CSM Campaigns

Sure, adding more social tools (and if you noticed he mentioned pure PVE activities for that too) is generally a good idea. I strongly believe that people would work together on PVE if everything wasn't stacked against doing so. Many games give bonuses to working in groups, EVE simply splits the rewards, so there's really no benefit in working together. More tools for collaboration all round is a good idea. The real difference is though that Mike accepts there are players who like to play solo, and that it's OK to do so.

EVE is a game for all types. And to be honest, whatever Seagull says, the game needs players to accomplish anything. Some players like to play without combat. If they are going to simply write those people off, then it really doesn't matter who's CSM.

I'm not saying that solo content necessarily needs to be a focus, but it certainly needs to be accepted as part of the game, and non-combat content will always be required and certainly needs love. Sabriz's ideas amount to "add more places to gank people who don't want to be attacked" seem to be pretty selfish in design. Like I said before, a CSM candidate needs to be trusted to look out for the needs of the community, not just their own.

I've just posted a Soundcloud recording of a very informal discussion about wardec mechanics I did with BeBopARhubarbPie and a couple of other people.

It's available here: https://soundcloud.com/sabriz-adoudel/wardecs

It was you and bebop who kept me in the game sabriz. Met you in the mining chat, bebop in e-uni chat.

Without you two I'd not have joined the New Order. I was on the verge of quitting this game, whilst on the path to leveling up to a dominix.

You have my vote.

And suddenly it all becomes clear - Lucas is Frying Doom, who viewers may recall attempted to **** up previous CSM threads only to see those candidates win. Never stop poasting, Frying Kell.

Who are you again? Oh, nobody. Shush then kiddo. Grown ups are talking.

There would be no point. So you can hop on your teamspeak server and record yourself saying whatever you can to get votes. The only thing that matters is looking at your past and seeing what is is you are and are not in favour of. Whether or not your can bs your way through an interview now is irrelevant. I'm not against scamming and ganking, or generating more opportunities for PvP, but they certainly shouldn't take priority over historically bad mechanics long overdue for a revamp, and players who don't scam, gank and PvP shouldn't be treated as if they do not exist.

Responding, and adding more to the response I made this morning.





I'm for a meaningful unilateral surrender that means serious concessions, not some 'oh here's a refund of your dec fee, now go away'. I would not support unilateral surrender options that don't feel like a defeat to the defender and a victory to the aggressor. The goal here is that a corporation would be incentivised to defend itself unless overwhelmingly outmatched, but that they have a surrender option if they would otherwise simply not undock for a week.

I would not endorse such a surrender being available in the first 48 hours of a war going live, nor for entities with anchored structures.

I'm for closing that exploit, yes. I would push for CCP to return to considering disbanding and reforming corp an exploit again. Likewise various other permutations like having six corps, five with just a CEO and the 'main corp', where everyone drops from the main corp into one of the alt corps. As for people dropping corp to hide in an NPC corp for a week - anything that bans doing that will have other consequences that are serious, such as two permanent wardecs preventing anyone leaving a corporation.

But I also want to provide incentives to stick to your corp. One rough idea is a mechanic where if your corporation has earned five million LP from missions over its existence, the corporation gets a bonus of 0.5% or 1% to LP gain from missions, that only applies to members that have been in the corp 14 days or longer. A second tier of this bonus might exist at 25 million LP. These provide an incentive to stay loyal over time. I'd add the same for mining, but as I have less experience with mining I'm not sure what appropriate numbers would be (perhaps a first tier of -0.5% cycle time for mining lasers at 50 million cubic metres of ore/ice mined, and a second tier at 250 million).

If you drop to an NPC corp, you therefore don't just miss out on a few percent of mission completion rewards and bounties, you lose out on possible bonuses to mining yield and mission LP rewards, and you don't get them back just for setting up your own new solo corp, or even immediately upon joining an established corp.

Importantly, however, the thresholds at which any of these bonuses kick in should not be set so high that they set a major barrier to creating a new corporation.

Finally, on NPC corps and long term players. I think dropping to an NPC corp should be a viable option for someone that derps badly and loses everything, and it should be a viable place to rebuild until you both own and can afford to lose a HAC, T1 battleship, or a similar level of ship. But they should offer nothing to players with those ships.

My concrete suggestion is to change the tax system to apply only to bounty ticks and agent mission rewards exceeding 500k ISK (presently the threshold is 100k) but for the tax to be much, much higher, and to apply to incursion payouts, mission LP rewards, and (if a mechanism can be found to do this) to mining and potentially market interactions. For a rookie in their failfit level 3 mission battlecruiser they will seldom notice taxes, but for someone blitzing L4s, being in a player corporation would be strongly incentivised.

Sabriz, what experiences do you have with sov null? Do you have any opinions on the state of the game there?

How do you feel about making a wardec's cost based on the number of people in both corporations? I.e. the more people involved, the more expensive it is in total, but the less expensive it is per person?

Persistant shiptoasters tend to stand out.



In breaking news, supporters of a CSM candidate were spotted posting supportive things in their candidate thread today.

It's a sandbox, and roleplayers are welcome, but it's not a roleplaying game in any way.