PsychoBitch for CSM

PsychoBitch for CSM

Because every part of EVE is important

The Platform

The industry side of Eve needs more game design attention and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements
Making POS simpler to operate, making mining worthwhile and fun (YES - FUN (read as mini-game)), giving industrialists a ladder of skills to climb are all pieces that are important to fulfill the promise of the game. Every part of Eve is important.
Improving low sec is the single most important thing for CCP to do and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements
Making Pirating and factional warfare more interesting and specialized with new weapons and abilities is what is needed to keep Eve strong and vibrant. At the same time, we need to remove the barrier to entry into low and null sec to keep an ever growing population of aging players interested and intrigued. Give factional warfare branching missions instead of the same bunkers and a player command structure where they create the missions for others that want to rise through the ranks can accomplish. Every part of Eve is important.
0.0 is most in need of further development, and should be a priority over all other areas of the game that need improvements
SOV, need I say more? What is wrong you ask? This may be upsetting for those in the catbird's seat to hear, but current sov mechanics suck. In addition, I have never understood why NPC's would not attack more ferociously in their own space and wouldn't attack structures with capital ships. We never see the seat of power with any of the faction NPC's. It just ludicrous. Not to mention that the barrier to entry to null sec is incredibly high for those interested. Those people usually wind up going into a wormhole and getting mowed over there. I have a better way. Every part of Eve is important.
The core combat model of EVE lacks complexity and is too simple
No, not too simple. However there are additions to the combat model that we have heard about in years past. For example, Squad formations, whereas the members of a squad are slaved to the movements of the squad leader and the squad leader chooses a formation to fly in which would give you pluses and minuses to damage, speed, resists, etc. Another would be a key or mouse combo that would direct the ship to go in the direction of the cursor is going or pointing (Similar to Walking in stations dual mouse button walking). Simple and fun. These are just a few of many.
All existing ships should get clearly defined, useful roles before new ships are introduced to EVE
Disagree. There are roles for multipurpose ships as well as the well-defined roles of the specialization ships. I believe the specialized ships are well represented. But, there are always new roles and ships to be added :)
Local chat should be changed to delayed mode everywhere
Disagree. If it follows that chat is a function of the gates for storyline purposes, this would explain why there is no local in wormhole space. I only see a delayed mode local giving any great advantage to those already in entrenched in nullsec. I see no need for change.
All existing Tech II BPOs should be converted into high run BPCs
Disagree. People who have done what is necessary to obtain the BPO's should not be punished for having them - or for having been around when they were given out, or built up the billions of isk it usually costs to buy them. Making the game more homogenous is not a desirable result. Make things more unique and special is desirable.
CCP should commit one expansion cycle per year to an expansion that only contains improvements and fixes of existing content and mechanics
Disagree. One expansion cycle a year is far too few. Two is barely tolerable. There are too many things that need added and fixed in the game with too much urgency to reduce the cycle to one. I would suggest the CCP measure twice and cut once - as the saying goes.
CCP should devote an expansion cycle to revamping the User Interface
Disagree. User interface improvements are one of the few things that should be rolled out piecemeal with other expansion efforts. God knows that we have experienced the SNAFU of mass improvements. Given CCP's record, making the game unplayable due to a mass "interface improvement" could be catastrophic.
Players should be able to modify the Eve user interface (for example: as is possible in World of Warcraft)
Disagree. I didn't know we were playing WoW. Grow up! We already can thank to CCP's new neocom.
Static income sources like Tech moons are a good game mechanic for creating conflict and wealth
Agree. However the ability to do alchemy to obtain the same materials NEEDS to be added. When the price of tech goes from 20k isk to over 100k isk per unit, something has gone sideways. While moon mining remains a mainly nullsec industry - especially for the most profitable moons - which is as it should be - there ought to be a lower return way of making moon mats in hisec. Nullsec alliances should not be able to control entire markets. This argument could also be applied to the question of whether or not to remove all ice from hisec - only the most basic ice can be found in hisec and, despite the likely activity of mining bots, it should remain.
0.0 infrastructure should only be vulnerable to large fleets of organized players supported by (super)capital ships
Disagree. Infrastructure should be available to be destroyed or damage by every size and shape of fleet in eve without discrimination. If they can actually do it is another question. I am NOT saying that you need to lower the hitpoints, and it is bad enough that something so important to your sovereignty should be left to players alone to defend instead of help from guns akin to pos guns. I think that if players want to attack iHubs with bombers, knock yourselves out.
Services on NPC stations in 0.0 should be vulnerable to attack
Agree. Not only should services be vulnerable, but outposts should be available to be derelict and even destroyed. There isn't anything in eve which shouldn't be vulnerable. The level of destruction should only depend on the effort.
Income of 0.0 alliances should come from player activity in the space/territory owned by that alliance, rather than from a few major ISK faucets (such as moons)
Disagree. Anyone who thinks moons should not be a source of income in 0.0 is attempting to compensate for failing at eve. Taking the right to earn money away from people in eve simply based on their location is kinda dumb. If you can't complete, think about changing your play style. POS's are available for moon mining and reactions. Currently there are ways to sidestep having to buy most of the expensive moon mins with alchemy. This limits those moon mins inflationary effects. What needs to be done is the addition of more types of alchemy for moon mins like tech. Going back to the question, maybe there needs to be a balance - you shouldn't be able to hold onto your moons if you're not using the space for anything else. Maybe a set number of asteroids need to be mined to depletion every month, or a set number of complexes, or ratting, or all of the above - and once those targets are reached, your moons will work as expected for next month's cycle - so you can hit your targets a month in advance - but if you don't achieve them, then productivity falls to 0. This all goes towards the point of sov.
0.0 Logistics (moving, managing and creating supplies) is too safe at the moment
Disagree. I believe that logistics are satisfactorily at risk. The failure of attempts to disrupt logistics is a failure of the people conducting the operations. It is not our job to pander to the incompetent.
Jump bridges and Titan bridges should be nerfed to reduce power projection
Disagree. Jump Bridges are fine. It is bad enough that the poor titan has gone from being a mobile outpost, to a limited tactical weapon with logistics, to a limp mobile jump bridge. The current state of the Dooms Day weapon is pale and unexciting. FFS, don't make come down there and beat you with a rake!
Capital ships should not be insurable
Disagree. Any ship should be insurable provided it can dock. To make a ship uninsurable would prevent a small portion of the EVE citizenry from flying certain ships which they would not do otherwise. To think otherwise is poppycock!
Supercarriers should be able to dock in appropriately upgraded Outposts
Agree. If the owner of a super elects to risk getting out of said ship in an outpost only to have the corp turned non-gratis by the outpost owner and not be able to get back into it again, then god bless that chap. (read as chump).
There should be a mechanic that forces supercapitals to commit to a battle, just as siege/triage mode does that for regular capital ships
Disagree. It is already in game. It is the cool down timer from the Doomsday weapon (though hardly as potent as it's name).
CCP needs to change game mechanics so that blobbing is no longer effective
Disagree. Blobbing is a bunch of friends playing the game together We're not in the business of punishing people for having friends. EVE rewards team work. If you're having trouble competing then maybe you should change your play style.
The CSM should oppose any further expansion of microtransactions in EVE
Disagree. Microtransations are fine for non-effective or vanity items. Example, clothes, medals, artwork - ship skins for example - I want some of those! Things not ok are anything that improves your chances at winning. I believe this has already been agreed by CCP.
The CSM's primary role is to identify the good ideas generated by the playerbase and suggest them to CCP
Disagree. It is but ONE role the CSM serves. What I view the most important role is to kick CCP's ass when they do stupid stuff, which appears to be often. But yeah, we're there to speak on behalf of the player base, whether that's passing on suggestions for improvements or loudly voicing complaints.
The CSM election mechanics should be changed to limit the influence of organized voting blocs
Agree. There are several mechanics that could be employed to attempt to inhibit a massive organization from gaining to much control over the CSM and for extended periods of time. Incumbents should not be allowed to serve another term to allow for fresh ideas. Delegates from major blocs should not be allowed to serve but once every two years per bloc. A lottery of the available candidates is worth considering. There are many other proposals that are worth thinking about.
The CSM should report to the community on it's activities and progress at least once a month via official channels (devblogs, eve online forums, etc)
Agreed. Accountability is paramount.
Mining should be the primary source of raw minerals in EVE
Agreed. Is there any other way, LOL
Level 5 missions should be available in high security space
Agreed. There is no reason not to. Any level mission should be available anywhere. It is the pilots choice to accept of decline the mission. Grinding level 4s is kinda soul-destroying - missions do need another tier - and most folk won't take their shiny mission boats into lowsec.
Missions and exploration sites should be made more like PvP
Agreed. A random branching algorithm would certainly help. Additions of erratic behavior, unexpected reinforcements, sudden capital ship appearances, additional outcomes should make missions and exploration site unpredictable and exciting. But having said that, a third party should not be able to complete YOUR mission. If the agent gave the mission to you, then only you can complete it and cause it to despawn. We already deal with ninja salvagers and sometimes looters - mission griefing is fairly common. If that pvp element were to escalate into you being unable to complete your mission cos some other guy arrived while you were afk for a bio and blew up the pleasure gardens and ran off with the damsel then that's just screwy. Exploration sites don't belong to anyone though.
The game needs more PvE (missions, exploration, etc) content
Agreed. A random branching algorithm would certainly help. Additions a erratic behavior, unexpected reinforcements, sudden capital ship appearances, additional outcomes should make missions and exploration site unpredictable and exciting. Sound familiar? I don't think it exclusively needs more content - just that the existing content should be improved - as you said, random elements making it less predictable; moving level 5 missions into hisec making another tier available; epic arc missions need some love as do cosmos missions. Some of the cosmos stuff needs tidying up badly - one mission gives you an introduction to an agent that doesn't exist in the game - I've had this confirmed by a GM btw. There's LOTS of pve available in EVE - some of it directed at solo efforts (missions, mining) and some requires the team effort of a fleet (better mining, incursions). Maybe its just a question of making sure people know and fully understand what's available.
The low risk income potential in high security space (missions, incursions) is too high and should be reduced

Disagree. Vehemently. The potential for profit should not be curtailed. It is the same for the people complaining about people in low sec making profit. Everything in hisec exists in lowsec/nullsec in bigger and better ways. You can't punish people for making isk in hisec.

The real issue here is the isk being made by incursion farmers. For the first time there's an income stream in hisec that approaches the reward levels of those of nullsec. It's not ‘zero risk', as I keep hearing, but I will agree that if you know what you're doing and you're flying with a competent fleet, the risk factor becomes a lot lower. There are still ways to disrupt incursion fleets though and we do sometimes see Concord in sites. As far as the farming goes - why not? It's acceptable to spend all week farming Worlds Collide and Angel Extravaganza - why not sansha spawns? I do think that the various sites could be better balanced however. At the moment almost everyone is running Vanguards because they give the highest isk per hour ratio. It would make more sense if Assault sites were buffed so that they could hit the same ratio if done properly; thus making site choice purely a matter for fleet size. HQ sites are kinda pointless just now because no-one does them. I'd also like to see the Kundalini Manifest only spawning after a set time period - say 3 days - and only remaining for a limited time - if a fleet isn't formed to kill it within, say, 6 hours, then none of the LP pool gets paid out - thus encouraging all the little separate fleets to join up and get the job done but also DIScouraging disgruntled pvpers like Kissada from spoiling sport for the incursion runners.

Factional Warfare should include the various pirate factions (Guristas, Serpentis, etc)
Agreed. Sounds like a great way to diversify the factional warfare landscape.
Roleplaying is not sufficiently supported in Eve Online
Bombs should be usable in low sec
Disagree. Bombs are fine for null sec. Low sec is not no sec.
Medical clone costs should be greatly reduced
Disagree. The prices are fine.
The war-dec system is unbalanced in favour of the agressor and should be changed to fix this
Agreed. The war-dec system needs an overhaul. The price threshold for war is too low. The use of neutral repairers should automatically make the neutral open for concordokken. (When two boxers are in an arena to fight, the referees don't let the audience get involved in the fight, LOL. Reminds me of throwing D cell batteries at pitchers during Yankee games) The issue of NRR is becoming a deciding factor in hisec warfare - wars are won or lost on who has the most NRR support. We need a viable way to combat this - the current game mechanics just aren't working. When a corp or alliance declares war and then retracts it they can immediately fight. W T F?!
Invention and production should be made more profitable
Disagree. Profitability is determined by the market. You can't have an automatic, I MAKE PROFIT button. Sorry. You have to do the math to work out what's the best thing to build this week just like the rest of us.
Mining in its current form is boring and should be changed to be more challenging
Agreed. You could have mining events, like mining accidents, where a roid explodes or shatters, or if there is higher grade ore concealed inside. Mining comets, etc.
Player owned structures should get a major overhaul, even if this means less development time is left for other areas of the game
Agreed. They need a top to bottom revamp. When we came up with the idea of "fuel pellets" when POS's first came out, they were not supposed to REPLACE regular fuel. But, be an additional form of being able to fuel your tower and perhaps provide savings. Instead CCP F's it up again. GREAT WORK.
Pirating as a profession needs significant development attention from CCP
Agree. Pirating, salvaging, ECM, all should have special abilities if you train specific skills that specialize the profession.
Suicide ganking should be a viable tactic and gameplay style
Agreed. There is nothing that should prevent people from shooting their sec status in the foot. It adds excitement and unpredictability to the game
Tier 2 battlecruisers (Drake, Myrmidon, Hurricane and Harbinger) are overpowered and should be nerfed
Disagree. Battleships (should) take a long time to skill into properly - battlecruisers are often the ship a young player spends most of his time in. They need a decent tank and an ability to kill things quickly. It'is one of the reason these ships are still so favored for pvp - they work - doesn't mean they're overpowered.