These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

CSM Campaigns

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
3 PagesPrevious page123

Jin'taan for CSM XII

First post
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#41 - 2017-03-08 14:47:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Jin'taan
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Cochise Chiricahua.

First of all, as you might have seen, I ran a Highsec ganking roundtable and am familliar with the concerns of both sides. I think that right now perma-bumping is the most degenerate part of that mechanic, as it is the definition of gamebreaking (the only way to counter a bumper is with another bumper). However, bumping in and of itself is a needed mechanic, as it gives a way for the actual interaction to take place. As such I've talked to Fozzie about the idea he presented last fanfest (of ships entering warp after a given amount of time spent bumping off things) in detail, understanding how it might be implemented and what issues it would present in other areas of the game.

I think that the idea you've presented would make logical in-universe sense, however given the way that the mechanics of EvE function with regards to Crimewatch, that would be hillariously difficult to implement, as the flag is given by the action of looting, not the cargo itself. In addition to this, the CSM is not a junior game development, and whilst yes we could champion an idea, CCP is very, very unlikely to actually implement it. And I can say that from having made that mistake in my current term. So, no, I wouldn't push it. However I have been willing to talk to both sides this term and discuss what their main issues are and how they operate so that if CCP wants to know about how either side works and what they do, or if I spot an opportunity to touch on a QoL benefit for either side, I'll take it.

At the end of the day, it's difficult to make ganking 'dangerous' as it's a mathematically solved problem without the interaction with players that the Hisec Militia provides, or introducing some form of hard RNG into the game (which I find to be inherently un-EVE). I find many people use it as an obfuscating term for making ganking 'harder' as they feel it's too easy, and perhaps that's a valid stance, but I dislike the way it's presented in that manner. I - and both the gankers and anti-gankers I've talked to - feel that introducing more room for interaction on the ganker and anti-ganker side would improve the overall experience for both sides of the law, and the potential victim. Still, I'm always open for reasoned discussion here, so feel free to present any counter-arguments you have :)
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#42 - 2017-03-26 14:14:52 UTC
Today is the last day for you to possibly vote in the CSM election, so I hope that you'll consider me for your ballot. Either way, I hope you do find someone who you feel will represent you to CCP and vote accordingly.
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
#43 - 2017-04-10 15:59:18 UTC
A massive thank you to everyone who voted for me, I truly appreciate it, and am sure that I will be able to do everyone proud during CSM 12. Stay tuned for updates on exactly what will be happening on the communication front, as I'm looking to broach with other newly elected members to get their views on the matter and align ourselves in a proper coordinated strategy.
3 PagesPrevious page123
Forum Jump