Wednesday, February 8, 2012

CSM7 - I Represent EVE University

I don't represent EVE University. Obviously. Kelduum, as part of his CSM7 platform, has stated he represents everybody. I called bullshit on that earlier.

I'd like to point out a few of his public comments concerning his platform which give way to the lie that he represents anybody other than EVE University. He wants to see changes implemented that benefit his organization (hard to fault him for that, I'm sure The Mittani wants to benefit Goonswarm).

We'll start off with some of his comments made on the EVE Online forums, specifically where I ask him a few questions.
Q: Would you push for a special designation (e.g. training corporation) for EVE University, to exempt them from a war declaration system?

A: Believe it or not, if CCP offered me some kind of 'special designation' tomorrow, I would very likely say no.
The answer seems fine on the surface. It is curious he didn't outright say "No," but qualified his answer with a "very likely". I wonder what offer might be made that would change a "very likely no" into a "yes."

Specifically on war declaration mechanics:
Q: What methods would you suggest to CCP for defenders to end wardecs?

A: A moderately expensive structure, which projects a 'bubble of nullsec' around it (and can't be anchored too near anything like gates/belts etc), can optionally be fuelled to increase its EHP, and must be online to keep the war running, but at less cost.

However being in nullsec anyone (for example, mercenaries or even someone who doesn't like the aggressors) could get involved and help kill/repair/defend it, increasing options for interaction between players.
Here's where we start getting into the suggestions that benefit nobody in highsec except for EVE University. He suggests a structure that can be destroyed. Destroy the structure, before the normal week-long ending to a war, the war ends early. Exactly who does this benefit except a corporation that can quickly field a fleet of 50-200 ships to smash the structure in record time? It certainly wouldn't benefit small corporations and alliances. But a corporation well-known for its blob warfare, they could end wars within hours of them beginning. This is a suggestion meant to benefit any corporation or alliance that can bring massive numbers to bear quickly (and there is only one such corporation in highsec.) No thought is given at all to small and medium alliances. Certainly not a component of a platform for someone claiming to represent everyone.

Now let's grab something he wrote over on the EVE University forums, a head-ups on his CSM agenda to his prime constituency.
The wardec systems clearly need a rewrite, both eliminate the existing loopholes in them as well as encourage PvP against groups who can/will fight.
The important aspect of this comment is the part where he wants to "encourage PvP against groups who can/will fight." Basically, he wants to encourage a war declaration system that will not include corporations and alliances not interested in non-consensual PvP. In other words, he's looking for a war declaration system that encourages consensual PvP. EVE University is the biggest detractor of the current war declaration system (before CCP started allowing exploits to be used), and has never enjoyed going to war unless it was a) mutual, and b) arranged. It should be little surprise that Kelduum aims to champion a system that will keep EVE University free of conflict that is not of its choosing.

This final bit, from his official announcement for candidacy is a lol.
I believe the CSM needs an experienced yet neutral voice to help ensure balance and prevent control of the council from moving to push the agendas of any one player group to the detriment of the rest of the player base.

16 comments:

  1. You forcefully changed Keld's answers to fit what you want people to think. That's what I saw.

    ReplyDelete
  2. @Anon How so? They are copy-pasted as he wrote them. Spelling and grammar mistakes included.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is my attempt at a constructive question. How much would fixing the bounty mechanics go towards fixing the war-dec mechanics? For instance, if a Corporation were at war, it could issue letters of marque and reprisal. Basically they could pay third parties a bounty to destroy their opponents ships. Anyone carrying such a letter would be a valid target for the opposing corporation.

    The goal here is an attempt to allow hi sec bears to translate money into firepower. I don't expect a bunch of hulks or industrialists to be specialized in pvp, so facilitating their ability to hire mercs would go a long way towards combating griefing.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I see the points you are drawing, and I have to say I see the same things.

    I'll also qualify this though with the statement that he really doesn't seem to know much about anything.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dude why do you have a hard-on for the UNI?

    E-UNI are a bunch of publords no doubt, but seriously it's almost concerning.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I almost hate to say it, but I like the "bubble of nullsec" idea. Gets rid of or helps hinder, without making it impossible via mechanics changes:
    - One man wardecs
    - Neutral RR
    - Makes it easy for a corp / alliance to get help without the other corp committing to a week of war
    - Could (possibly..?) act like a POS in that it can form a staging point. The ability to, for example, stage gang links at it would help nullify an "away team" disadvantage. For instance, a gang-linked small gang could engage a larger force, like for example E-Uni, without needing to use out of corp alts. Perhaps "fueling it" could make these boosts native.

    It needs fleshing out, but it holds a lot of promise.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Wow, you actually got more from his post than I did when I read it. When I read it all I got was over politicized bland and neutral "non-answers" that didn't really say much. I was pretty disgusted. IMO its clear he cares more about saying stuff to get votes rather than actually revealing his political platform and is exactly what the CSM doesn't need. Its not about and shouldn't be about the power of the position and should be people that genuinely care about making the game a better place.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What about a Wardec mechanism that offers the losers to capitulate after they've lost a number of ships equal to 25% of their membership? As an added bonus, the person who 'wins' the war, gets 50% of the wardec cost in payment. A corp or alliance that capitulates can't be wardeced by the same corp/alliance for two weeks. Some ships like noobie ships and capsule would not be counted in the total.

    ReplyDelete
  9. If you are going to be so against what the CEO of Eve University stands for, maybe you should be less of a hypocrite and drop the graduate medal he awarded you...

    ReplyDelete
  10. i like the idea of a destroyable warstructure too. not as a bubble but as a structure the declaring party has to build in a low sec system. anyone would be able to attack it. if its destroyed the war ends and the declaring corp cant declare war for a while against the same corp.

    to make sure it doesnt just favor big corps the EHP would have to scale with the membercount of the corp who the war is declared on. maybe as a top limit and the declaring party can choose to spend money on the war dec to increase the ehp of the structure to that upper limit defined by the other corps member count. or just leave it at a low ehp for less money but witn the risk of an easy destruction of the warstructure.

    btw i. low sec obviously so corps can hire mercs to kill the structure and end the war

    ReplyDelete
  11. forgot to add the reason why i actually wanted to comment.

    you really go a bit too much on about the same guy and all the stuff you think is wrkng with him. i've been reading your blog for quite some time now and always enjoyed it but the last days/weeks always reading about kelduum here does get boring. it also looks like you arent the least bit objective in that matter and just have a personal grudge on him and e-uni. these posts probably dont accomplish what you want them to. after all this ranting it makes you look worse than him....

    ReplyDelete
  12. Poetic, I think you have some great points in here. I love your stance with the E-Uni. I have had some experiences with Unistas and am actually in the queue to join them, but I am having second thoughts after being in queue for weeks and hearing some things.

    On another note, I think your blog is excellent. I recently went back and started reading all of your posts from the beginning. You even inspired me to start my first ever blog haha. I am a noob when it comes to blog writing so feel free to give me any thoughts on how I can do better. Its titled Fenix's Eve.

    http://www.fenixeve.blogspot.com/

    ReplyDelete
  13. @Gorl Why? When I graduated from the university I did in real life, I'm not allowed to be critical of that institution, or else I have to give back my diploma?

    ReplyDelete
  14. @Anon I'm not running for CSM7, so whether I look bad or not is of no consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Gotta say I agree with most of the post. I spent some time (not on Grimmash) in the Uni, and ths campaign has disappointed me. I thought E-Uni was going to field a better front for the election than whatever it is Kelduum is doing.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Keldumb is not even half the candidate that Dierdra Vaal was

    CSM is about improving eve

    ofc candidates will want to improve "what they do in eve" aka self interests

    however making the game more friendly towards hisec wardecs and corp interfaces ... really is fail

    i understand that eve uni does something good for eve, however eve uni is simply a small paddling pool encircled by the WSOP and many many many rules (im not joking, there are a lot of rules) whereas the importance is the ocean of eve

    ReplyDelete