Monday, October 5, 2009

Spectre Is Running For The Council of Stellar Management

Why Am I Running?

Over the past couple of years, many of CSM delegates have come and gone. Most have been representatives of large 0.0 corporations or highsec industrial groups. Very few have stood up for the improvement, refactoring or rethinking of the abandoned regions in between that we call lowsec. I am running for CSM in an effort to bring attention to low security space and mechanics related to it (which in many cases affects players of all play styles in all locations) so that all geographical regions and types of space can provide something unique, profitable and most importantly fun to the game.

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?
  • Mining - One of the most boring and poorly thought out mechanics in Eve. Who actually gets entertainment out of clicking their Strip Miner and then watching it cycle for 3 minutes? A play style and career that is the backbone to the economy and all of Eve deserves a more entertaining way of play that would actually be interesting and would be a blow to macro miners and bots at the same time. We need more mining vessels with more specific capabilities, a re-factored method of actual mining to be more than clicking a module, more varied ores in more systems as well as boosts to help mining ships survive in dangerous space outside of highsec where they are usually defenseless even when they have gangs "protecting" them. This is a game and it seems silly that one of the most important professions is so monotonous, simplistic and not fun.
  • Improving Lowsec - More valuable and unique rewards for mission runners. More valuable and unique ores for miners. Unique benefits for those who are -5 or lower security status (perhaps systems with a reverse pirate CONCORD where high security status pilots cannot enter). Low security space needs some unique resources and it needs to be worth entering. Lowsec can be extremely risky to operate in and the rewards for doing so should represent this risk.
  • GCC and Timers - If timers in low security space ever had a real use or made any real sense, it must have been long, long ago. Currently they serve only to create unnecessary pauses in the action and need to have their duration rethought or better yet need to have their function and overall reason for even existing reexamined.
  • Sentry Guns - The idea of sentries is understandable but their implementation leaves much to be desired. In their current static form, they simply encourage players to fly bigger ships or in bigger blobs to negate their effects. Sentries should be more variable and scalable to have damage appropriate to the size and number of targets they are firing at. This will help to make it viable (but disadvantageous) for ships and gangs of any size to engage under the protection of a station/gate. Additionally, sentries of different strengths and damage types based upon where they are located and standings with factions would add some variety and tactics to an otherwise vanilla game mechanic.
  • Discouraging Blobbing and Camping Tactics - A much more broad and difficult topic to dissect and solve easily. Ideas related to this include changes to sentries (see above), fixing prices/insurance on T2 ships so people aren't so afraid to lose them, revisiting the recent agility nerf and implementing stacking penalties on modules that are not currently affected by them. Additionally, continuing to improve the effectiveness of smaller frigate sized ships would be beneficial in giving pilots ship options that are viable in small gang and solo. The basic idea here is that the while the nano-nerf and the following agility nerf had some benefits, the ability for smaller agile ships or gangs to travel unmolested has been severely damaged and turned much of PvP into simply sitting on gates or blobbing targets. These sorts of changes need to be discussed very thoroughly and carefully but the idea is to prevent solo or small gang PvP from dying out as a result of Eve's ever increasing population and the seemingly endless nerfs to all ships agility and speed.
  • User Interface - The Eve-Online UI is a mess in general. The overview and it's setup is overly complicated and difficult to upkeep. The corporation UI is extremely unintuitive and irritating to navigate. The drone window, the overheating buttons on modules, the inability to easily steer your ship in space, the asteroids with hitboxes twice as large as their models, etc. I could go on for hours on this topic and so could almost anyone who is familiar with the game. The user interface needs many improvements to become more intuitive, easier to use and not something that encumbers pilots.
  • More... - The above topics are simply my ideas and priorities of the moment. As a representative of everyone, I am and always will be open to the opinions and ideas of the community and will work to see their wants and needs fulfilled.
Why Am I Qualified?

I have been gaming for nearly as long as I can remember and have been playing online and MMO games since the days of BBS's. Tradewars 2002, Subspace, Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft and many others but none captured my imagination and interest the way that Eve-Online has. I have been playing Eve consistently since March 2008 with a focus towards low security space PvP and "piracy". I have some basic experience with PvP in 0.0, mission running and even mining. In my time playing Eve-Online, I have helped grow and run a successful pirate corporation, generated dozens of blog posts about Eve, made many friends (and a few enemies), made lots of ISK and caused many things to blow up (including my own ships). I am very passionate about my gaming and especially Eve. I am opinionated and have the ability to voice my opinions in a clear and concise manner. Electing me will give the CSM a well spoken individual with good ideas and the drive to communicate and see them through to implementation. I am (and always have been) easily accessible to those around me and I feel that I would give excellent representation to the population of lowsec and all of New Eden.

Am I Dead Sexy?

Yes. Yes I am.

UPDATE:

- I have a thread in the C&P forums to help raise awareness that I am running. Please feel free to stop by and give it a bump.

- Tony got a pretty good discussion going when he responded in his own blog to this announcement post. Feel free to check it out and add your opinion to the mix.

36 comments:

Kirith Kodachi said...

I will vote for Spectre (unless someone else is running).

Beowolf Schaefer said...

Best of luck in your candidacy!

Xephys said...

You'll have to put up a blog post saying VOTE NOW MOFOS for me to remember to do so, I always seem to forget. Other than that, nice plans, even though it would most likely fall on deaf ears.

Anonymous said...

You, Mr. Spectre, have my votes.

Cozmik R5 said...

Awesome news!

You have my vote... unless Teister runs :))

Alagus said...

Got my vote. Good luck!

Avan Sercedos said...

dear god...

Agile Nakajima said...

My vote's for Pilkins. If it's Pilkins/Spectre '09 then I'll just have to vote for Spectre too.

Make docking games harder while you're fixing the rest of those issues please.

Anonymous said...

I agree with alot of what you type. I will say one mechanic i would like to see change would be War Dec. It ruins the game for people who want to carebear to have some corp war dec and camp, with 3 year old toon. I understand fully if i am in low sec that it is a dangerous area, sort of like the bad part of detroit at night. If i want to mindlessly sit in high sec and mine while i watch southpark, i should be able to. I think that you are very well versed in pirating, and you understand what would make the game more fun for your segment. I wish you luck, and if i figure out how to vote i will for you.

Lars Lodar said...

YAY!

You got my votes you sexy, sexy man.

Dexter Tripod said...

I'm with Xephys...tell me when to vote or I'll forget. :-P

Felix Darkcloud said...

You had me at "Dead Sexy".

Anonymous said...

You got my vote.

Andrea skye said...

WE NEED CHANGE!

kovorix said...

You, sir, have my full support.

Let me know if you have any graphical/propaganda needs, as I am quite handy with photoshop and would be happy to help the cause.

6pac said...

You got my lazorz.


And my vote.

Myrhial Arkenath said...

That's a sexy list of proposals alright. I won't promise you my vote, but you certainly make a big chance of getting it.

Mynxee said...

You got my votes Spec. That list of proposals sounds very interesting. Especially the mining one...somewhere in changes related to that, there might be the answer as to how to help add incentive for carebears to come to low sec. Be even better if those 'bears came with a few teeth.

Anonymous said...

To me, the problem of blobbing is mostly due to the increased population. An FC starts up a fleet and 40 people want to join in. How would insurance for t2s help in this situation?

Andrea skye said...

Fixed insurance on T2 means that you could solo/run small gangs in them and fight much bigger blobs.

I remember once seeing a stealth bomber gang of about 15 utterly destroy a gang of battle ships about 15 strong.

The problem atm, if you do die, then it just costs so dam much to replace a t2 ship. The risk is much greater than the reward.

A couple of t2 ships can fight a much bigger gang of t1 ships, so fixing the insurace cost would result in the smaller corps (and theres more small corps than big ones in eve) going out and actualy being able to kill stuff without just getting blobbed. And if they do get blobbed and killed, then they dont lose so dam much.

Andrea skye said...

uhh i meant a bomber gang of 15, took a bs gang of _50_

Manasi said...

Hmmm... interesting Ideas, some I support: mining changes, low sec boost to reward,GCC change (crrently is idiotic), and yes change the damned UI.

two I don't: sentry guns on small ships and dis-couraging gatecamps.

Gate Camps are not only going to become MORE prolific, but I honestly like them.

GL mate I hope this isn't some trick like in the past ;)

Anonymous said...

You had me until the end. That sexy sexy part was just way to much. :P

Htrag said...

Good luck man... too bad I dont agree with much of your platform or 'passionate' issues you've advocated in the past.

Anonymous said...

Spectre,
You will get my vote. I've been a long time lurker on your blog and I've found it interesting and informative. You've also inspired me to follow a similar path. It is time for a voice from lowsec and it is time for many of the changes you have mentioned (especially timers and those bloody gate guns).
Mai

Anonymous said...

@Andrea skye
Why did the small gang change into t2 ships, but the large one remain in t1s in your scenario?

Andrea skye said...

Well if you die in a fully insured, t2 fit, unrigged bs (which is what most people use in blobby 0.0) then you lose about 10-20 mil due to the insurace payout.

Now on the other hand, if you die in a say, Curse, you lose about 100 mil.

So, in a blob, its much more effiecient to fly a t1 big ship. As you lose alot less. So the reason they stayed in t1, is simply because its cheaper to die.

Yargok said...

You da man spec!

Lets just hope folks did not get discouraged by Larkonis and his shenanigans, and turn down another pirate CSM candidate :)

Kyle Langdon said...

You got my vote

Samuel Langhorne Clemens said...

You certainly have my vote Spectre. I've enjoyed your keen wit and hilarious anecdotes for great while. I can't imagine and better person for the job.

Flashfresh said...

Nice one Spectre. Boosting low-sec? You've got my vote.

Tony "EVE's Weekend Warrior" said...

Thanks for the link Spectre!

Anonymous said...

This was originally a comment to EVE Warrior's blog post on taxes, but I thought I'd point it at you directly since it's not really a response to him, but to you.

---

It's the right direction, but it won't work. The three security zones are defined by the drastically different flavor of each (and honestly, I don't know enough about nullsec to talk about it at all). Sure, it's a continuum, but that's exactly the problem: when you strive for the middle, you get mediocrity. Thus, lowsec issues.

To solve the problem of lowsec, you need to make it more desirable than both highsec and nullsec at the same time, in a specific area.

Personally, I'm too hesitant to offer an actual suggestion until after Dominion shakes out and we see what it does to nullsec. I mean, yeah, they're introducing a bunch of pirate stuff, but they're revamping nullsec so completely that I can't even figure out how to make triangles out of high/low/null. (Or squares out of high/low/null/worm.)

But I will point out that w-space does work, surprisingly well. This is because it doesn't try to fit itself onto the security continuum. Lowsec needs to get off it.

Food for thought.

Spectre said...

Anon: I agree with that point. If I had it my way, lowsec would get a revamp that gives it some sort of unique resource or mechanic that makes it different from all others (similar to T3 production materials and unique types of rats in wormholes). Unfortunately this is a big step that isn't easy to simply champion through, not to mention that CCP already probably HAS an idea or is even already developing towards this.

So while changes such as the tax one proposed or other small ones I have suggested would be nice to give lowsec a boost in the short term (and I would certainly continue to push for them in the short term), it is the addition of a unique role via a larger scale refactoring of lowsec (similar to what Dominion is doing to lowsec) that we really need.

Tony "EVE's Weekend Warrior" said...

Thanks for the link Anon. I also believe that taxes could be incorporated into the larger overall low sec restructuring.

Tony "EVE's Weekend Warrior" said...

:'(