CSM Campaigns

Account security has always been a high priority for CCP and anybody who cares about the game. Since we are playing on a single shard our names and characters carry a lot of weight/history and losing them means something more than it would in other games.

But 2-form authentification has its own set of drawbacks. From the 'bother' of having to do an extra step to log in to people who do not possess smart phones and do not wish to pay for a dongle key just so they can play a game they are already subscribed to. Arguments against link Then there is the worry that it still would not be enough as two step is still vulnerable to Man In the Middle attacks. MiTM link

It, for me, comes down to the question of whether the cure is worse than the disease.

There are other protections like possible IP locks or hardware ones 'Please tell us why you are suddenly logging in from Xambibia' or 'That is a new computer, please email verify its clearance.'

but

I know people in the armed forces who love Eve and they do travel. Worse, even if they do not take their game with them they have buddies they trust doing 'EULA breaking things' by playing skill queue online for them. I dislike setting up new hurdles to keep people who love the game and their respective countries from playing and staying. Those are the ULTIMATE casual players and the ones I try to keep in mind when discussing changes.

I found variations of this discussion going all the way back to CSM4 (and it probably goes back further).

tl:dr +
security is good
show me a specific proposal and I will tell you whether IT is good
the security folks seem to like it to be mandatory
some players would want it optional

m

+1

A quick quote from the Summer Summit Minutes



I WANT FW to matter to more than just folks trying to decide when to cash in LP. I would LIKE the changes there to echo through Hisec and Dust and Even open up specific battlegrounds in Valkyrie (If that becomes possible)

Big dreams . . . but you asked.

Lowsec representation? Well, at least there are some viable candidates available and I recommend you add them to your ballot (but I appreciate being on the top) But if I claim to worry about the game as a whole then I do need to pay attention to Low, especially when (or if) it doesn't have its own advocate. The second thing is Low is the OTHER place where casual players go (aside from high) and That kind of player is who I support/represent, no matter where in space they may be.

What I don't want. Low being Null lite
What I do want. Unique reasons to go to each type of space and specific play-styles for them, respectively.

m

Sounds great! May I ask if you have a low sec candidate you most recommend I add to my ballot?

Would you say that CCP have low sec on their radar in equal measure to high/null/W and would you say the CSM in general do a good job of keeping low sec in the picture during discussions?

I will say, when we are closer to elections who I think would be good people (in my opinion) to put on a ballot. Right now I am not even sure if all the horses are in the starting gate, yet.

CCP looks at the game, not a particular piece of it. They have to keep the whole picture present. When they fail to do that it is up to US to call them on it. Every feature that came out in CSM8 had the wormhole folks looking at it through the lens of their own constituency. Low sec lacked someone with the same focus. We TRIED to make the whole game better but on person banging the Lowsec drum? Wasn't there.

Was Low ignored? NO. But I do encourage lowsec to find folks to represent them this time so they are sure they have someone specifically focused on their wants and needs.

Problem is . . . which lowsec? FW? Pirating? PI and carebears? Can you show me the candidate who will properly represent ALL of Low or are you, like highsec, a segmented population?

m

I had posed the following in a thread named “Why freighter bumping in High Sec is an exploit”

What say you?


I will state right here and now that I believe the bumping of a freighter with the intent of holding it in place while your fiends arrive to perform the gank is an exploit. Here are the reasons why.

1. The only reason you bump is to avoid the wrath of CONCORD.

2. There are other ways to hold a ship in place, all of which come at a cost in training time and equipment. If bumping is allowed to replace the need for this training and equipment the bumper has the advantage of now being able to forgo the needed equipment and fill that slot with something else. This in effect will unbalance the ship by giving it the ability of the modules skipped over and the ones used in their stead.

3. Every intended mechanic has a counter and this does not. Don’t even try to say bring friends, as that is not a counter to any mechanic other than being out numbered. When was the last time you told someone asking how to fight a faster ship to bring friends?

4. There is no skill to train for bumping nor to counter bumping.

In the end it comes down to this, you are bumping to achieve the same results or better with no training time or investment in equipment that is achieved by a player that makes those investments. You are doing this with the solo intent to avoid the wrath of CONCORD that the player who has trained and bought the equipment is subject to.

Although you have the words of Winston Churchill correct I don't believe you quite understand how he used them. You see he would use them as words of encouragement to hold steadfast and complete the goal. Here you seem to apply a negative connotation to them as if Mike's steadfastness was something not to be admired.

I do wonder, just what kind of person still post in the forums of a game he is no longer is playing and that was created by a company he clearly has negative feelings about.

Mike's done a good job on 8. He represents the largest base in the game, but we are disorganized. He has my vote.

You said you make your isk in incursions. That is the part of the game I enjoy for now my question is simple: Are there any changes or iterations to incursions that you will be championing to CCP? THANK YOU THANK YOU THANK YOU for pushing to keep some drone assist in!!!!!!

I already have made suggestions as to changes I would like to see but I have no problem reiterating

1) More lore, a change an advancement of Kuvekeis plans or an exploration of where the hell he got this tech in the first place
2) Other pirate factions steal the tech and we begin to see other sorts of incursions, each with their own flavour and need for specialized fleets (somebody wrote me about this idea asking if there would then be a chance for the Gurristas equivalent of a revenant, or a blood raider super I couldn't answer because I was gazing happily off into the distance)
3) Some variation within incursions that currently exist.

-Jaun Pacht-Feng

I will, when we get closer, give my Dream Team listing but for now I will let you know some of the standards that I apply.

1) Do they have a history of a solid work ethic?
2) Have they shown their passion for this game?
3) Have they shown the ability to deal with other playstyles, other players who may not agree with them
4) Do they have the time to spare?
5) Are they the best representative of a unique/distictive side of Eve?

If you apply the above standard I am sure you will begin to make a short list for yourself but, as I said, I will be doing the same once I think I know somethign about all who are running.

m