CSM Campaigns

Yeah I agree with everything you've said here. Unfortunately I'm not sure how you could make freight hauling more interesting without inadvertently giving freighters a massive unfair buff.

Really?

Just to pick one tiny little incremental example: CCP could do to freighters exactly what they just did to sov structures: less raw HP, more resists, except that the "resists" would come in the optional form of enough CPU to fit a Basic Damage Control and some kind of hull tank or resist plating.

Just like that, AFK freighter piloting becomes more perilous, and active freighter piloting--albeit, for a de minimus and inadequate definition of "active"--is rewarded, but the EHP of a max tanked freighter hasn't changed substantially.

Now, I'm not saying that that in itself is a good change. "You get to activate a module every few minutes to avoid painting a huge target on your back!" is not compelling gameplay in and of itself. It's just an off-the-cuff example of the sort of change you could make without turning freighters into indestructible fortresses. A package of similarly balanced changes could redefine the class.

With that said, if the poster back a few pages is right and the ceiling above which a freighter gank is profitable has dropped to only 500M ISK, maybe a slight buff is appropriate. You should, at the very least, be able to fill a freighter with common high sec ore without drawing too much attention to yourself. Otherwise, what are they for?

As so often, you are wrong. I do not gank for 'tears', I gank simply for the kill. It's the hunt that motivates me. Can I be stealthy enough to scan him, get a warp in on him and land on top of him before he suspects any trouble? In general, tears bore me, as most of the time they are just 'waaaah waaah, Y U KEEL MI?!?! GO SUUK DIK!".

As for your "improvement", the work around I would use for that: train up more alts. Mostly trading/industrial alts that aren't doing anything outside of stations anyway atm. Log out your first ganker, have it auto-eject till hell freezes over, log back into another alt, gank on that, rinse repeat.

Other work arounds: set you medical clone to a low sec station, no bear will dare venture there, have a jump clone in hi sec. I'd most likely be combining the two. End result: no gameplay added for gankers, no gameplay added for anti-gankers. The fact that you think repeatedly shooting auto-ejecting pods is 'gameplay' kinda surpises me tbh. It sounds like a chore more than it sounds like gameplay. I'm sure that anyone who has been doing it for more than 20 minutes will agree. You'll get chats like this:"Hey guys, I won't be going on mining ops/missioning/roaming/incursions/whatever cuz I got 'ganker podding'-duty today, have fun without me while I am out here making sure that just 1 ganker gets locked down while he is logging in on one of his 10 other gank chars and continues to gank.". Sounds really appealing to all parties involved yeah....

You wrote your guide on anti-ganking, which is pretty decent (I still link it to ppl sometimes if they really seem to have no clue) so you KNOW how easy it is to avoid ganks yet here you are advocating "One More Nerf". I am disappoint Gobbles, I am disappoint...

Still no, we need a content creator, not a merc blue donut maker.
We need someone has PvP experience, not t3 blob gang with neutral logi alts.
We don't need a mermaid/coward for csm.

I can agree about the fact small corps are destroyed by a bigger fish, it's happened to me, and I've done to other corps. But this shouldn't be a reason to help the defending corp. Defending corps are broken because the people inside the corp are not willing to help each other.

I've run with small gang wardecing corps my entire time in EVE (no more than 20 people) Asides from one small time, when Deadly Fingertips became rather large and join IKR for a brief moment. I would like to say I know a fair bit on Wardecs, and how they function from at least a meta standpoint.


The reason most corps loose to a Aggressing corp. Is because for the most part, a Wardeccing corp has more teamwork, shares a common goal, and in general has a better atmosphere than a 20 to 5 "We do everything" Corp.

The "We do Everything" Corp basically means, from what I've seen, Here go mine, mission or whatever, here are some people to talk to while you do it. We don't have a goal in mind and so whatever. There is no comradery, no strive for a goal. No Team just I.

That is why most corps in High-sec break, because when push comes to shove. No one in this "We do Everything" Corp is willing to stick up for each other and fight together. That is why a Merc corp, or Wardecing corp does by far better than they do. Because a Wardeccing corp has set themselves to have a goal, to work together and everyone in the Merc corp is ready for it.

Basically what I'm saying is, a "Social" Corp will always no matter how much the isk paid, no matter how many people are in it. Will break to a Focused corp with a goal and interest in mind. So you can raise the wardec cost. Raise to the moon all you want it won't make Highsec any better, it'll probably make even more stagnant. Because the one drive force in EVE is emotion, Greed, angry whatever. If you get mad, you get focused. And then the magic happens.


Also I currently run a solo wardeccing corp. Why should I be singled out? I'm but a single pilot verse many.

Currently I'm dec with corp that is around 50 members. There is no amount of SP that will save me from 20 or so Moa's blasting my Proteus to oblivion. A solo wardeccer is by far the most balanced part in the Wardeccing mechanics. Because he is very vulnerable.

Were as a Alliance like FA, can easily counter and defend attacks on them. So why should I not be allowed to take that risk and work alone and have a challenge and know that I don't have (No offence to FA) 5 DPS Proteus with Rook ECM on standby when I camp a gate?


Thats the best way I can word this so hope you understand.

Stay on topic. If it's attention you seek, let me know and I will send you a postcard.

I think Abla is looking to judge your feelings on the subject, rather than asking what your specific solutions are at this moment in time. It is important that a CSM rep at least has an understanding of the matters that they are going to represent, if not all the answers.

So to put Abla's question a different way: What are top 3 most important issues you personally see regarding PVE/Incursions/Missioning in hi-sec that you feel should be tackled? Any rough idea or direction you would take to make these aspects of the game better are a bonus.

I agree that this is an issue. Ganking has been "balanced" over the years to the point it is uncommon (at least nowhere near a daily or weekly occurrence) for any player, even those in higher risk professions, to ever see one. That means the estimation of risk by a player, especially a new one, might be inaccurate, and a player can over time risk more and more thinking it is safe before a ganker/pirate catches up with them and relieves them of their assets in a catastrophic fashion.

The obvious solution is to buff ganking to make it more common, something that players have to deal with more frequently, but I won't suggest that as first, I don't want to be accused of lobbying for game changes for self-interest (as I have been known to gank on occasion), and second, judging from the comments of the CSM and even the current developers at CCP, the prevailing winds seem to still be blowing in the direction of making highsec safer for various reasons. Therefore I will make an alternative proposal to slightly increase the level of risk in the game, and am curious what your thoughts are on it Tora.

Players AFK because there is very little risk. Since also players seem to really not like losing their stuff to another player, I suggest a new rare NPC-based mechanism for risk be added to the game. These will be new sleeper NPCs that appear very infrequently across known space, spawning on gates, stations and belts/anomalies at a frequency that is low enough that players will run into them only rarely (1/100 hours in space?) but not never. The first spawn will just be a frigate that double webs the nearest ship and begins to apply a very small amount of damage. A few minutes later (time can be tuned as desired), it will call in a sleeper cruiser, and a few minutes after that a battleship that will be able to apply enough damage to destroy any ship within minutes.

The main effect of this will be deter prolonged AFK behaviour in space. Any player that is at the keyboard during a spawn, or returning to the keyboard after hearing the alarms can just warp away. Any player that is really AFK will lose their ship. You can also make them drop cool stuff if players choose to engage them as they will be too rare and random to farm efficiently.

This rare encounter will train players that space is dangerous (as it was designed to be) and that unattended/autopiloting ships can really be destroyed (by NPCs or other players), and this will deter them from routine/extended use of autopiloting/AFK (and come to think of it, make bot programers life a little more difficult). If you want to be clever, you could even make it so these sleepers can spawn anywhere in space where a player is and decloak them as a game mechanism to counter AFK cloaking. I am not sure that is a good idea (although I really have no opinion), but I think it would be a good counter to make New Eden more like CCP Falcon's vision of a dangerous place, rather than the safe space conducive to AFK hauling (at least in highsec) that it currently is.

Considering the recent direction and developments by CCP, I find your platform mostly frivolous if not meaningless and misguided. Unfortunately I'm going to have to side with CODE on this one (shudder) and say that I won't be supporting you in this election.

I doubt it. These NPC aren't suppose to be unkillable so I imagine an organized gate camp will have no problem dispatching the webbing frigate. You would still need players to break an organized gate camp.

Plus remember these are suppose to be rare - just a small theoretical risk to make people a little more careful and used to the idea they can lose their stuff if they are AFK. They shouldn't impact normal daily game play much at all.