CSM Campaigns

Two things here:

1) Would you then please inform us regarding the nature of the relationship between the CFC and Code? I ask this because I have heard several accounts of Code saying they are allied with, or however you wish to phrase it, the CFC. Your statement thereby does not parallel this claim and therefore beckons that question.

2) Would you please reply to post #18?

Regards,

~ RL

What do you think the "cause" of ganking that is being weeded out is then?

Also I don't quite see how one exam poor struggling goon relates to all of this.

So you would agree that more needs to be done to help smaller ganking entities? Otherwise CODE and CFC remain the only powers capable of fielding the manpower needed for say, sinking a freighter.

Also, I don't understand what you mean by "open tyranny". Everyone in EVE tries to vie for power over each other. Is slaughtering high-sec miners and haulers part of your definition of "tyranny"?

With apologies to Dwissi, as I don't really want to make this thread purely about ganking, I'm going to make one more clarification on the points I raised:



This is one loophole:



So: you're camping a gate. A target comes through. You shoot at them. CONCORD atomizes your ship. You warp your pod back to the farthest station from the gate, dock, and emerge in a rookie ship. CONCORD spawns at the station and atomizes that, too. As there can only be one CONCORD spawn per system, CONCORD is now at a station, not at the gate. So you dock up, wait for your flag to wear off, then hop in another real ship, warp to gate, and either wait for a new target or join a subsequent wave of ships attempting to take down a big target that's been held from warping off by a bumping ship.

Loophole #2: you have a flashy red undock and warp to sun (for example). CONCORD spawns at sun and blows their ship up. CONCORD is now at sun, rather than at gate.

My opinion in this matter is biased, so fair warning, but I believe as you investigate this issue further you will consistently run into the problem that CONCORD is stupid, blind and lethal, which makes it incredibly easy to game one way or another.

It goes both ways, too. I believe this has been declared an exploit, but for a while it was a thing for miners to aggress one of their barges with a rookie ship, spawning CONCORD in the belt they were mining. There are ways to draw them off, of course, but it was a trick that got used for a while. Obviously, that's not nearly as easy to do if you're piloting a freighter.

EDIT: Adding: when CCP calls something an "exploit," that means that there's a problem that they don't have the ability to address mechanically. This goes back to my point about the funhouse-mirror distortion of gameplay that CONCORD represents. It's so stupid and so easily gamed that it will naturally leave lots of exploits and caveats and dark little corners in its wake. Something to ponder if you intend to represent high sec.

EDIT 2: Recycling alts--that is, creating them, using them for some nefarious purpose, then biomassing them and replacing them with another character--is a bannable offense. CCP traditionally relies on player reporting for such things, but this is less and less true as they gain more and more ability to monitor their game. For what I hope are obvious reasons, CCP are extremely tight-lipped about any methods they use. You will not learn about them in any detail unless and until you make CSM, and even then you should be aware that they are volunteering what information they give you; they will withhold whatever they choose to.

Also, if there is a ganker-friendly CSM, it's probably DJ FunkyBacon. He's nominally FW/lowsec, but he has taken up the mantle of champion of high sec criminality.

How would you balance things in a way that "changes the balance" to help carebears and smaller ganking entities? Isn't this as much a social problem as a game mechanics issue?

And yes, CODE and The New Order, which extends beyond the alliance framework does exist to control and influence high-sec.

As with post #15 I think we both agree that ganking is mainly done by extremists. But how do you think we can go forward in a way that develops both the constructive and destructive elements of the game when each side is highly emotional and seems to be playing a "zero-sum game"? The carebear elements push for ever increasing "safety" and greater "balance" while not adapting to the situation in EVE, insisting that they can play in a peaceful manner in a game about blowing up spaceships. The "griefers" just get torrents of joy from blowing them up taking their stuff and forcing them to face their own ideal of the game. Can this ever be reconciled?

Hello Gevlon Goalposts,

Thank you for joining the conversation.

You bring up a good point for a historical topic that I would like to share with you - briefly. Prior to the computers, whenever someone had completed a thought or idea that they were expressing in writing, and with the intent of imparting it to someone else, he or she would put their signature at the bottom of the hand written/typed text so as to identify themselves and also indicate a form of proximity (these writings, often called letters, would go beyond the writer's tangible distance you see). With the advent of technology this tradition was maintained. It was then realized, as you pointed out (and around the construct of the forum) that the author could be seen in some for or fashion towards the top of a post. So as to maintain the socially endorsed standard of a signature and the unique and claiming nature of it, the signature was altered. Now you find in all forums a section, usually under your personal settings, where you can prescribe a form of identification "tag", so to speak. This section is also called a signature (modernity's way of "tipping its hat" to the past). This then updates automatically on whatever post you place on a forum under a solid line at the end of your post. You will notice that Admiral Root, Amyclas Amatin, Dersen Lowery, and Dwissi, all have a forum signature under all of their posts. You and I do not. However, I choose to maintain the propriety of both the historical context and the forum format by including my signature (and often times initials - shorthand for a signature) within the text I am writing.

This also ties in directly with my campaign ! That is because I plan to use many historical lessons, whenever I can, and incorporate them into modernity at every chance. It's something that I practice "IRL" as well and I suppose you could almost venture to call that a signature of mine too, but that might be a stretch given that many people do that besides myself . Having a historian on the CSM is another perk to my being elected.

That said, again, thank you for joining the discussion. What do you think about the topic at hand?

Cheers,

~ RL

Since the topic has been brought up already it might be a good idea to extend to the 'history' lessons - but this time into Eve history. Many older players will recall that high sec was a lot more restricted in many ways compared to today. One particular difference to mention as an example is the requirement of standings to setup a POS. I will extend on that example further down.

Eve has been blurred throughout the years because players where shouting, crying and complaining. The original story how things should be has been ignored due to those complaints and things where mechanically changed to cater for the crying masses - but without the understanding of the long term consequences of these changes. Those changes are basically the same reason why we have an underpowered concorde and why we have a very limited level of consequences when undertaking 'illegal' actions.

It has become a sport to claim that any activity is supposed to be a sanctioned core activity - freedom off choice is the most used argument for this. But to execute freedom one also needs rules and limitations - anything without them is just anarchy. This is where we are right now with high sec - we are dancing on the line between freedom and anarchy. With every new ship that has been introduced for the capsuleers there should have been a proper adjustment on the non-player entities as well - which imho did not happen properly.

So why did i mention the POS example? To extend into the standing mechanics and why this would be the way to solve many of the problems people are facing. To allow simply everyone to setup a POS has been a very dumb idea - it eliminated the general understanding why we have standings and what they are used for in the Eve universe. On the simplest level a player can set personal standings - i don't like you - i put you on minus 5 so i can be warned whenever you enter my home system. How i use the indicator is up to me personally as i have set this standing just on my level. But on the next level things become a bit more interesting - the corporation level. If i act badly towards a corporation chances are high i will get a bad standing with them. On player level that is merely a warning tag or it might even lead to a war declaration if annoyance level is maintained for some time. POS can be set to act hostile towards those people etc etc.

But NPCs don't follow this picture consistently. I pay fees according to my standing towards that corporation and i get access to their agents as long as i am popular enough. But i don't get locked out from their stations when i behave badly nor is there any form of mid to long term consequences for me. That is one reason for things being far too easy for the 'illegal' or 'aggressive' type of high sec player. Standings used to be the carrot and the punishment for certain things in Eve. They are a superb mean to steer and control certain aspects according to story and behaviour. Standings have been greatly undervalued during the last years changes because many have only pointed towards security status - which is also too easily circumvented when going into a bad direction. Risk = reward is not reflected in this area and is a typical topic that mainly affects high sec as well as low sec to some extend since its still regarded empire space. This is a matter that has been completely ignored and needs some serious attention by the CSM.

Hello Radu, before I continue let me wish you the best for your CSM run.


I think this is a little disingenuous. The "powers that be" have made it pretty clear that ganking is meant to be in the game and a challenge for haulers to overcome in several places, most recently by CCP Falcon in this thread (all his comments summarized here)

But that aside, I more concerned with the overall risk vs. reward design of the game and curious to hear your views on the issue. Highsec haulers, have some of the lowest risk in the game and as such, the profession is notorious for AFK and even actual botting behaviour. Perhaps this reputation is unfair - I don't know - but it appears that many haulers feel entitled to move their goods (for their own profit) through highsec with near impunity while away from the keyboard.

Now I have no problem with active haulers, actually playing the game, being able to move their goods in safety, and it seems to me all the tools exist for this to take place - instadock/undock bookmarks, warp-to-zero jumping, and tanking your ship to be unprofitable to gank what you are hauling being the main ones. However, the years of ganking nerfs have made the actual chance you encounter a ganker vanishingly small, many haulers either don't know about the risk, or perhaps rightly, consider it so vanishingly small and ignore it and continue to overload/autopilot their ships. This wouldn't be a problem if they just got blown up from time-to-time and accepted it as the cost of doing business, but many of them choose to come to the forums and complain that it is unfair, ganking is too easy, and the like, even though they were the ones who made themselves a profitable target by overloading their ship and then leaving the keyboard to do something else than play the game to protect their stuff.

So, what do you think could be done to better educate haulers that space is indeed a dangerous place, and they must take responsibility? I'll throw out some ideas, not necessarily ones that I support though, just to hear your thoughts: removal of (or a cost added to ) the autopilot function; very rare, but non-zero chance a powerful NPC spawns (perhaps tie it to the sleeper lore) that will after a few minutes destroy a ship where the pilot is AFK but is otherwise completely avoidable by a player at the keyboard, a highsec deployable that does nothing but shutdown the autopilot of ships, an in-game mechanism by which a player (especially a new players) can tell if their ship is "overloaded" and profitable to gank.

Aside from the issue of bumping and freighter ganking (something that happens so rarely in New Eden that I am not sure it should be a plank of a CSM platform), it seems that haulers have all the cards to avoid pretty much every gank except the most motivated and targeted ones, and even those if they make the effort to fly a ultra-tanked DST. Are there other specific issues, unrelated to highsec ganking, that haulers face that you feel should be brought to the table via the CSM?

Hello Senior Pedro,

And welcome to the discussion.

I want you to know that I have read your comments and certainly have a reply to your points.

But for the moment I simply wish to say Happy Thanksgiving to all! And everyone - whether you celebrate the holiday or not - may you have a warm home, full belly, and wonderful day! I hope everyone can take the day off and treat themselves to some RL rest and relaxation...

I'll get back to this thread tomorrow and reply then !

Best wishes,

~ RL

What is so bad with being a hauler in New Eden? Your chances of being violenced in any manner (wardec, gank, etc...) are so miniscule that you can pretty much operate in complete safety. If you are at your keyboard and taking active measures to avoid conflict (actually playing the game), the chances drop even more dramatically.

You do realize that removing autopilot will hurt ganking because everyone will be warping to 0? And that, in combination with removing webbing, will only reinforce the need to have large numbers of friends to gank because the only things that will be easily catchable will be freighters with their terrible align times? Smaller entities will have to roll the dice more often because scanning will be harder to do without all the slowboating going on, which discourages ganking anything smaller than a freighter.

Quite frankly all I see here is a severe lack of need for any sort of high-sec hauling representative who thinks ganking is a problem or that haulers have it bad on the CSM, especially considering ganking is at an all-time low and becoming harder with every "rebalance" patch to up the EHP of ships, and that wardecs are so stupidly broken as to be nearly useless. High-sec doesn't need to be any safer, it's already had plenty of safety measures installed.

Not to mention that you sign your posts...