CSM Campaigns

I agree that more information about people you have killrights on, and who has killrights on who (so you can contact them and work out an arrangement), and maybe a variety of other possibilities, would make killrights more useful.

1. The amount of isk paid for mass wardecs is too low for the benefit it gives. Personally I'd exponentially grow the cost of wardecs, so after about 10-15, it costs hundreds of billions a week for the next dec.

2. Ganking is pretty easy and without any real consequences however.

3. It's like what, less than half a bil (edit: it's 350m)? That's pocket changes to completely reverse your sec status. Bring back the old days where it took painful manual SS grinding.

This is a prime example of what is wrong with someone like you going for CSM. You're so self serving. What you want is stuff to make things easier for you. Wardec corps like yours are a problem, because wardecs are too cheap and too easy to run to the point that declaring war against hundreds of tiny corps with no chance of defending themselves is possible. And now you want those people who are in those corps to effectively be unable to undock for a week because you think it's unfair that they can run away.

And I know, cue you and your usual minions claiming that I must be getting brutally wardecced on all of my NPC alts. The truth is that it's easy to see a fundamental imbalance as large as the one that dedicated wardec corps have over non-PvP corps from the outside. The fact that you can't see (or more likely won't admit to seeing) it is a testament to your ineptitude.

I am not even sure why you would start your campaign with something like this. Seriously, when I read this I immediately have some ideas and question about how to game this to our advantage. This reads like one of this seriously broken ideas that pop up every other hour in the F&I forum.

It also shows that this is not really your field of expertise. If you want to improve something in the game then it would probably be a good idea to stick to the game mechanics you actually know something about.

Also I don't think it is your job as a CSM to do game design, but to provide feedback to CCP about their game designs. If you don't even get that you may be the wrong person for the job entirely.

Tora,

I could ask you via other channels but I'm doing it here because I know your stance (like in many other cases) will be awesome

Since you aim to keep EVE from turning into a nerfed Disneyland, what is your opinion on the heavy handed forum administration that's been killing some previously vibrant official sub-forums?

A latest example open for you reaction:


D.

If I only could discuss this subject Let's say, I agree with most of the forum members about this subject.

FYI : Applications for CSM10 on January, 30th and the elections themselves will happen on February, 25th.

Fuzzworks appears to disagree.

350m is pocket change? Maybe for you out in null, but damn well not for high sec gankers. Also, I think tengu is pointing out that going from -10 to 0 is not a "reversal" its starting fresh. Quite a big difference there.

Oh sod off, 350m was nothing well before I was out in null. When you consider that the 350m isn't a recurring cost, it's a one off when you decide you want that character to be returned to legality, it means even less.

And it's a reversal of the "consequences" if it can even be called that. I'm sure Tengu will come up with all manner of excuses for why he's not wrong, but he understood what was being said and assumed that tags were expensive, because many gankers like to whine about how expensive they are so it sounds like they are hard done by.

The short of it is that ganking is too easy and without consequence, hardly suited to the supposed "hardcore" nature of EVE. Gankers are just the carebears of PvP.

Bull. this is victim blame plain and simple. You people continuously state the gankees being it on themselves, and you know that's horseshit. Whatever people did, you'd always find the weakest link and go for that, because you don't want a challenge. Ganking should be possible, but it should be a meaningful choice with meaningful consequences and associated cost and risk. Black Pedro once suggested randomising concord timers for example. A change like that introduces a level of risk to ganking. You wouldn't just be able to pop a fit into a spreadsheet and say "I need exactly X catalysts". Consequences are much harder with the existence of alts, but certainly there needs to be a downside to choosing to play the villain.

I don't find it hardcore at all. I don't find any of EVE to be hardcore. I hate this nonsense that somehow gankers are there providing some necessary service because high sec is "too safe", where realistically the whole game is as safe as you want it to be. A ganker is no more daring by using a disposable ship to gank a carebear.

The loot fairy balances out over time to a steady income, as for the rest, yes, that's playing the game. Believe it or not people don't log in already doing whatever action it is they play on doing.

As for the consequences, you can't undock for 15 mins - so? That's not a consequence, that's a cost. If I triage a carrier I'm not going anywhere, and I'm actually at risk while I do so. It's not a consequence of triaging, it's a cost for choosing that action.

Can't move around highsec freely - you don't need to. A pod is effectively unstoppable, and you use alts to shift your gear around. You can eve take ships from an orca so you don't even need to undock a ship which is arguably the only time a gank ship is vulnerable.

Need to pay ISK to restore sec status - This is the same thing as above, it's simply an alternative option to using alts. Compared to how much gankers can make, it's a low price, and really only needs to be done once, when you've decided you don't want to gank anymore. As I said above, sec status is the only thing that even resembles consequences, yet it's both irrelevant and reversible.

No, what they want is the understanding that just because you gank, you're not suddenly daring. You are just as much a carebear as an AFK miner. Most gankers are on disposable alts using disposable ships and disposable pods, so they can gank, then get back on with whatever it is you were doing on their mains. They are looking for easy, risk-free kills.

When people say that ganking needs to be balanced, they mean just that. I know that the second that happens, your autism flairs up and you have this desperate need to attack people as if they are saying "ganking should not be possible", but that's not what's being said. Ganking is far too easy and has no real consequences. It's carebear PvP. Along with AFK mining and many other mechanics, it needs to be balanced so the choice to take that path actually means something.

Well I am surprised to read what I read.

My corp was a friend begginer corps who suffered a lot of a chain wardecs from marmites, I tried to spam many corps who where like insta wardecs by marmites, by you tora. We had a chat before you did it (wardec new corps we made). What happend ? 3 of my good friends left the corps after 2 months of marmites wardecs, and stoped eve slowly.

So you are clearly a part of what you described. If it is an experience you made with your alilance, I think it was maybe a too long experience.

I got simple suggestions about wardecs, they are part of the game and we need it. What doesnt work is : A corp can't join an alliance to get protection while the corp is wardec. This system is completly broken. You can just desable a new corp. This system has to be remooved.

Like every wars, wardecs has to have a real cost if you do it in the time. For exemple : you can wardec an corp /alliance, lets keep the actual low cost, no problems, but an extra week will cost : times 4 ---->200 million for the extra week. another week ? times for again : 1 billion . and so one... Even in middle age (i know siege could be very long...) it was fukin expensiv. If you don't pursuit your wardec by paying the bill : then you can't wardec the corp/ alliance for 1 week. This is it. Fair enough for wardecs corps who like it (and trust me i can understand it) fair enough to protect small corps.

About suicide gankers I did a suggestion for making it really challenging in a post I did. Simply : when you shoot someone, you loose 2.5 of ss. If you kill : you loose 10 ss. Witch means you have to prepare your security status to do it. The actual system is way to simple and suicide gankers can almost chain what they do.

What may happen ? Less suicide gank, more poeple self confident who will transport more and more expensiv stuffs. Everybody will be happy, more noob transport without too hard problems, more challenge for suicide gankers, and more loot for them, they will have to choose their targets carefully.


//Edit : what you propose, not being able to wardecs small corps (less than x poeple) is just the best way to protect and control small corps of poeple who makes wardecs, plus it is the best way, if you are the corp / alliance who receive the war to escape it.

The best solution is to increase the cost for small corps : 100 million and same system but times 5 : 500 million the seconde week, 2.5 billion for the third week, 10 billion for a month of war.

As simple as that.