These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Crime & Punishment

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
123Next pageLast page
 

My Views On Hisec - CSM Platform

First post
Author
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#1 - 2015-08-20 23:11:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
As many of you know, I have been nominated to run for CSM. This thread is my first attempt at solidifying a CSM platform. I am posting it here because much of what I have to say deals with wardecs and hisec risk, issues the denizens of C&P are well versed in. Understand that these are not promises as CSM members actually have limited power, but these are all things I'd like to make happen if given the opportunity.

I feel that hisec is stagnant, and know that I am not alone in this belief. It seems to me that too many players are living out their hisec lives in NPC corps relatively risk-free earning the same kinds of incomes that players in player corps do, and that everyone in hisec is earning a much better living than those living in riskier areas of space. I have several proposals to rectify this. (In the interest of fairness, I cannot claim credit for creating any of the individual suggestions below, I am merely collecting ideas that I think come together cohesively.)

1. Overhaul wardec mechanics.

One large motivation to stay in an NPC corp is the threat of wardec, and rightly so. Currently, it is almost trivial for a large, experienced PvP corp to wardec any number of smaller entities for an effectively unlimited time. On the flip side, it is also exceedingly easy for members of a player corp who don't want to participate in a wardec to simply drop corp and wait the war out, or to reform in a new corp. I want to move away from the current state of a handful of large merc corps wardeccing everyone under the sun and unwilling targets simply disbanding. Instead, I'd like to see a larger numbers of smaller merc corps wardeccing targets for a specific purpose instead of just for easy station ganks and targeted corps staying whole to protect what they've built.

1A. Cap aggressive wardecs. I am generally not in favor of hard caps in EvE, but after speaking with a few pilots in large merc corps I feel this one makes sense. By allowing for unlimited aggression, blanket wardecs and trolling wardecs are encouraged and I feel this strongly hampers player corp creation. I had considered scaling wardec fees to increase with number of aggressive wardecs, but it was pointed out to me that this would just encourage very large merc corps in order to cover the higher fees which runs counter to my goals. 10 feels like a good number, but this is up for discussion.This has been thoroughly overcome by events. Kill it dead with fire. Arbitrary mechanics are bad, even if they serve a purpose.

1B. Change wardec fees. I would suggest keeping the current wardec fee (50 million ISK) the same, but have it scale based on the relative size of the invovled corps (it scales up if attacking a smaller corp, the number of active wardecs, and down if attacking a larger one) and the length of the war (the more time you've spent at war with a corp in the past six months, the more expensive it is to maintain). These scale factors (the specifics of which would need to be determined) would be applied to each wardec every time the bill is issued (i.e. you wouldn't get billed or refunded for changes mid-war). I feel that this change would still allow hisec PvP corps to carry on about their business of havoc and mayhem, but would discourage large corps from targeting small corps, discourage blanket wardecs, encourage smaller mercenary corps by way of cheaper wardec fees, and encourage aggressors to meet their goals quickly instead of dragging wars out.

1C. Change corporation behavior. While engaged in a wardec (as either as a defender/ally or an aggressor), all corporation members would receive a 48 hour cooldown before being able to leave the corporation. While the wardec is active, any player who clicks "leave corporation" would start the 48 hour cooldown and could leave the corp after that cooldown has expired, much like a director has to wait 24 hours after dropping roles to leave. This guarantees the aggressor at least 24 hours of defender vulnerability to combat, while still leaving the defenders able to evade the war to some extent if they so choose. Note that this change would apply to all corps involved in the war, so it would apply to aggressors and defensive allies as well as defenders. I am aware that there is some potential for abuse here (i.e. hostile alt joins corp, hostile's main wardec corp, hostile's alt gets free reign in corp for 48 hours) but I feel that potential can be effectively mitigated by proper use of roles and friendly fire settings.

In addition, so long as a corp has an active aggressive wardec, any player being accepted into the corp as a member would have a 48 hour cooldown before actually being admitted. This is to discourage merc corps from abusing the fact that wardec costs would scale with relative aggressor and target size. (i.e. large aggressor dumps all members but the CEO, wardecs small corp, all mercs rejoin aggressor.) I realize that this wouldn't prevent it outright but it should hopefully be enough to discourage it, especially with multiple wars running concurrently.
Kill this one dead too. Again, arbitrary mechanics are bad.


Continued below....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#2 - 2015-08-20 23:11:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
2. Overhaul Player Corps.

Currently, player corps only offer limited benefits over NPC corps, and I think this is driving part of the stagnation of hisec. In order to get players out of NPC corps and interacting more, I think player corps need a buff.

2A. Tax NPC corps. Strictly speaking, yes, this is a nerf to NPC corps, not a buff to player corps, but the net effect is the same. After 90 days in an NPC corp out of the last 180, a player would be subject to a tax on all station-based activities (EDIT: and collected bounties) for as long as they remain in an NPC corp. I would place this tax at somewhere around double the current base NPC corp tax. This new tax would apply to placing market orders (buying and selling), creating contracts, installing industry and research jobs, reprocessing, repairs, and mission rewards. Anything that you do in a station would be taxed after you've been in an NPC corp long enough to meet the criteria. This tax can be eliminated by joining a player corp, but would be immediately re-imposed if you re-joined the NPC corp within 90 days due to the "90 out of 180" requirement. The goal here is to encourage people to leave NPC corps while requiring those who stay in NPC corps pay for the relative safety they are afforded by wardec immunity. I realize that this would not impact many things done in space, particularly mining, exploration, hauling, etc., and that these activities could still be performed in NPC corps with no penalty as they are now. However, refining, using, or selling any goods gathered in space, or buying and selling goods to be hauled, would still be taxed. I don't feel that a change to in-space mechanics (aside from taxes on bounties), which would likely be no small undertaking, justifies the potential benefit. As with all things, I am open to discussion about this though.Kill this one dead with fire too. Carrots a better than sticks, and hisec needs a rebalancing, not nerfing.

2B. Player corp "Maturity". I started off pretty vague with where I wanted to go with this, but now I think I have it covered. Within each player corp, certain activities would gain slight cost reductions over time as corp members repeatedly performed those actions. This bonus is called the Maturity factor, reflecting the fact that the corporation is maturing over time. Do lots of refining in a player corp? Eventually your refining "costs" (i.e. wastage) would be reduced. Do lots of manufacturing? Lower manufacturing costs. Each activity that involves a fixed fee (refining, trading, manufacturing, and research) would have its own Maturity factor. I don't have a particular mechanism in mind for building up Maturity (this would need to be sorted out), and I don't feel that the max bonus should be too high (10% at the absolute max). I'm leaning towards not including mission rewards at this point (i.e. ISK/LP rewards go up with Maturity) because I'm seeking to encourage player corp participation and more risk taking while discouraging corp "recycling", not drive up hisec income. (Yes, I do realize that lower costs and higher refines will increase net profit, but without adding extra ISK to the market through higher rewards, the market will likely adjust nicely.) Players in NPC corps would lose absolutely nothing over what they have now, they would just operate at higher costs than players in mature player corps.

3. Adjust hisec agents.

Currently, level 1-4 agents for empire factions are scattered approximately equally throughout empire space, whereas level 5 agents are available only in losec. This creates ample opportunity to earn a good living running level 4 missions in a 0.9 or 1.0 system, which I feel violates the risk vs. reward principle. I would propose that mission agents have their ISK and LP rewards scaled up with decreasing security status. be adjusted such that higher level and quality agents are only available in lower security status systems. Thus, in 1.0 systems you could find level 1 agents, maybe a low quality level 2 agent, whereas to find level 4 agents you'd need to go to a 0.5 system (or losec). This would re-distribute income sources in a manner more appropriate with the risk associated with them. It also makes more sense to me from a lore standpoint as the empires are weakest in their least-secure systems and would be more likely to require more advanced capsuleer assistance. Whether existing agents, with their associated player standings, are actually moved to different systems, or whether agents simply have their levels adjusted based on the security level of their system is something I'm willing to discuss. I am aware that this would likely cause a massive, yet hopefully brief, upheaval as hisec mission runners move their assets to find their new agents, but I feel the long term benefit will be more than worth the temporary growing pains.

4. Remove hisec Sansha's Nation incursions.

Many people suspect that the current Sansha's Nation hisec incursions are ending with the coming of Drifter incursions, but I still wanted to call this out here. The current incursions in hisec offer far too much profit for far too little risk and I think this further violates the "risk vs. reward" balance crucial to EvE. The current Sansha's incursions in losec and nullsec are fine as far as I'm concerned.


Continued below....

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#3 - 2015-08-20 23:12:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
5. Adjust hisec mining.

Currently, different ores are distributed based on the NPC faction owning the space and the security level of the system. While this is a good start, I feel it needs to be taken a step further. (Note, these changes would only apply to ores in fixed asteroid belts in hisec, not anomalies containing ice or rare ores or belts outside of hisec. I'm open to changing those if necessary, but I feel that hisec belts are the problem.)

5A. Limit higher quality ore variants. I would limit +10% variant ores to 0.6 systems and below and +5% variant ores to 0.8 systems and below. This would leave only "base" ores in 0.9 and 1.0 systems and shift mining profitability towards lower security (but still hisec) space.

5B: Shift the ore/security scale. Currently, Veldspar and Scordite are available everywhere, Pyroxeres and Plagioclase are available in 0.9 and below, and Kernite and Omber are available in 0.7 and below. (This varies slightly by region, but it's the highest security that a given ore is available.) I would shift this distribution down the security scale. Veldspar would be available everywhere, Scordite would be available in 0.9 and below, Pyroxeres and Plagioclase would be available in 0.8 and below, and Kernite and Omber would be available in 0.6 and below. This would also shift mining profitability towards lower security (but still hisec) space.

5C: Balance the Procurer and Skiff. Currently, we have three "flavors" of mining barges: max yield, max capacity, and max tank. I feel that this is a good balance overall with one exception: The Procurer and Skiff currently have almost double the ore capacity that the Covetor and Hulk have, respectively. This leaves them in the position of being relatively low risk to fly due to their sturdy tanks yet still able to mine for a considerable amount of time before having to offload, which is supposed to be the regime of the Retriever and Mackinaw. I would suggest adjusting the ore holds on both the Procurer and Skiff down by ~25% to 9000 m^3 and 11500 m^3 respectively to better balance them in relation to the other barges and force players to make harder choices when it comes to mining in relative safety. While I realize that this will have an impact on mining everywhere, not just hisec, I feel that the impact will be most felt there given their rightful popularity in the presence of suicide gankers.



In their entirety, I feel that these changes would make wardecs and player corp membership more meaningful and shift some of the primary sources of hisec income towards lower security space where there is more risk associated with earning it. Players who chose to could still remain in NPC corps in 1.0 and 0.9 systems indefinitely, but they would be at a decided disadvantage over those who joined player corps and moved out to lower security parts of hisec. Players who chose instead to join player corps and move to slightly less safe portions of hisec could still make just as much income as they do now, if not potentially more, in exchange for increased risk yet not as much risk as losec, nullsec, or wormhale space.

You may be asking yourself, "Why not just push people who want to make more ISK out into losec and make them fight for it?" As much as I would like to see losec activity increase, I also understand that there are a large number of players who will never voluntarily leave hisec. They simply don't want to and many of them never will. I don't agree with that choice in playstyle, but if EvE truly is a sandbox, we need to leave a relatively safe hisec as a viable option. If we make the only place where a large number of players will play too undesirable, they will seek their fortunes elsewhere. Not in losec, nullsec, or wormhole space...but outside of EvE. So, while I do want to reign in the current risk vs. reward dynamic for hisec, I don't want to nerf it outright. We want to retain players, not drive them off.

One other topic I'd like to address is allowing capital ships in hisec. I do not currently support this idea and I recognize that there are several non-trivial drawbacks associated with it, but I do also see some interesting opportunities for content, interaction, and player retention if done properly. If they were limited to 0.7 systems and below via gate travel only (no hisec cynos) and limited to capitals only (i.e. no supercaps), I feel that this would dovetail nicely with the notion of increasing the risk involved and income available in the lower end of the hisec security spectrum while leaving higher security (and lower income) systems safer. Realistically though, any discussion of this idea would have to happen after existing hisec issues have been addressed and time has passed for hisec to reach a new equilibrium; making this change now with the given current state of hisec would, I feel, just further break it.

Having said all of that, I want to emphasize the fact that I am open to suggestions. I sincerely feel that my overall proposal is solid and will help revitalize hisec, but I by no means feel that these are the only ways to do it. I'm attached to my goals, not the methods I've chosen to reach them. I want to work with other hisec dwellers who have solid ideas on how to address the issues before us. I value the insight and points of view that other players have, so give me your feedback and ideas!

Thank you for your time, and please spread the word!

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#4 - 2015-08-20 23:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bronson Hughes
Not strictly related to my views on hisec, but some other points about me that help my CSM candidacy:

1. I am the reigning C&P Thunderdome champ who wants to see CCP-endorsed 1v1 tournaments become a thing.
2. I run the gamut of activities. I PvP, I run missions, I do exploration, I mine, I research, I build.
3. I am entirely independent. I have no ties to any nullsec, wormhole, incursion, merc, mining, etc. corps aside from maintaining relationships with folks from most of those communities. I don't owe anyone anything.
4. I've been around long enough (started in'06) to grasp game mechanics and history but have also spent enough time away to not have become a bittervet.
5. Bald is sexy.
6. I have a super deep voice that makes people swoon on coms.


I'll flesh these out over time and include them in a formal candidacy announcement when those things start happening.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Mag's
Azn Empire
#5 - 2015-08-20 23:13:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Mag's
I waited. Now I'll wait till you post, then I'll reply again. Big smile

OK I agree with much of what you say.
Yes the war dec mechanic needs an overhaul. But I do feel that whilst it is so easy to avoid them, any changes should come with that loophole removed.
1A. Caps tends not to work and we could end up with the whole war dec shield situation again.
1B. Fees may work in regards to size, but I remain on the fence with this atm.
1C. Changes to behaviour should as I said before, look at the easy avoidance first IMHO.

NPC
2A. I quite like the tax idea. I'm not one for forcing players into and out of situations. But I feel you are correct that the whole risk/reward is askew, in regards to NPC corps.
2B. History I'm not sure about. While I see what you are aiming for, it has little impact on me so I cannot truthfully comment.


3. Agents yes. It make sense that the harder agents, would be closer to lower security space.

4. Agreed.

5A. Agreed.
5B. Agreed.
5C Agreed. Wasn't it stated that the ganking of miners, was at an all time low?

Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#6 - 2015-08-20 23:20:30 UTC
Mag's wrote:
I waited. Now I'll wait till you post, then I'll reply again. Big smile

I appreciate your patience sir. Compiling this was no small task.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#7 - 2015-08-20 23:39:02 UTC
Your proposal for adjusting the locations of hisec agents could have an interesting effect on the distribution of mission hubs and some of the smaller trade hubs.

Any lvl 4 agents that ended up in lowsec would be ignored by the majority, just as the lvl 5 agents are. People have a risk threshold that they won't cross, in my case I'm happy to PI in lowsec, there's no way in hell I'd try and run missions there.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#8 - 2015-08-20 23:47:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Noragen Neirfallas
If I didn't touch on it I agree 100%

1. Overhaul wardec mechanics.
100% agreed. What are you doing however to drive conflict. I see a lot of unwanted space violence stopping but I don't see an incentive to cause space violence. There are no moons to fight over. No resources one group can control that another may want. What will you push for to make 2 groups wish to violence each other outside of insulting each others mothers?

1B. Change wardec fees.
I'm a fan of the current scaling fee's tbh and combined with the hard 10 war limit you will see large highsec only merc corps disolve quickly into smaller merc corps. The next issue from a mercenary perspective is that taking an 8 week highsec denial contract to keep another corp from using that area of space would get insanely expensive with ever increasing fees. It would make more sense to use 3-4 different merc outfits for such a contract but that kinda defeats the whole you hire the best guys you can afford/like etc. eh just not feeling it I guess Lol

1C. Change corporation behavior.
I am adamantly opposed to being tide to a group for 24 hours. I am even more opposed to 48 hours. If a person wishes to avoid a conflict and WILL NOT participate and have the mind set of they have to stay docked you just drove them out of the game for 48 hours. It is an absolutely giant barbed stick with no carrot in sight. I still see much use of abuse here with being able to cause mischief inside a corp for 48 hour utilizing the tiny wardec fee of 50mil. There is a reason most people aren't given roles early in corps and that's so you can kick em quickly if needs be.

2. Overhaul Player Corps.
What are your ideas to include miners? If you don't have one would you be open to one? They are the guys who provide most of the things we need to kill each other but at a base level. They need to be included in corps it should be beneficial for miners to corp up instead of staying ooc and just passing on the ore.

4. Remove hisec Sansha's Nation incursions.
This won't fly at all. I don;t disagree with the imbalance of the risk faced by doing this in highsec but the outright removal of this probably won't happen and tbh will hurt your campaign with the highseccers who use this. I'd be in favor of a balanced nerf but not a 100% removal of arguably the most interesting PvE 'currently' in highsec

Of course I'd like to take this opportunity to plug my sov lite idea in F&I for a lovely change to tie into driving conflict that will go well with the proposed wardec changesTwisted

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#9 - 2015-08-20 23:55:23 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Your proposal for adjusting the locations of hisec agents could have an interesting effect on the distribution of mission hubs and some of the smaller trade hubs.

Any lvl 4 agents that ended up in lowsec would be ignored by the majority, just as the lvl 5 agents are. People have a risk threshold that they won't cross, in my case I'm happy to PI in lowsec, there's no way in hell I'd try and run missions there.

Agreed. I would place the absolute best level 4 agents in losec, but leave plenty of really good ones in 0.5 systems.

Again, increasing risk without outright nerfing. Moving most level 4 agents to losec would be a nerf in my view.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Carrie-Anne Moss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#10 - 2015-08-20 23:55:50 UTC
Dude ill vote for you but the reality of it is that the nullblocs and collilitions control who gets elected.
Even with goon hwlp they couldnt get Sabriz from code elected.
You need to be a super bear like Mike A to get elected while in highsec.
The pvpers of highsec just dont have the nunbers/cant agree on a rep to elect.

It is sad how the votes vote.
Its a shame
Mortlake
Somalian Coast Guard Authority
#11 - 2015-08-20 23:59:39 UTC
Generally happy but reserving for considered feedback tomorrow.

Sometimes you hit the bar and sometimes the bar hits you...

Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
#12 - 2015-08-21 00:04:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Jonah Gravenstein
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Your proposal for adjusting the locations of hisec agents could have an interesting effect on the distribution of mission hubs and some of the smaller trade hubs.

Any lvl 4 agents that ended up in lowsec would be ignored by the majority, just as the lvl 5 agents are. People have a risk threshold that they won't cross, in my case I'm happy to PI in lowsec, there's no way in hell I'd try and run missions there.

Agreed. I would place the absolute best level 4 agents in losec, but leave plenty of really good ones in 0.5 systems.

Again, increasing risk without outright nerfing. Moving most level 4 agents to losec would be a nerf in my view.
I agree, it would be an unnecessary nerf to move the majority of lvl 4 agents to lowsec. Moving the best of them to losec may have the side effect of increasing the value of what is already at the high end of LP>Isk exchanges, I talk of, course, about SoE LP; cue a queue of outraged mission bears waiting for a turn at you with flaming torches and pitchforks because you've suggested moving their income stream to lowsec.


Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Dude ill vote for you but the reality of it is that the nullblocs and collilitions control who gets elected.
Even with goon hwlp they couldnt get Sabriz from code elected.
You need to be a super bear like Mike A to get elected while in highsec.
The pvpers of highsec just dont have the nunbers/cant agree on a rep to elect.

It is sad how the votes vote.
Its a shame
Sabriz being part of CODE. was pretty polarising, despite their platform containing some good stuff, being a supporter of James and a member of his merry multitude of motley miscreants was enough to alienate a significant number of potential voters.

In the beginning there was nothing, which exploded.

New Player FAQ

Feyd's Survival Pack

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#13 - 2015-08-21 00:05:08 UTC
One thing to note: I'm going to be away from the forums for about three days starting in a few hours. Please don't take any lack of response until then as lack of interest. If anything, I think it'll give you folks time to comment and I'll have a critical mass of stuff to read when I come back.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#14 - 2015-08-21 00:12:45 UTC
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Dude ill vote for you but the reality of it is that the nullblocs and collilitions control who gets elected.
Even with goon hwlp they couldnt get Sabriz from code elected.
You need to be a super bear like Mike A to get elected while in highsec.
The pvpers of highsec just dont have the nunbers/cant agree on a rep to elect.

It is sad how the votes vote.
Its a shame
Sabriz being part of CODE. was pretty polarising, despite their platform containing some good stuff, being a supporter of James and a member of his merry multitude of motley miscreants was enough to alienate a significant number of potential voters.

I have the benefit (or detriment, depending on who you ask) of being entirely independent. I have no ties to nullsec, CODE., or any hisec merc corps. I maintain contact with some of each, but only informational, not any kind of quid pro quo arrangements.

Details like this, my non-violent hisec activities (mission running, industry & research, mining, etc.) and Thunderdome I'll include in my formal announcement when the time comes. I wanted to get this part of my message out here and refined as much as possible before that point though.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

admiral root
Red Galaxy
#15 - 2015-08-21 00:56:32 UTC
I'm no fan of NPC corps, but wouldn't requiring them to pay extra taxes when using the market shut them out of trading?

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Damnskippy
Mad Bombers
#16 - 2015-08-21 01:00:03 UTC
I don't know. Most of your proposals seem too balanced. You're not pandering enough to 1 group while allowing another to continue on almost exactly as now. Your proposals, at first glance, would encourage certain behaviors instead of forcing them.

It just seems too fair. I doubt you can garner enough votes leveling the sandbox when everyone else is trying to ensure their part of it has better and more sand in it. That being said, I'll vote for you ( twice Big smile ).

On removing high- sec incursions: I would be more inclined to nerf the income instead of removing them entirely. It is one of Eve's higher end pve and shouldn't be limited to areas where the majority of players are seeking to turn participants into pvp content. The reward difference should be significant enough to encourage players to venture out into unsafe space seeking much greater payouts.

I would suggest Low Sec paying the most. ( A large group of shiny ships is an extremely temping target in easy striking distance of low, null and highsec ne'er-do-wells and I feel presents the most risk. )
Null Sec paying the moderate amount. ( Alliance space can be relatively secured and can provide ample warning of incoming people with ill intent. )
And High sec paying the least. ( You are aware of the status quo. )
admiral root
Red Galaxy
#17 - 2015-08-21 01:09:29 UTC
Damnskippy wrote:
On removing high- sec incursions: I would be more inclined to nerf the income instead of removing them entirely.


CCP actually did this once - they took 10% off. Turns out, all those carebears that run incursions for the community and the teamwork were flat-out lying (carebear liars, who would have thought it? :P). The tears were so bad that CCP reversed the nerf very quickly.

No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#18 - 2015-08-21 01:13:57 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Jonah Gravenstein wrote:
Carrie-Anne Moss wrote:
Dude ill vote for you but the reality of it is that the nullblocs and collilitions control who gets elected.
Even with goon hwlp they couldnt get Sabriz from code elected.
You need to be a super bear like Mike A to get elected while in highsec.
The pvpers of highsec just dont have the nunbers/cant agree on a rep to elect.

It is sad how the votes vote.
Its a shame
Sabriz being part of CODE. was pretty polarising, despite their platform containing some good stuff, being a supporter of James and a member of his merry multitude of motley miscreants was enough to alienate a significant number of potential voters.

I have the benefit (or detriment, depending on who you ask) of being entirely independent. I have no ties to nullsec, CODE., or any hisec merc corps. I maintain contact with some of each, but only informational, not any kind of quid pro quo arrangements.

Details like this, my non-violent hisec activities (mission running, industry & research, mining, etc.) and Thunderdome I'll include in my formal announcement when the time comes. I wanted to get this part of my message out here and refined as much as possible before that point though.

I encounter anti Marmite sentiment wherever I go despite being an advocate to completely destroy that style of gameplay Lol. It's fun but I think it could be better for the game if altered. I hope you have more luck then our previous C&P candidates.

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Noragen Neirfallas
Emotional Net Loss
#19 - 2015-08-21 01:20:26 UTC
Bronson Hughes wrote:
Not strictly related to my views on hisec, but some other points about me that help my CSM candidacy:

1. I am the reigning C&P Thunderdome champ who wants to see CCP-endorsed 1v1 tournaments become a thing.
2. I run the gamut of activities. I PvP, I run missions, I do exploration, I mine, I research, I build.
3. I am entirely independent. I have no ties to any nullsec, wormhole, incursion, merc, mining, etc. corps aside from maintaining relationships with folks from most of those communities. I don't owe anyone anything.
4. I've been around long enough (started in'06) to grasp game mechanics and history but have also spent enough time away to not have become a bittervet.
5. Bald is sexy.
6. I have a super deep voice that makes people swoon on coms.


I'll flesh these out over time and include them in a formal candidacy announcement when those things start happening.

5 no
6 YES

Member and Judge of the Court of Crime and Punishment

Noragens basically the Chribba of C&P - Zimmy Zeta

Confirming that we all play in Noragen's eve. - BeBopAReBop

ISD Buldath favorite ISD

'"****station games" - Sun Tzu' - Ralph King Griffin

Valkin Mordirc
#20 - 2015-08-21 01:37:47 UTC
Overall of Current Wardec Mechanics.

Hard-Cap

Largely this seems as a good push, but I am opposed to caps being shut down at ten. Large Merc Alliances as they stand now, would be horrific if there were to be forced on a Hard-Capped of 10. 10 Active wars, with a Crew like Marmite, or Forsaken would be completely ridiculous for obvious reasons. Two major things would happen either A, Merc alliance would suddenly become smaller and the size of corporations, or B, be a horrible force on any and all that happen to be under the dec at the time.

Can you imagine the 100+ Merc Alliance going after only around 10 Corps/Alliances at once. It would be pretty tough to deal with and cause the defending corp to completely shut down and focus only on the aggressor. Increasing the cap to around 50 I think is a good number if a cap was deemed suitable. Mainly because it allows the aggressive corp to dilute the member base in way that would fairly easier for a Large alliance to function in. They can focus on a target, but they are not being forced to by the cap.

If the Merc Alliance were to fracture is not optimal either. 100+ players forced into only ten wars will cause a ton of drag on the aggressive corp/alice. Even when I was in Absolute, and when we ran with 350+ wars I could merrily chug through the Amarr-Jita-Dodixie Pipeline and not see a single wartarget. That was with 350 wars, Marmite and Forsaken see the same thing. Now thats not saying that I couldn't find any targets. I could locate and hunt obviously and find a ton. But Asides from the hubs there was no good chance of blind roaming into someone. Bring that down to ten and you would have a ton of people with nothing to do.


[u]Wardec Fee's[/u]

I like the idea of a rolling price, steadily building as the war continues, it allows a ton of relief to defending corps, also making the smaller corps more costly to dec is also a good change.

One man corps would be obviously expensive to dec, which might be a slight problem. I would also suggest making the fee scale with Corp age/ and corp collective SP if possible. A two day corp with only sub 10mil SP should cost more than a three year old corp with 350mil SP. I haven't a clue if that is possible with CREST but I feel with would keep newbie player from being blanket decced.

I say this because of many one man corps, this would make a lot of the more vet players more vulnerable and allowing the newbro's relief.

Change corp behavior.

Personally I think this will only force a player to play a different game while he waits to leave a corp. It gets forces content away. Rather than making it.

I'd rather a refund system be put in place. You dec a 25 man corp and in 48 hours the corp has only say 90% of the members or so left, either a full or partial refund is returned to the attacking corp.


Overhaul Player Corps


The Tax idea is great and has been floating around for a while. I would love to see this implemented. I also like the idea for standings mean MORE than just POS/POCO's.

Some of my idea kinda where, Better mission payouts in terms of items (Not ISK), HQ System buffs, like some sort of added benifit when flying in the System you have an HQ in if that HQ-System is positive in standings towards you. It could even make it so that it could be small booster like benifits, 5% bonus in Armor when flying in HQ Space. It would give defenders something of an advantage to the aggressors.

Remove hisec Sansha's Nation incursions

Removing Highsec Incursions, is going to lose you a ton of supportive votes if you go to bat with this. Personally I don't think it needs to be removed, however I do think the payouts need to drastically reduced. More than Level Four Missions, but less than Level 5 Missions.



Thats all I got for now. I'll come back later to tackle the rest.
#DeleteTheWeak
123Next pageLast page