your alts (will make ~300 copies a month per character.)

The second issue is that you are equating station copy slots with POS copy slots, saying that they should be equally accessible. However you are ignoring the fact that POS copy slots require a significant monthly fuel cost to maintain. By putting station copy slots on an equivalent footing (in terms of speed) with POS slots you are invalidating POS copy slots as a profitable avenue, since they will be competing wth an alternative that has zero maintenance.

This is particularly problematic when you look at copying of higher value non-invention BPOs like Maelstroms or Capital Components etc etc. By opening up a higher volume of BPC flow from stations you will absolutely hammer the profitability of copying these in POS's, to the point that there will be no justifiable reason to do so from within POS's.

Basically the advantages you get from copying in POS's is offset by the increased maintenance cost of fueling the POS.

The third issue, and arguably the most problematic, is that while this would increase the flow of BPCs for invention you would still have a supply chokepoint in datacores. This change would skyrocket the price of datacores as more demand for them built up due to the excess supply of BPCs. Now, as someone who generates quite a lot of datdacores this would be pretty cool, but as an inventor I think that this would ultimately increase the costs of invented items substantially (as the BPC cost is relatively negligible in module items.)


2) I have always had concerns about any talk about increasing industry in Null Sec by making it inherently more profitable (say through improved invention chances.) I do believe it should be more accessible (more slots more slots more slots!), but doing things that create an inherent price advantage of operating in null sec will only serve to create Null Sec manufacturing cartels that will severely crush high sec manufacturing.

This is because there is negligible risk involved in manufacturing or inventing in null sec. You have jump freighters that will quickly and safely deliver the materials/products between the high/nullsec. The price of fuel will be negligible when compared to the price of items transfered (how many billions in modules or T2 BPCs can you deliver in a jump freighter.)

Basically there is no real barrier between the null sec manufacturing centers and the high sec markets beyond membership in the Alliances that have stations. So if there is a material bonus given to one set of manufacturers they will be able to price all of the other manufacturers out of the market completely. It's like Production Efficiency 5, you simply don't manufacture without it. This would set the stage for the major Null Sec alliances to completely dominate the high sec industrialists.

---

That said, on the latter, I do agree that Null Sec needs it's unique "bonus". I would argue that the two best things to do to sort this would be to remove Ice from High Sec and only allow it to be supplied from low/null sec (while adjusting POS and Capital fuel requirements to avoid a massive fuel spikes), and also to remove high end minerals (mega/zydrine) from drone goo entirely. This would make mining a viable option for null sec alliances in terms of profitability, and would allow the local production of ship hulls (one of the most difficult things to handle in Null Sec due to the volume).

Anyways, I enjoyed your interview.

Read the complete Platform here: http://www.eve-online-dark-taboo.com/vote/

If you want your vote to count just once in EVE vote for PsychoBitch.

Sick of CCP devs and their hair-brained, half-baked, blue-balled ideas?

Sick of self-important fat puds and frail half-elves on the CSM?

Sick of things in eve that should have been fixed A G E S ago not being fixed and new errors being introduced daily?

Make your one vote count finally, vote for PsychoBitch!

If you are voting for someone who has been in the CSM before - you have wasted your vote on F A I L

Don't be a failure, be a hero. Vote for PsychoBitch now!

Campaign Song
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnOZAEbk7r0

If you don't drink whiskey - VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE
If you don't like having sex with women - VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE
If you don't live life on your own terms - VOTE FOR SOMEONE ELSE

THIS IS ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW IN LIFE - ANYTHING WRITTEN BELOW IGNORE