CSM Campaigns

I would like every CSM candidate to confirm (or reject) support of the idea of applying the following statement to all future proposed changes to EvE mechanics:

"If the proposed change to game mechanics is expected to reduce conflict, it should be rejected. If the proposed change will increase conflict, it should be embraced"

Simple yes or no, without equivocation or weasel words. With that one answer voters can have revealed to them who will truly protect the sandbox, and who will let one slip past the goalie one day and harm it.

Sabriz?

F

I personally like to ask in fleet "X up if you are AFK." Then when no one X's up those few who are there undock and die. Hasn't failed yet.

Other games do have a pop up Ready check that group leaders (in Eve's case FC's) can run and it tells them how many said ready, how may said not ready, and how many didn't respond. Something similar should be fairly easily implemented and could be useful in fleets. It wouldn't affect local obviously, but it could be useful in corp chat.

I forgot about the WoW raid ready checks. That would be obscenely useful for standing fleets.

Have I mentioned that this idiot is the day to day leadership of my corp? :)



As someone that briefly played WOW, I can confirm that this feature is useful in groups that are both voluntary to join and expected to remain consistently active (so useful for fleets, but not corp/alliance wide, as corps/alliances often have people who are online, docked/POSsed and AFK).

The WOW feature in question is very obtrusive (it takes your client's focus and must be clicked through to move on). It would need to be unobtrusive in EVE, otherwise spies in blob fights will spam it at bad times, such as 0.25-2 seconds after someone broadcasts for reps and screams in voice "break break, my Nyx is at 15% structure". I'm for spies having disruptive tools to use in fights, but they should not be based upon restricting the abilities of other players to communicate with their game client.

Confirming.



I agree that if anyone can start it, it would need to be unobtrusive. However I was thinking, and forgot to mention, that really the FC is the only person who needs to be able to do this. Well, FC or fleet Boss in the event they are not the same person.

Listened to your interview with capstable, you're very well spoken and made your point well. +1

That's yet to be evidenced as true. As it stand it looks like conflict wont actually be introduced until they change the way sov is taken and held. In an ideal world, yes, removing jumping will create conflict, but in realism it's just making people not bother to travel long distances to fight, while still leaving the threat that if you attack someone on their home turf they will drop capital fleets on your head, just now you can't call in backup from another group. It's certainly not a conflict driver.

That said, it's secondary to the main point which is that automatically accepting and rejecting changes based purely on whether or not they are thought to increase or decrease conflict respectively is far too simple an idea and certainly not a healthy view for a CSM member to take. A good idea is still a good idea even if it reduces conflict. Retaining conflict is definitely something that should be considered, but it's not the sole factor in a good idea.

While Feyd is being a little dogmatic on purpose to highlight the many recent changes to the game that have indeed reduced conflict and therefore content (and have made the game more boring), his core point is correct - changes to the game should be considered primarily as to whether to promote conflict (perhaps I might qualify this as "entertaining" conflict). Sure, there are some changes that do nothing to change the conflict in the game - re-skinning a ship for example, and there are other changes to the game where two reasonable people can disagree on whether the net effect will be more conflict or not - like the force projection changes, but at its core this game is primarily only interesting because of the direct conflict against, or competition with other players.

You say a "good idea" is a still a "good idea" but "good" is a meaningless term unless you define what you are trying to achieve. Can you actually name a change to this game that most people consider "good" but that actually decreased conflict between players? Because this is a complex game sometimes a change can rebalance conflict or reduce it in one place but increase it elsewhere, but I think all the changes to the game considered "good" by most players have driven conflict overall, not reduced it.

There are many ways to play Eve, but almost all of them are only interesting because you live in a sandbox with other players. Carebears can play on the test server and mine and build whatever they want in 100% safety but none of them do this because these activities are meaningless in the absence of the competitive sandbox around you. There is no actual use for your goods, not to mention no risk, so therefore there is no sense of accomplishment. Conflict between players drives everything in this game, and therefore every change to game mechanics should be primarily considered as to whether it increases conflict or not, because otherwise the game becomes more boring and people will stop playing if there is no content/conflict to be had.

In response to the suggestions for a halfway house between a player corp and an NPC corp, because this seems to be a recurring thread, and I'm someone that has a history of nonstandard use of the corporation tools. For instance, for a long time I was an active supporter of CODE. alliance without being a member.

Firstly, it's my view that outside FW, an NPC corp is nothing but the absence of a player corporation. This is mainly because you have no control over which NPC corp you wind up in (except for a decision you make before creating your character).

The functionality of the proposed 'corp lite' is really the same as the Minerbumping chat channel in game (a moderated chat channel), except that a 'corp lite' would exclude people who are members of traditional player corps joining unless they are willing to leave their 'real corp'.

This would allow someone interested in two or more activities to connect with other players and still make their own decision about whether to be in a player corp or not, rather than having to commit to a corp or 'corp-lite' that specialises in only one of those activities.

There are benefits to making it easier to find other players with similar interests - but this should be done through improving and publicizing chat channels, not through reducing the consequences of corp membership. In particular, it should be easier to find chat channels aimed at an activity you are interested in. Lots of channels exist - some are secret, others are open but just very hard to find out about, some are well known (the minerbumping channel for example, or whatever replaced the haulers channel after the original one changed ownership) and others are set up by CCP (the mining or recruitment channel).

You mention in your capstable interview that people over the last 18 months have been leaving c1 to c5 to go to run incursions could you provide some more info on these numbers, facts that sort of thing.

you mention that the corp on corp change will be a huge detriment to w space since they will all move to hisec and run incursion, If this was the case they would just do incursions in a npc so this change wouldnt effect them in anyway.

could you give me a bit more info on how you think w space is doing its obviously going badly as you say.

do you honestly think the corp on corp agression will totally ruin w space?

you mention that you heavily endorsed funkybacon, how do you think he has done this year?