CSM Campaigns

I vote no to all of the initial plans outlined on this platform.

Ganking in high-sec

Suicide ganking has been repeatedly nerfed again and again, there is no need for further 'balancing' as you suggest. If people aren't prepared to take simple steps to avoid being ganked, or choose to auto pilot, they have chosen to accept the risk to their assets. I'm not sure what you think your suggested changes would accomplish. What difference does it make whether a ganker is in an NPC corp or not? It's not exactly difficult to make or join one. Not being able to dock or log off for 30 mins and being auto-ejected is also completely dumb. They will not be in an expensive pod, and they will not lose skill points soon so they couldn't care less. They will simply minimise their client and die repeatedly until they can dock up.

Also how would you suggest they make ganked ships drop no more than 25% loot, which by the way is not reducing ganking-for-profit, but removing it entirely? Why should any pilot in eve be able to reduce the loot he drops by simple refusing to engage back, such as those caught in gate camps or pipe bombs.

This section just comes across as a knee jerk grr gankers reaction.

AFK for long time

Whether someone is active when logged into the game or not is nothing to do with you. If someone wants to AFK mine that is their choice to make and they take the risks associated. If someone is AFK while cloaking they are not affecting you, deal with it. A slot machine mining game with a weekly lottery? Seriously?

War decs

The size of a corporation has nothing to do with it's competency, not sure why you think 50+ members suddenly makes a difference. War dec costs do not need to change, not as long as it is so trivial to dodge a dec.

Social Corp / NPC

NO. An undeccable corp is not something I would even entertain thinking about, this undermines the whole concept of eve.

Incursions and PvE

If you have been playing since 2010 then you should at least have some knowledge of the current issues with these topics. This shows a lack of research to me, I would expect a candidate to have some sort of grasp or plan no matter how vague rather than "mail me."

Industry

Grr gankers.

Dreads

Why should Dreads suddenly be exempt from the capital ban in high sec? This won't generate more pos fights, if a corp is going to defend their tower they will do so regardless of a Dread being on field.



No offense but all of your suggestions comes across like the half thought out crap that you would expect to find in the Features & Ideas forum. You don't seem to have any kind of solid understanding about any of the topics you want to change, it comes off as more of a wish list rather than trying to make high sec better.

As I stated before, your core principles are bad (for reasons stated), it's not a matter of tweaking them a bit and suddenly they will provide vibrant gameplay to all and be (fairly) balanced.

There are also CSM members that want buffs to piracy in hi sec, safe high sec candidates like yourself are also hardly new, they've been around since the start of the CSM.

Half-way to what? You want to make criminal gameplay worse (i.e. unfun) for the purpose of reducing the number of people doing it. This is not good game design. If you want less ganking/more protection for industrialists, you should argue for making ganking actually harder, not just more tedious - something like buffing EHP, reducing CONCORD spawn time by half or something. Then at least criminals can still actually play the game as it was designed.

Trying to reduce players from participating in an activity that has been explicitly designed and built into the game from the beginning by making it undoable/painful is not particularly inspired. Your ideas should increase conflict and/or player interaction, not make it more boring for both the locked out ganker and the AFK hauler. They should make the game more fun, ideally for everyone, not punish people for following a career path that is there to make highsec more interesting, and force game decisions.

Of course industrialists don't like getting ganked, but you should ask yourself if there was something that they can do to reasonably prevent it? If there was not, then you have a situation where a balance tweak might be needed or a new game mechanic implement. If they die because they did nothing to protect their ship (whether because they were new and didn't know how, or were taking a calculated risk overloading a hauler, going AFK, or whatever) then that loss is working as intended.

Now, some carebears will go on about how ganking is "too easy" or "no risk". This of course isn't true, and ultimately doesn't matter as the risk is suppose to be on the person pursuing the ISK-making activity, but I will give you some ideas to make ganking more risky you can throw a bone to the carebear demographic you seem to be trying to court. I don't necessary think they are at all good ideas but here they are:
1) Implement a "Pirate hideout" deployable that gankers can use as their base (perhaps a small Criminal Timer reduction is the carrot to get them to use it) that can be attacked
2) Vary CONCORD response time so gankers are less able to judge when they have enough firepower for a successful gank
3) Add some uncertainty to the cargo scanner (like there is for the ship scanner)
4) Allow a mechanism where industrial ships can feed false information to gankers scanners (at a fitting cost)
5) Similarly, allow a mechanism where an industrialist can increase CONCORD response time by a small amount unknown to the ganker (perhaps a module that looks like a mining yield enhancer to a scanner but doesn't do that - it actually decreases CONCORD response time by 10%).

Changes like these actually make the game more interesting while still allowing the criminal gameplay that is suppose to exist in highsec. Punishing criminals with longer lockouts or less loot does not.

However ultimately ganking is going to always appear to be in the advantage of the ganker as you normally only see/hear from the gank victims, not the 99% who the ganker passed over because they were properly tanked, or were never seen in the first place because they used scouts/intel/dscan/bookmarks to stay out of the crosshairs. This of course is the role of the ganker in the design of Eve - to incentivize players to spend the time and effort to protect themselves - which really is a key part of this game. Eve without suicide ganking would be much less interesting - everyone in highsec would use the same max yield/cargo fits and AFK everywhere.

Tora, be a voice to make the game better, and don't pander to those who would make the game less interesting in the pursuit of their self-interest.

The problem with this line of logic is that it doesn't apply consistently enough to matter. Remember that guy who'd been ganked running a purple-fit Raven Navy Issue in a SoE system, and he was so furious because he'd been doing it without issue for five years?

He'd been doing it "wrong" pretty much every day for five years, without interruption. You have to agree that, in terms of consequences, this kind of wrong is hard to distinguish from doing it right. Once in five years, flying a blingmobile in a gank beacon of a system consistently, would lead you to believe that he was incredibly careful. But he wasn't. He was oblivious, and five years of successfully being oblivious had led him to believe, by induction, that he was doing it right. Can you blame him?

This is also most of the freighter pilots in the game. I knew guys--not newbies by any stretch of the imagination, but guys who'd been in ATLAS back in the day--who would set freighters to AFK autopilot through high sec and then go to bed. Nothing ever happened. So can you really say, in terms of the lessons the game actually teaches, that AFK autopiloting a freighter is wrong? Is it actually smart to invest money in an alt, and time in training, and extra attention to flinging your hauler sideways through systems with a dubious mechanical side effect, for what amounts to a marginal increase in safety? Is it smarter than setting autopilot on the thing, figuring that it's NBD if it gets there 10 minutes later, and going off to fly a ship that's actually fun to fly? or just going to bed?

In effect, and regardless of the intentions of the gankers, ganks are generally processed by freighter pilots and mission runners as player-precipitated lightning strikes, and they're right, because the true safety in high sec is in numbers.

Everything in Eve, as in life, is a calculated risk. RL research has shown that people have an "Accepted" level of risk that they're subconsciously willing to take on a day-to-day basis. It's why people drive without their seatbelts on, text while they're driving, don't put winter tires on their vehicle or partake in any number of other activities with an associated risk without taking every possible precaution to ensure their total safety while doing so.

To say that an experienced, AFK'ing freighter pilot chooses to AFK because he genuinely think's that he's safe, is wrong. Rather, he know's that there's a risk, however small that risk may be, but that he's choosing to take the calculated risk of AFK'ing with the knowledge that while he may be ganked, the odds are in his favor that he won't be.

He's entitled to take that calculated risk just as the gankers are entitled to take advantage of any oversights he may make. Just like anybody else that gets in an accident after rolling through an intersection due to not having winter tires on their car, he'll be pissed off that he lost his ship but that doesn't change the fact that he took a knowing, calculated risk. He could have taken steps to avoid the loss, but he didn't.

I've done a lot of freighter hauling in my time and the only time i've ever lost a hauler (A T1 hauler at that,) was the day I was Awoxed bringing fuel to my POS. Since then I've stopped autopiloting my haulers and you wouldn't believe the difference that makes If someone isn't going to spend the time to make sure that their ship arrives safely at the destination, then I have no problem separating him from his ship as it's clearly not worth his time anyway.

Yes, my point exactly: I used the mission runner as an example of how you can do this for so long that you don't even know there are risks. The point of establishing that the freighter pilots were nullsec veterans is that they knew exactly what the risks were, and they still did it, and their calculations were accurate enough that they had no incentive to change their behavior.

I personally have railed against autopilot. I hate it and I don't use it. But then, I don't fly freighters either. If AFK autopiloting freighters is the norm, then it's what makes sense to most people, and I know enough veterans who do it to believe that it's the result of a rational risk/reward calculation (combined with the fact that, if the freighter is attacked, oh, well--no benefit to being ATK for that, either). So the obvious conclusion is that high sec freighter logistics naturally and rationally gravitates toward AFK gameplay, and if you're concerned about that, that's the place to look. Ganking has just about nothing to do with it.

I've been part of CODE. for two weeks, I haven't ganked a single ship in my life and If I was gone tomorrow, bad ideas would still be bad ideas. It has nothing to do with bias or politics. I live in HS because I enjoy the target/player-rich environment. Tora wants to bring safety to HS and I oppose it. It contradicts everything that Eve stands for.

I'm not a CODE member (I in fact have an incredible dislike for CODE) and I oppose Tora. By the way, literally anything that comes from your mouth will be detrimental to Tora's campaign.

Except they wouldn't go to the station and fight. For starters, they would have just been ganked and potentially podded. By the time a non-PvP pilot kits up a PvP ship and heads out to the ganker, the ganker would be long gone.

Secondly, the ganker, once podded, could be anywhere. The gankee would need to track them down in order to "fight back" which would take longer than they would be on a timer.

Thirdly, killing them would be pointless. They would undoubtedly be in an empty clone, so you could pod them over and over again, and they wouldn't care (bear in mind that by the time this were implemented, clone upgrades would be long gone, so they wouldn't even lose SP).

Except a ganker would only need to escape once then you'd never catch the pod. Even if he was terrible and couldn't escape, he could just log on different character and continue to gank.

I'm sure industrialists in high sec are more likely to push against wardecs from people like you, who farm non-combat targets for killboard efficiency, than gankers who they have a fraction of a chance of being ganked by if they happen to carry too much in the wrong place.

You're really running the wrong group if you're trying to win over the highsec non-PvP vote.

I believe we're in violent agreement. And it's not enough of a threat to keep people from gravitating toward the direction that the intrinsic gameplay of freighter piloting encourages, which is to set, forget, and go do something else. Some people even remember to keep the value of their cargo down. I don't have a strong opinion about people being AFK for whatever reason, but it seems to me like the intrinsic gameplay shouldn't encourage it, especially when there's real-time, on-grid conflict between players.

I also think that a lot of the problem goes way deeper, to the fact that there's very little incidental socialization in EVE. Except for Local and (LOL) Constellation, all chat channels and certainly all voice comms are little walled gardens. Even the public chat channels are almost impossible to find until someone tells you about them, and then you have to remember the name. So we're at a point now where there are two camps, and each has a contemptuous opinion of the other, and each one doubles down on their position in response to any criticism. There are exceptions, of course, but not enough of them. If there is any medium of communication between strangers, it's text, which is famously bad at communicating tone and intent.

I mean, think about it: wouldn't it be the most obvious thing to be able to easily communicate with other ships on grid? And we can, clumsily, with technology that dates back to the 1970s. Doesn't that seem odd? (He says, in a CSM candidacy thread ).