CSM Campaigns

Thank you for taking the time to write a response.



Which segment? There has been some discussion since the OP (admittedly not much). What do the gankers want/need?
I think trying to get the bounty mechanics fixed, trying to get CCP to be more open with why they ban people (to the people that get banned) and improving the NPE so that the people coming here know before they really start, what they are getting into is all good...

I have said that a 50:50 chance would be a good aiming point... and I have already said somethings about what I think could do that. Having found out that I "can" use a dedicated alt (or three) to get CONCORD to spawn in my belt for me (as long as I don't abuse alt-turnover or trial accounts) is a plus point.



If every High Sec player were to vote on the issues that were discussed... we carebears would get all our wishes passed... because we outnumber everyone else. When choosing to represent a group... it makes more sense to try and appeal to the majority (unless of course the majority are lazy/ignorant and think that not voting is also making a statement! ).

I have already stated that I do not believe it makes any sense to try and nerf ganking into the ground. I also stated that I do not believe it makes any sense to try and get CCP to make AFK Autopiloting completely safe...

I have not yet seen an announcement that Mr Azaria is running, and I did not want to hold off making my own announcement, because the inertia of Carebeardom requires as much time as possible to even have a chance of getting things moving.



Ok. I know there are lots of passionate supporters of ganking that are scared that a Carebear on the CSM will take away their fun... but it might be more accurate to say it takes an absurd level of teamwork and organization to gank anything larger than a hulk that has been fit by one of my carebear cousins... and there is a big difference between a Hulk and an Ibis.

The Concord thing has been taken care of (if you browse the thread up there). I am looking forward to trying it out, if it helps.



Yes you do. Just look at your alliance killboard. James315 will probably be endorsing other CSM candidates anyway...



That is thing of the dedicated/organised ganker vs carebear. Too many Nerfs are bad... and buffs are actually useless... because no self-respecting Carebear actually understands game mechanics enough to know what to do with them (see my position on the NPE).

"High Quality" Corporations might even be a question of definition, I don't know. But if we want people to join those "high quality" corps, then those "high quality" corps have to be out there... and then they have to be willing to take in new players!! An attempt to give an incentive to getting people to join High Quality Corps is the planned removal of Awoxing... which is not the right way to do it.

Sugar Kyle is running an intensive discussion on her blog about Wardecs, and I am following it with interest.

I think it is more important to deal with a "reality" that with an "ideal".

I think that a large number of my carebear cousins would benefit from a good NPE... and the rest of the galaxy would benefit from having the carebears properly informed about the way things are.

Then no one can claim ignorance... the people that think that this is WOW-IN-Space get to learn it right at the beginning...

One man's dodge is another man's answer.



I would personally think that, if the NPE continued to be mission based... that it should rather include ganking than getting ganked. Getting "ganked" by NPCs (and it would almost have to be NPCs in an organised NPE) is nothing like getting ganked by people, especially if you "know" it is pre-programmed... (no risk no fun). That would also then work as an introduction to CONCORD... an introduction to blowing things up... and a look at the "other side". EVE is, after all, a game about blowing spaceships up, and once you have thought about how spaceships get blown up, then you have a reason to think about how not to get blown up. And at least thinking of / being aware of getting blown up would be a great help for my Carebear cousins.

For all intents and practical purposes, it would probably still have to be an npc... that gets "ganked". otherwise there will be too many problems (also with delaying the completion of the NPE because there is no other player there...). But confronting the new player with the violence... and waiting for CONCORD to come and blow you up after you destroyed the target...

At the moment in the NPE there are mining missions... industrial missions... fighting missions... why not pirate missions? On the EVE website there was a list of "professions"... and letting / forcing new players to try them all is surely a good thing... How else will they know what they find interesting/fun?

Are... are you Santa?

Well, I can try (but please remember I am a carebear).

I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, a 1 man corps can avoid a declaration of war.

I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, the corporations of an alliance have an easier time, avoiding a war.

I find it absurd, that wardeccing corps can cause new/inexperienced players to not log in... simply by declaring war on them.




Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits.
This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players.
Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up.



Motivation of players to stay and fight is a big theme.
Why would players stay and fight in High Sec?

One possible answer is to improve the New Player Experience, so that new players can not start playing the game with their WOW sense of entitlement (or at least without knowing that EVE is different).

I agree that there is no motivation for players to fight for their own "corporation". As an NPC corporation member I can safely say that I have not had any problems with War Decs.

Why can one not Wardec an NPC corporation?



This is again a very good question.
I would like to remind you, and the audience, that I am a carebear.
I see the main roll of the CSM in checking what CCP is doing... and trying to let them know when it sucks. I don't consider myself savvy enough to tell them that "IF Q=1 THEN......" is worse than "IF Q+1=1 THEN...."

Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes....

But:

NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!)
Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group)
and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do....

If one assumes that the model above is set in place, then anyone in a wardecced corp gets a "flag=wardec". This flag remains for the duration of the war (so no running away).

Any shareholding member of a corporation can call for a vote to surrender..

Any war-declaring corporation gets the wardec fees refunded equal to maximal 1/10th the "killed" enemy.

Aggressors can recruit "allies" just like Defenders.

It is a complicated subject.
I would be the first to admit, that I am a Carebear, and am not happy when I get wardecced.

But.... and I would like to emphasise "BUT":

Declarations of war have a place in EVE, and should stay. I think it is important to enable these players.
If there is a mechanic in place, that allows High Sec players to "opt out" of such things (at the expense of not having anything from their corps other than a "chat channel") then I am all for it. (of course, that then needs to be balanced with High Sec resource production (ICE/ORE etc)).

I would like to say that the CSM is NOT there to present fully finished solutions to all the problems that have developed in the last years in this game.... but are rather elected to represent "interest" groups of players.

Erm sorry, I seem to have got distracted. I hope that you have managed to get an idea of what I am thinking... and if you have any more specific questions... I will be happy to try and answer them!!

The most important thing: People should VOTE for the CSM. Only in voting are we sure that the CSM represents US.

:)

I agree. The question is how to fix it.


I also agree. The corporation-that-is-really-an-NPC-corp idea is fine with me as long as it has (almost) all the restrictions of an NPC corp and (almost) none of the benefits of a player corp. Then really nothing has changed in terms of gameplay except that players now have a shared identity and corp channel.

This would help player retention, but does nothing to solve wardecs though.


Ok let me ask you, what would it take to get you out of your NPC corp and into a player corp? And further, what would it take
to get you to stay in that player corp and try some PvP, even if that isn't your main "play-style", to defend it?

Would raising the tax rate of the NPC corp to 50% do it?

Would being valid targets to players of the opposing faction militia do it?

Would a player-corp only buff to your income, say missions pay you and increasing amount up to 100% more but only if you as a corp put effort into building a structure and defending it?

Would a player-corp only buff to your mining yield, that requires an moderately expensive and destroyable deployable structure do it?

I agree that players should always be able to take refuge in an NPC corp to rebuild in case everything they have is lost, but I also think we need some ideas to help encourage people out of these corps eventually. One way to do this is to make living in a NPC less profitable than living in a player corp, and attach some persistent bonuses for staying and defending those player corps.



I agree. Eve is about risk vs. reward. To fix wardecs, there just needs to be a way to make living in player corps more lucrative than NPC corps, and some incentives to stay with a particular corporation. If players are totally risk-adverse and want to spend their life in a wardec-free corp lite or NPC corp - fine - but they should earn significantly less than players who take responsibility for creating, maintaining and defending a player corporation and its assets.

Best of luck on your CSM campaign.

I agree they are related but I am not sure we need to implement that before a wardec change. There really isn't any difference from a game mechanics view whether a new player stays in an NPC corp, or in some new un-wardeccable corp-lite that is really just a form of player controlled NPC corp.

There are, and still will be player corps, and we need ideas to make wardecs between them meaningful and more engaging.

I don't agree that anything that enables a wardec to carry on is good. CCP could just make dec-dodging an exploit again and wars would go on longer then, but people would still just dock up and play an alt, or worse, go play another game entirely.

We need ways to make players want to stay in a player corp. Otherwise, if there is no incentive or desire to defend it but we force them to endure the whole dec, they just won't log in.


Ok, so you think making NPC corps more dangerous or punitive might be better than enticing carebears with carrots to player corps. Do you think carebears would put up with this increased risk, or would they quit the game? I really don't have a sense of the carebear thinking on this.

How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances.

I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc.

How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are?

I can appreciate your point about the prestige of being in a corp, though it's not something I personally experience (I'm a member of the minerbumping channel *\o/*), and I certainly agree with you that more interaction between players is good for them and for the game.

However, I honestly don't see these non-corp corps changing anything, other than eleventy-one of the dang things when everyone deserts the now-deccable NPC corps. It's moving a problem, not resolving it.