CSM Campaigns

Easy solution: delay before you can light a cyno after jumping to one.

Before you say something can't work, stop and ask yourself if you have closed off all of the possibilities. If you don't have special training in this field of mental brainstorming work, you're probably better off with the simple mantra: never say it's impossible.

"The wheel is round!"
"No! No! No! I demand you waste your time to do a three year investigation with proof of it rolling down different hills, that you find a new way to calculate Pi and then prove to me how round it is compared to a square!"

That is how absurd this seems to me.
"I must hold onto the hate! It is the best tool for channeling my energies and controlling the force! "

Seriously, though, if I end up being one of the CSM, I need to hold onto a little bit of everything I can. Confusion, indignation and that annoyance that took me to the brink of deleting EVE forever; are some of the tools to empathise with newbies, for example.
(Maybe CCP should make some innuendo statement, such as, "Do not worry, it hurts the most the first time but soon you will enjoy it," as a pop up when someone dies to another player for the first time.

Cloaked inte gatherer is rare? Where's the proof? And how is someone who is actually AFK going to hurt you? I don't see the argument here. We are arguing what ifs. The AFK cloaky camper argument is like arguing with code over ganking. If your scared to play because someone is cloaked then he is doing his job.

I only want a pilot jump limit and re-cyno delay on covert cynos, but that's beside the point. I was pointing out that you were being to quick to seal the idea off as not possibly working. Go ahead and disagree with it, or pick out problems with it. But you should slow down a bit before dropping accusations that it's ill-conceived from the ground up and couldn't possibly be further balanced to work decently.



I hope not. Most of us are able to find ways to die even while cloaked.



The burden of proof always lies on the one making an extraordinary claim, regardless of political position. source

I'm not really sure who was making extraordinary claims as I can't really tell what you guys were going on about for sure.

I think we are getting away from Jen's campaign.

Yeah, she used to hate nullsec, now she hates PvP of any kind. I have seen her recently speak out against several things, and the only thing they had in common is that they all enable PvP of some kind.

I see no merit whatsoever in their candidacy. So here's my endorsement. If you don't hate PvP of every kind, don't vote for the OP.




And I think a good player can never grow out of a bad attitude. And I still see that in spades.




But so much less fun. Nevermind that this is not an F&I suggestion, no matter how much it looks like one. This is the CSM campaign. "constructive" criticism is quite simply not called for here. Especially towards someone who rabidly refuses to answer any criticism with anything other than summary dismissals.

But they can warp while cloaked. Main reason I think covert cyno hotdrops should be limited in size is because they so easily evade intel that you never know if they're coming except when the system is completely free of non-blues. It seems unreasonable to me that one red in local could potentially turn into 250 reds in an instant and not at a gate or other beacon visible on the overview, and there's no way for you to calculate the probability with available intel.

I would have limited the size to 10 ships per covert cyno, which is plenty enough for a good gank and to hold ground while waiting out a brief timer of, say, 1 minute until they can light a regular cyno or more covert cynos. Also, easy way around the limitation is to bring multiple covert ops ships through the gates in the first place. Depending on how that pans out, might have to limit to 5 per covert cyno after all, but I'm optimistic about it.

---

A brief summary of views expressed in this thread, for comparison:

---

Jenshae Chiroptera: The ease of forcing PVP upon an unwilling participant should be balanced with the unwilling participant's ability to prevent PVP. Both parties should have to work toward their goal, and both should be given the tools to do so.

Most responders: We don't want you on CSM because you are anti-PVP and you want themepark gameplay, but this is a PVP game and themepark gameplay should be marginalized to a strong degree.

Most supporters: Themepark gameplay is currently over-marginalized and while PVP is acceptable, we want enough safety to make PVE activities outside of highsec even viable at all.

Reaver Glitterstim: Jenshae's proposals have undergone many edits and reiterations since the original, and I recommend you all to take a look at what has changed. While I am only partially in support of Jenshae's candidacy platform, that support is growing quickly and I am eager to see what she comes up with next. I suspect Jenshae will make an excellent CSM candidate in a later election.

I did. I also reported her posting here in the first place, since she was doing this as a deliberate farce to advocate for the dissolution of the CSM.

And since you went ahead and reposted a TL;DR, it turns out I was right.



My rebuttal.

Go back to WoW. PvP is a fundamental part of EVE, non consensual PvP included. There exist already more than enough means for prevention of PvP, in all areas of space. Well, that is, if you use your whole ass.

The OP's candidacy exists solely to campaign for the right of people to play the game deliberately incorrectly and still be safe from harm.

If you want a themepark, go play one. Stop trying to shove that distasteful thing into my sandbox game, it is most unwelcome.

It's an excellent example of an obvious strawman, anyway.



A PvE player can just as easily cloak in a safe. Nothing prevents them from doing this, it is not some exclusive activity, nor do you make money while doing so. In fact, you can't do a whole lot of anything.

What PvE players want, on the other hand, is to be safe while performing lucrative activities.

That is 100% unacceptable.

Here I will heed your wishes, but my normal response is to adamantly continue to treat all criticisms with a serious, honest, and direct tone and give them reasonable attention as if they were meaningful posts, whether or not I suspect them to be.