These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
4 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

High Sec Candidate

First post First post
Author
#1 - 2016-01-12 21:47:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Hello!

My name is Lorelei and I am announcing my candidacy for CSM XI. I am running on a platform that is focussed on High Sec. I am a self-confessed High Sec Carebear and am proud of it. I have analysed the commitments planned/coming up in my life for the next year and have decided that I can afford the time to run for CSM XI!

This is my Campaign Thread from last year:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664

This is my CapStable Podcast Interiew:

http://capstable.net/blog/2015/01/26/lorelei-ierendi/

And this is my infrequently used blog:

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

But to recap for people that do not want to jump to other web sites:

Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart?
I would like there to be a "High Sec" platform, for a candidate for the CSM. If no one else wants to step up to the plate, then I will. If someone else wants to run for CSM for the benefit of High Sec gameplay, then I am happy to step down and support them... if they can do a better job.

The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem...

This I know. I know that, although numerically High Sec has the largest number of log-ins... accounts... players... I know that High Sec will probably never be able to gather together enough in order to support a CSM candidate. But that is no reason to not try!!
Come on, High Sec! If something is important for you, stand up for it!!!

Who am I?

I am a High Sec Carebear, and proud of it!
High Sec Carebears tend not to socialize too much, and are only members of NPC or small corporations.

Well, this is not the first character I have created in order to play "EVE". I have never been a member of a big alliance or coalition. I have never been a member of a big corporation. Hell, I have never left High Sec space before the CSMX Election..

I gained my love of Spaceship games by playing Elite... way back on my ZX Spectrum 48k+ (with a jammed SHIFT key (jammed as in... raspberry jam)). Back then it was possible to try docking with a space station and to accidentally line up with the back of the station... and die whilst trying to fly through the back of the station to the entrance. Fun times.

I graduated to Frontier: Elite II on a 486 PC, and spent my time happily flying between Barnard's Star, SOL, and Wolf 359. I should have been studying, but flying a (mostly harmless) panther fully loaded with robots was more fun.

I kept my eyes open for an online version of a space-sim... and that is where EVE comes in.
I really enjoy (as in "really") flying transports, fulfilling contracts, and, sometimes, mining.

My CSM Platform 2016:

I think it is important for people to know what the CSM is, and can achieve. I could not run claiming that I would make all spaceships pink. As a member of the CSM I would not be in a position to dictate to CCP or enforce any "election promises". The CSM seems to have taken a hit in its popularity this year. The scandals have meant that CCP and the Player Base have lost some trust in this institution.

But well:

- None Of The Above: Campaigning for an opportunity for people to vote for the CSM, but to vote for None Of The Above. The problem of player participation is disproportionately affecting those of us in high sec (because we carebears are not exactly non-solo).
In order to increase the possibility of player participation, maybe CCP could add a line of text to the Downtime Popup that bothers us so much every day. Reminding players to vote is not a bad thing.

Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case. On my blog I mentioned changes to Concord that I would like to see. I would also like to see some changes to Ice Spawning (maybe in random systems?) that would mean that the gankers would have to move around to gank ice miners! Local chat could also be changed to provide less free "intel" to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local... just the number of pilots.
Please read my last thread before posting questions... high sec is worth fighting for!

New Player Experience: The opportunities are better than the system last year... but still do not teach a new player how to use DSCAN.

Player Corporations: See my blog for details. The need for player groups that are just social has not changed. This is one of the things that I am going to be carrying over from my campaign from last year.

But when all is said and done, I believe a CSM member needs to be a conduit for information exchange between CCP and the players. I do not think that the CSM should be used for the Metagame.

Thank you for reading this far. I am looking forward to working with you / hearing from you, and although I am always busy at this time of year, I promise to read every post in my thread.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#2 - 2016-01-12 22:52:18 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank.


There's a 99% way to avoid being ganked, and that's being attentive. Why try to fix what isn't broken at all?


Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Rote Kapelle
#3 - 2016-01-13 07:27:09 UTC
I'm sure this thread will only be ravaged by fellow CODE. bros and the like, so I figured I would take this chance to talk about ganking, as it takes up a large chunk of your platform. A little background on me; I am a ganker, wardeccer, scammer, and former awoxer and make my living as such. I joined EVE on a cresting wave of advertising to "be the villain" in EVE Online and blogs from criminals and griefers.

Having read through a few of your recent blog posts, specifically the one regarding the changes you would like to see for CONCORD, (random spawning times, response times, and greater patrols) I don't agree that these changes would create better conditions for potential victims, rather they would just further complicate operations for gankers. Creating "random within ranges" of response times and spawning for CONCORD in different security systems just means that I would need to wait a few days until CODE. bros (You know who you are) tested the ranges into the ground and determined new ranges from which gankers could effectively gank targets. Seriously. No matter what changes are made, as long as CCP doesn't take away our red button we will find a way to gank efficiently. As for patrols, I'm still unclear on their effectiveness considering that most gankers don't usually do much ganking within 15 minutes of their previous ganking. Keep in mind that CONCORD serves the purpose of reactively punishing criminal activity. You compare CONCORD to the Police, but its purpose is to punish, not save lives. In short, I think you want to punish gankers because you see them as a group that has effectively broken the system, and currently don't have a hard counter.

I'm sure you're going to find some support for your initiative, but I don't forsee CCP making these changes. I talked to the "greatly despicable" Mike Azariah a few months ago about the highsec criminal community in the wake of the news of hyperdunking getting axed by CCP. The one thing that stuck with me was him telling me that ganking was something that CCP actually supports as content because it serves a reminder that you are never safe in EVE. It's just a little something that keeps my cold heart pumping, as I hold ganking dear as one of the few pillars of highsec piracy.

I think it was best put by FloppietheBanjoClown in his recent post regarding Good Guys in Highsec:
Quote:
High sec was never meant to be 100% safe. Get that idea out of your head. CONCORD is punishment, not protection. If you want New Eden to be safer, it’s up to you to make that happen. So keep doing what you do, white knights. Oppose CODE. and all the rest of the bad guys in Eve. Force us to get creative and adapt, and we’ll do the same for you. Only good things can come from it. At the end of the day, you’ll have done something new and different.


So why not promote ideas for making highsec more fun by creating new opportunities, careers, and above all else content! What happened to Bounty Hunters and an actual functional bounty system? How about player integration and roles in Empire space or even CONCORD? I understand that the whole election promises business is kind of a farce for the CSM, but at the same time members are still giving an input on the development of the game and future plans, so no reason to shy away from making suggestions.

Good luck, but you don't have my vote. Pirate

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

SpaceMonkey's Alliance
#4 - 2016-01-13 17:25:32 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
I could not run claiming that I would make all spaceships pink.


Yes you can! :P

That alone gives you my vote!

Contact Me!!

In Game: Widget Zombie

Reddit: /u/exwidget

TweetFleet Slack: widgetzombie

Twitter: @Widgetzombie

#5 - 2016-01-14 00:36:09 UTC
Widget Zombie wrote:
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
I could not run claiming that I would make all spaceships pink.


Yes you can! :P

That alone gives you my vote!


Then I promise, if elected, I shall ask the devs to make a pink skin. Cool

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#6 - 2016-01-14 00:43:15 UTC
Hi Vic!

Thanks for stopping by my campaign thread!
As I see by your signature, you are running as well! Best of luck with your attempts!

Vic Jefferson wrote:
There's a 99% way to avoid being ganked, and that's being attentive.


Prove it. 99%... I would like to see some numbers.

It is true, that with increased grid sizes there is more of a warning, but how much do you mine or haul without getting ganked?

Vic Jefferson wrote:
Why try to fix what isn't broken at all?


Not fix, change.
For example, the CONCORD mechanics as they are just do not seem to make sense. At the very least the CONCORD response needs to be adjusted to the new grid sizes.

Don't forget, the CSM does not dictate to CCP what should or should not be done. Have you read this blog: http://www.ninveah.com/2016/01/poisoned-well.html
or one of the many like it?


http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#7 - 2016-01-14 00:49:21 UTC
Toxic Yaken wrote:
I'm sure this thread will only be ravaged by fellow CODE. bros and the like, so I figured I would take this chance to talk about ganking, as it takes up a large chunk of your platform...


Thanks for stopping by my thread.
Yes ganking takes up a large part of my platform... but there are other aspects to my platform as well. CODE. bros did not maul my campaign last year, and I am sure that they will not do it this year either.

It is getting late, and I will write a more thoughtful response to your post later/tomorrow when I am not so tired. It's nice to have some thoughtful input from the "pirate" community. After all, we are all in High Sec together, and high sec should be fun for everyone (or at least subject to rules and conditions that make sense and seem consistent).

Have you tried mining?

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Gallente Federation
#8 - 2016-01-14 02:00:54 UTC
Toxic Yaken wrote:

I'm sure you're going to find some support for your initiative, but I don't forsee CCP making these changes. I talked to the "greatly despicable" Mike Azariah a few months ago about the highsec criminal community in the wake of the news of hyperdunking getting axed by CCP. The one thing that stuck with me was him telling me that ganking was something that CCP actually supports as content because it serves a reminder that you are never safe in EVE. It's just a little something that keeps my cold heart pumping, as I hold ganking dear as one of the few pillars of highsec piracy.

Pirate


I never know if despicable is good or bad when in quotes like that.

Nice to see someone trying to represent hisec but you may want to watch for the balance of the game and what will and will not pass.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

#9 - 2016-01-14 02:28:31 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

Nice to see someone trying to represent hisec but you may want to watch for the balance of the game and what will and will not pass.

m


Thanks for stopping by, Mike!

Yes, I am aware of balance issues - and I am not wanting to turn High Sec into a theme park. I am actually trying to think of balance, or things making sense when I talk about things like CONCORD and different ice spawning mechanics.

CCP have already definitively spoken about bumping, ganking and stuff like that, and I am not naïve enough to think I could get them to change their mind! But those of us who Haul/Mine/Build are also out there (even if we never read forum threads or participate in discussions or vote in the CSM elections).

With all the pessimism about CSM things being blogged / talked about I am not sure what the future holds for the CSM and the role it will play in the future. But I will try to fly it like I mean it. o7

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Rote Kapelle
#10 - 2016-01-14 02:51:36 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:

I never know if despicable is good or bad when in quotes like that.

Nice to see someone trying to represent hisec but you may want to watch for the balance of the game and what will and will not pass.

m


I was using it humorously. Pirate

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

#11 - 2016-01-14 09:02:11 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Hi Vic!


Hi! Good luck in your campaign as well!

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:

It is true, that with increased grid sizes there is more of a warning, but how much do you mine or haul without getting ganked?


More than you would think actually, as I have lots to move around. It works pretty much the same as most things in this game where the antagonist party basically just has to find some one who gets careless or makes a mistake, leaving an opening for a gank. There's a reason why red and black frog don't complain about CODE.; the same reason extreme nullbears don't really get caught much; they know how to mitigate the risks associated with their profession and they know that the only kills antagonists get are the ones given to them. Use scouts, use webbing alts, pay attention, fit a tank, one or more of these will deny any chance of a gank happening. Honestly it's bad game play as there is no real back and forth; the antagonist is entirely reactive, waiting for a chance to strike.

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:

Not fix, change.
For example, the CONCORD mechanics as they are just do not seem to make sense. At the very least the CONCORD response needs to be adjusted to the new grid sizes.

Don't forget, the CSM does not dictate to CCP what should or should not be done. Have you read this blog: http://www.ninveah.com/2016/01/poisoned-well.html
or one of the many like it?


You want the game, and its players, to be able to sort out the good behaviors from the bad ones, rewarding the good, punishing the bad. It's honestly one of the few things that make the game unique. Considering a skillful and careful player can maintain extremely high levels of safety, I don't think CONCORD needs a buff or a change. You do not want to make it too hard to gank in high sec, nor too easy to remain safe. If anything I personally feel its too tilted towards the latter at the moment, but I am willing to hear it from both sides. I haven't ganked in HS in a long time, but at least from the antagonist side here, some people refused to be caught, while others simply let it happen - safety is a personal responsibility in this game, mechanics that do it for you removes part of what makes EvE, EvE. Basically, Its already to the point where you can be practically untouchable in HS, in my appraisal.

High sec is as safe as its players are informed.

Yes, I understand what the CSM does and is for. I would invite you to stop by my thread.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

#12 - 2016-01-14 20:58:29 UTC
Toxic Yaken wrote:

... Seriously. No matter what changes are made, as long as CCP doesn't take away our red button we will find a way to gank efficiently.


I know. I also know that CONCORD are not there to save the gankee from the ganker. But having them turn up after exactly the same time and then just sit around strikes a nerve.

Toxic Yaken wrote:

As for patrols, I'm still unclear on their effectiveness considering that most gankers don't usually do much ganking within 15 minutes of their previous ganking. Keep in mind that CONCORD serves the purpose of reactively punishing criminal activity.


I did not meant to imply "patrol" as in CONCORD are flying around the system looking for troublemakers... I meant it in a more abstract way. Surely those brave CONCORD ships have better things to do than spend the rest of the day sitting around in the Asteroid Belts. By having them fly off to do other things and getting rid of the pre-pulling / CONCORD manipulation mechanic was meant to make things simpler for all involved. And I do not have to sit in a belt with 1 CONCORD patrol present and see them watch and do nothing whilst the second Catalyst ganks me.

Toxic Yaken wrote:

I'm sure you're going to find some support for your initiative, but I don't forsee CCP making these changes. I talked to the "greatly despicable" Mike Azariah a few months ago about the highsec criminal community in the wake of the news of hyperdunking getting axed by CCP. The one thing that stuck with me was him telling me that ganking was something that CCP actually supports as content because it serves a reminder that you are never safe in EVE. It's just a little something that keeps my cold heart pumping, as I hold ganking dear as one of the few pillars of highsec piracy.


At fanfest last year CCP announced that ganking actually might help with player retention. However obscure that might seem to be, if CCP themselves said it... it must have a basis in fact. I am not trying to advocate getting ganking abolished, because I know that will never happen. I would like to see the mechanics being different.

Toxic Yaken wrote:
So why not promote ideas for making highsec more fun by creating new opportunities, careers, and above all else content! What happened to Bounty Hunters and an actual functional bounty system?


I thought about mentioning things like bounties and wardecs in my opening post - but unfortunately I myself don't have any direct ideas on how to make them better. Whilst there is work going on with wardecs amongst the player community, I have yet to hear of anything that would make bounty hunting an acceptable or workable calling.

Toxic Yaken wrote:
How about player integration and roles in Empire space or even CONCORD? I understand that the whole election promises business is kind of a farce for the CSM, but at the same time members are still giving an input on the development of the game and future plans, so no reason to shy away from making suggestions.


I am trying to keep myself away from election promises (apart from that pink ships thing). If I do get elected I will be trying to represent the interests of high sec. CCP has more than once stated unequivocally that High Sec Ganking and Bumping are here to stay - so it would be an obvious and outright lie and betrayal of voter trust for me to say "I will try to end Ganking". The Pirate community (as you say) is well organised and have managed to deal with every "nerf" that has until now been thrust upon them. I just personally think that things should be a little different...

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#13 - 2016-01-15 15:03:01 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:

Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case. On my blog I mentioned changes to Concord that I would like to see.
Sorry, perhaps this is just me but I cannot seem to find your proposed changes to CONCORD on your blog. Could you provide a link or a summary here?

But as to your point and has been pointed out above, you already have a better than 50% chance of "getting away" from a gank. Way more than 50% of the targets I consider ganking escape unscathed either because further investigation reveals they are too tanked, paying too much attention, a miscalculation on my part, or by just dumb luck warping away at the last minute. I would even venture to say anyone who knows what they are doing and spends a small amount of effort can avoid over 99% of all highsec ganks.

I am thinking though you mean to make the criminal highsec PvP encounters themselves less binary. I think such a thing is possible while keeping risk in highsec so I am curious about what ideas you might have.

As to risk, what is your current view on the risk vs. reward balance of highsec? Do you think the income levels possible in highsec are suitable for the current level of risk? If so, do you think this has any consequences for the game as a whole that you are concerned about?


Rote Kapelle
#14 - 2016-01-15 15:45:04 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Sorry, perhaps this is just me but I cannot seem to find your proposed changes to CONCORD on your blog. Could you provide a link or a summary here?


http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/2015/08/concord.html

I think this is it.

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

#15 - 2016-01-16 19:31:55 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:


As to risk, what is your current view on the risk vs. reward balance of highsec? Do you think the income levels possible in highsec are suitable for the current level of risk? If so, do you think this has any consequences for the game as a whole that you are concerned about?



Just quickly on the subject of risk... I felt safer mining in Provi than I do in High Sec. Earned more as well.

When I look at courier contracts, I sometime think "who would move that stuff for so little isk?". With the increase in Plex prices (last year they were about 800mill?) it is getting harder to plex an account by mining... The high end of the income levels possible in High Sec are, I am sure, ridiculous... but not everyone of us has 8 accounts logging in after downtime to mine an ice field to extinction, and then again when it comes back up again. The average Hisec carebear (who wont be reading these forums, or sadly voting in the election) will not be making that much.

I don't think risk vs reward is the only variable to consider. Fun vs reward is also very important.
Mining an Ice belt in a skiff is not much fun. There is not much to do except watch Netflix or browse youtube. The income I get from it is not enough to justify the lack of fun, and the risk is relatively minimal.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#16 - 2016-01-17 13:20:57 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:

I don't think risk vs reward is the only variable to consider. Fun vs reward is also very important.
Mining an Ice belt in a skiff is not much fun. There is not much to do except watch Netflix or browse youtube. The income I get from it is not enough to justify the lack of fun, and the risk is relatively minimal.
Isn't that the point? There a significant group of players who claim they run highsec Incursions not because the enjoy them, but because it has one of the highest ISK/hr in the game and comes with essentially zero risk thus no losses and only minimal downtime. Should not the game be structured so that these players can earn a rewarding income in the space they like to live and roam, rather than be compelled by the risk vs. reward balance to return to highsec to grind an income most efficiently in Incursions, blitzing L4s, AFK mining or whatever?

Making the safest space one of the most rewarding also has the detrimental effect of depleting the other sectors of space of activity, targets, and thus content decreasing the chance of player interaction and interesting gameplay. Should not the game be structured so that if you like running Incursions or AFK mining you can, but it is not so lucrative (given the near zero risk - and no, you should not feel more at risk mining in a Skiff in highsec as you have almost no chance of being ganked) that it incentivizes other players to return to highsec for the sole reason it maximizes their ISK (or effort) per hour, while killing their fun per hour?
Aldur Vaako
#17 - 2016-01-18 09:06:25 UTC
I am personally happy with high sec right now. I think the biggest misconception is that high sec is the safe zone, CCP has never pushed it as a safe zone more a safer area than the rest.

I have two characters that primarily make high sec their home and travel in it without incident with only the occasional KM. I think it's important to remember the role that gankers serve in the overall eve ecosystem and messing around with that will cause unintended consequences.

If your getting ganked follow the eve philosophy and get even. Blow them up.
#18 - 2016-01-18 18:09:15 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank.


That already exists. I have a few experimental haulers and miners that I use to bait ganks to test some ideas. One retriever in particular is running well over 50% survival right now. It's all in preparation and reaction.

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Local chat could also be changed to provide less free "intel" to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local... just the number of pilots.


Welp, you just forced all of low and null to completely change how they manage their security. That you think this sort of idea would ever get off the ground tells me just how poorly you've thought this out.

Highsec is indeed worth saving. But it won't be saved by further insulating residents from having to interact with those around them.

Founding member of the Belligerent Undesirables movement.

#19 - 2016-01-19 22:02:19 UTC
Black Pedro wrote:
Isn't that the point? There a significant group of players who claim they run highsec Incursions not because the enjoy them, but because it has one of the highest ISK/hr in the game and comes with essentially zero risk thus no losses and only minimal downtime.


Please define significant?
One could maintain that there are a significant group of players that think high sec ganking should be not possible........

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#20 - 2016-01-20 00:11:05 UTC
Quote:
Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case. On my blog I mentioned changes to Concord that I would like to see. I would also like to see some changes to Ice Spawning (maybe in random systems?) that would mean that the gankers would have to move around to gank ice miners! Local chat could also be changed to provide less free "intel" to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local... just the number of pilots.
Please read my last thread before posting questions... high sec is worth fighting for!


Yes, hi, hello, I have a question for the candidate.

I do a large volume of high-sec production which includes, in part, mining wessels and equipment for mining wessels.

Cross referencing my sales of mining wessels and equipment for mining wessels against killboard statistics reveals that many of my sales are to miners whose mining wessels and, consequently, equipment for mining wessels, have recently been destroyed by "ganks."

I would like to know how the candidate can realistically label herself as a "high sec candidate" while simultaneously proposing changes that would clearly be detrimental to highsec industrialists, particularly those producing goods in the mining wessel and equipment for mining wessels market segments.

Thank you.

"Help, I'm bored with missions!"

http://swiftandbitter.com/eve/wtd/

4 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump