CSM Campaigns

Good Evening,

Unfortunately for me, the campaigning season is opening at the same time as my job is getting busy (run-up to Christmas). Despite that, I will read every response to my thread... and I will be prepared to answer questions/interviews.

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?

You have never heard of me. I am a High Sec Carebear.
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.
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.

What would be my Platform:

1) High Sec is worth fighting for!

I want to do what I want to do. I do not want to be a part of massive 1000 ship fleets. I just want to transport stuff, and occasionally mine things. Maybe a mission or two. Is that too much to ask?
Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around!

2) Banhammer!

Somewhen back in September, a number of players belonging to a griefer community were banned from playing eve. According to what I have read on the interweb, and according to what CSM member "funkybacon" said on his blog... the banned players never got told what they were banned for! I am ALL FOR aggressive banning of griefers and harrassers by CCP, but I feel that anyone that pays for an account deserves to know for what they get banned... especially if they have paid-for ($$) game time still running. On the other side, I feel that having a public list of banned players, and crimes (name and shame!!) would also provide assistance for other players (esp. high sec players), in knowing who to avoid!

The central register entry could look something like this:

"Player XX, banned for X weeks, for: Harassment"

Of course, if it is true, that the same "gm" that made the ban is also handling the "appeal" then this also needs changing.

3) New Player Experience

The New Player Experience also needs work, and it needs people (on the CSM) that are focussing on it, and representing the needs of the "New Player". If Eve is to continue to grow and develop, (and exist) then New Players are of vital importance. I know that CCP have already said that they are working on this... but it should not be allowed to again fall into the background (as it has clearly already done... judging by the state of the NPE as I started).

4) Wardecs.

The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored.

I am sure that there are many issues that are burning for someone that wants to represent the High Sec player base. I am sure that you have enough ideas of other things that need to be said (the above are only the things that are burning for me). If the normal, apathetic High Sec resident can get off his/her lazy butt and be bothered to vote, then we can have a voice. It doesn't have to be me.... but someone has to do something... somewhen... for the good of some people!

I am also quite prepared to represent/push issues that other High Sec Carebears have, even if I have not mentioned them above. I think it is all-important that High Sec gathers behind a candidate... (even if it is not me) so that our interests do not get swept under the table by the massed/organised nullsec coalitions.

Thank you,
Lorelei

Hey! I even got a response.
Of course, it was not from a care bear... because we care bears don't normally respond to things like this!

Sorry for the wall of text. I am new to things like this.



Surprisingly good question! I expect that the ganker/griefer/content creating community would support Psychotic Monk, DJ Funkybacon or someone similar.

I am not "anti-ganker" (in the sense that I want to completely stop suicide ganking. Bumping has been ruled legitimate by CCP, and posted about on these forums).

I am pro-carebear. There are a large number of people like me that do not want to be ganked, are not interested in the content that other players are proud of producing, and still want to play spaceship games. EVE is, however, a Sandbox, and CCP have (in the main) come out in support of "emergent gameplay". This is something we carebears will have to learn to live with, and learn to work around, if we want to keep playing Spaceship games. Like I said in my initial post: I want at least a 50:50 chance of winning!

(I would say that my stance on "Bans" and a clear commentary from CCP about them is something that would interest the content creating community. Staying on top of the New Player Experience is also something that everyone could appreciate.)

But let me try saying this, (and see if anyone talks to me afterwards)...

The large number of independent carebears making "tear threads" on the forums, and lobbying CCP to nerf all High Sec game play down to nothing has lead to a large amount of non-connected actions from CCP (eg. concord buffs, bounties, mining barge boosts, low slots on freighters etc) all of which give us carebears "tools" with which to defend ourselves from aggressors... but no real plan.

CONCORD is broken!
If a suicide ganker pre-pulls CONCORD in a system (by shooting a POCO in a rookie ship) then they get more time to do damage on their target, before CONCORD warps in.
However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. CCP should level the playing field here.... and either allow (or disallow) CONCORD manipulation on all sides. (after all, organised Gankers could pull CONCORD out of the asteroids just before ganking... and awake and aware miners could see CONCORD disappearing from their belts, and warp off or react in time. Allowing the CONCORD mechanic to be used by both sides is fair. If the gankers don't pre pull CONCORD, then it is their own fault. And under this system, if the miners don't pre-pull CONCORD, then that is their own fault too.

Bounties are broken.
That page that New Players can look at, the one about the different "careers" in EVE, says something about "Bounty Hunter". What if one could register oneself as a "Bounty Hunter" (for a fee), and then, as a registered "Bounty Hunter" could claim more than the current joke-percent of a bounty?



Let me say, as I was considering if it was worth my time at all writing here, I read through a lot of James 315's minerbumping blog. The language used by some of my carebear cousins is unfortunate and shocking.

I do not think I have an inability (greater than anyone else) to distinguish between griefers and good guys.
I can see how you might infer that from my comments above.

For example: one reason I want to have more transparency with the Banhammer, is to clearly define what separates a griefer and a ganker (for example). If I get ganked 10 times in one day by the same person whilst mining in the same asteroid belt, using the same bookmarks... am I getting griefed or ganked? If I get ganked 10 times in the same day by the same person whilst moving between 10 different systems to try and get away... am I being griefed or ganked? DJ Funkybacon wrote a very nice post after the banhammer... where is the line? At what point am I being griefed?? How do you define "griefing"? How does anyone define "griefing" (once they get past the "my shiny ship got killed" tear posts)?? I cant imagine that it is much fun for a "cutting edge" content creator to not know if he is somewhen going to get banned for crossing some imaginary line!

Welcome to the race

I am the current Hisec person (according to most) and may run again but I would love to see a second voice added to the council

m

Thank you!



When do we get to know if you are running again?!?!



Hi Zappity!

Thank you for contributing to my thread.
As you can see above... Mr Azariah says he "may run again".

Whether or not a High Sec candidate "knows" about Mr Azariah... until now there has been no definite declaration of "running again".

If you wanted to ask: "How can someone not know that Mike Azariah is the Candidate for High Sec" then the answer would be:

He has not yet said that he is "running again".

IF you have any questions about what I stand for... or about something I have said, then please feel free to ask!
I read every post, and if they are not obvious trolls I respond! :D

TL;DR Version

Contrary to my first post, I don't actually intend to represent all high-sec players, only those players who conform to my belief of what a high-sec player should be.

The tone of my OP was selected for a reason.



Yes. I read the minutes of the last CSM, Every page... even the ones that were heavily censored due to NDA.
Do you have a question about them?

But but but, EVE Online is all about having consequences on other people's gameplay!

It's been said to many times I know, but there, I said it again.

Tell us more about how one more nerf will somehow save you from gankers that are forced to ever increase their level of organization?

One solo player will never be able to defeat a small army that's out to get them, not unless you are actually very very good at all aspects of pvp, and are situationally aware at all times.

It is not about nerfing. It is about having the same chances (see CONCORD).

If you have any specific questions, I will be happy to answer them!

Okay, your main idea is that some sort of balance between miners and gankers must be maintained and that both sides must have equal opportunities for success. Fair enough.

What I would like to hear is your specific ideas on the issue. What exactly in the game mechanics should be changed to make such a balance work?

My second question is: what is your opinion about those of the highsec carebears who make zero effort to ensure their safety, but feel entitled to protection provded by someone else?

Thank you for the correction. I missed that one, for I do indeed know people that say they got warned off... maybe then for the other reasons that GM stated.

I shall be bookmarking that post.

One of the main problems facing High Sec, and why we of the more Carebear nature do not ever manage to unite... to do anything... is our complete lack of communication/interaction and sense of "we". I am sure it has not escaped my notice that really the only people responding to my thread at the moment are members of "the other good guys" that, of course, don't actually want a carebear on or anywhere near the CSM!