CSM Campaigns

2a. I do expect you to log off or accept pressing a button every x minutes (20-30 or so), if you stay on the same grid.

2b. That would work too. I just want less afk mining. You can do this by punishment or rewarding players. Let's try rewarding for a change.

3. They can already be in NPC corps and hide for ever. There is no difference. Might want those NPC corps to still pay tax ?

5. True, that is a risk.

6. Sounds fun too. There are many ways to get to the same destination.

7. I don't want them out of HS stations.

No. If you're docked you don't gain anything. Afk mining, afk cloaked in enemy system, etc you do have an advantage, so you have to work for it. And like I said before, even if you just move once every 20-30 minutes, you will not see anything popup, as you re active.

Its not perfect and needs work, but I am looking for something to minimize afk cloaking and mining. Any ideas are welcome.

Oh don't get me wrong, mining should be more active, but AFK timer are completely irrelevant (since if you are actually mining, you're not AFK) and minigames are generlally a bad idea (they tend to put people off). The mechanics themselves need to be more active, not just "here, play are arbitrary minigame to complete your unrelated task because we can't be bothered to improve your gameplay".

All in all though, Tora's campaign reads like: "make it painful and annoying to play most of the game, except wardecs which should be easier".

Wardec fees are a token change. The problem with wardecs is the mechanics are meaningless, it's just a way to turn off concord. Making it more expensive just for the lowest group doesn't fix the mechanics, and to groups like yours would make very little difference. all that does is mean that a small group wardeccing another small group (the times when the wardec mechanics are arguably working best, because they are actually fighting for a reason rather than killboard padding) has to pay twice as much.

I'd personally go the other way. I'd keep it cheap to wardec the first few groups, then it would exponentially grow, so once you read 15 or so wardecs, it becomes ridiculously expensive, and 20 or so would be financially unachievable. Wardecs should happen in far fewer numbers for real reasons, not just so you can switch off concord for the maximum number of targets. You should need to have to make a choice, "do I wardec these guys, or these guys", not "I'll just wardec everyone". Wardecs need to be given more reason. They should be more than just a concord off switch, they should promote interaction between groups who have a reason to fight each other that isn't just the killboard, like fighting with a competitor for example.

Effectively what you're doing is saying "I'll sacrifice this *really tiny change* and you sacrifice this *massive change*" and acting like it's a fair tradeoff.

As for social corps, they are just a way to make up for the real change, which is shutting NPC corps to older players. Let's look past the fact that to force someone out of an NPC corp, what really would have to happen is they get dumped in a 1 man corp, and look at the lack of benefit. If a social corp is just effectively an NPC corp, why move them out of an NPC corp at all? NPC corps already have a much more interesting corp chat than most other corps, and keep everyone on the same level. All a social corp would do is force you into the same situation, but with the added restrictions of having to be either alone, a leader of a corp, or overseen by someone else. Not to mention that you suggest they would be restricted to 10 players, so you'd only be able to be social with a very small group of people, and growing bigger would mean turning on wardecs, something NPC players have no interest in doing.

But in comparison to what you earn and how much you already pay, it would be a drop in the ocean, especially since mercenary corps tend to have many fees paid for by the client. For a small corp deccing another small corp, it would be prohibitive.

Yes, large mercenary corps should need to make a choice between the contracts they take, or split themselves down to cover more contracts if thats what they wish to do. The current system of "I'm going to wardec everyone because I can" is not a good design. You can simply add wardecs for smaller groups until the end of time, knowing that they stand no chance of retaliating. I'd rather you had to make a choice. Do I take this contract, or that contract? Can I split down into smaller entities to cover both? Would splitting down put too much strain on our members covering the existing contracts?

And no, the fact that you are at war with my alliance (If you still are, I don't actually check) is irrelevant. Even if they did change the wardecs the way I suggest, I'd still expect to be one of the wardecs you choose to go through with, as we provide plenty of easy targets.

Yes, sov should be restricted, which is why you'll find most null players in support of occupancy based sov. If you can't use it, you'll lose it.

Except it would just be a boring NPC corp. The jump to a player corp would be just as big. You're still saying "stay safe in this corp or open yourself up to wardecs on that one". If they existed, I guaranteed that the vast majority of long term NPC players would just be them and their alts in thousands of "social" corps, arguably making the game less social.

It's still a nothing change. 40% on my taxes would still be nothing, I'd happily accept double that. In comparison to how much I make, taxes are tiny, they are 0.75% of a sale (with brokers fees being a further 0.4% or so), so even doubling both would only be 2.3% tax, which would simply get passed on to the buyer. The same way that much your additional fees would simply get passed on to the customer.

That could happen under any system, if a larger group chooses to fight back, that's what can happen. You're going off on a tangent here. The thing is, you find it fun, because you're the large group bullying the little groups with your superior power. I don't think that making you have to choose between who you attack rather than just attacking everyone is a bad thing. You should have to make choices.

The null sec statement on occupancy based sov is on such source. It's really not hard to find people on board with the idea of shrinking down null groups areas of control.

I'm sure yo udo have fun with 10 players, but that's 10 players out of a larger group. Someone in an NPC corp finding a group of 10 people he enjoys playing with and who are all online together is highly unlikely to happen. Beyond it being difficult to find those people, most wouldn't even try, since there's still no benefit to being in a corp with other players. Effectively the same change could be made by simply removing NPC corp chat, since that's pretty much what a social corp would be, an NPC corp without thousands of other players.

And of course they would be less social. Why would someone who is currently in an NPC corp choose to put themselves in a group with other players when they gain no benefit from doing so? People won't just flock to join other social corps simply because they are available, that's why it's not a very well thought out idea.

If I had 40% less profit, yes I'd pass at least the majority of that to the customer, and yes, that's fine, that's how business work in the real world. At the end of the day you do things for the profit you feel is acceptable. If costs go up, often so does the price, this is why crude oil prices affect the prices of petrol. Are you saying that someone that pays you 100m for a 50m wardec now would not pay any extra if the wardec cost 100m?

Except you're buying out concord for hundreds of corps for very little isk. I get that you think it's fine to do that, but surely you can appreciate how your targets find that to be considerably less than fine. Being a CSM member isn't about just pushing what benefits YOU.

No, there is no reason for someone in an NPC corp to put themselves under someone else's leadership when all they want to do is mine, mission and be left alone. You seem to think that if they made "social corps" and kicked people into them, that they would suddenly want to be more social even though there's no benefit to doing so. That's just not how it works. You not understanding that is yet another reason why you'd be an awful CSM member.

I'm sure it is, and for the 100th time people can clearly see that yout chances are token changes to make it appear like you are losing out along with everyone else. The realism is that you want massive changes to nerf other people's playstyles and small insignificant changes to your own (in in some ways direct benefits, like the ability to run dreadnaughts in highsec to make it easier for you to POS bash small industry corps). I'm certainly not the only one who has noticed this.

Your inability to understand this and even to understand the basic reasons why people play in ways different to your own is at the core of why you are a terrible CSM candidate.

My focus will still be on high-sec, but why not talk about low-sec

http://justforcrits.com/csmx-tora-bushido/