CSM Campaigns

You're very welcome, thanks for running. At this point I'm just going to chug on through as many as I can before the voting concludes. I'm aiming to do a minimum of 10 though.

Tommas, I read your post and I appreciate the kind words.

I'll reply to your question soonTM but I'm going to take my time and answer it in full. You'll probably have to wait for the weekend before I can give your question the attention it truly deserves. There are a lot of good points I'd like to touch on.

No problem Jayne, whenever you get a chance to answer, I’m just glad it wasn’t lost in the other dialog.

Now I’ll take a stab at the at the wardec discussion a bit. What about rethinking the highsec as a whole. 1.0 systems are supposed to be the “safest” systems where CONCORD polices them with the best response time, etc. What if CONCORD determine that 1.0 systems are considered a “peace zone” and a War Dec does not include 1.0 systems. 1.0 systems are deemed neutral zones for corporations. 1.0 systems aren’t all that profitable for PVE’er’s but it still gives them a safe area during war time. It doesn’t really hurt PVP War Dec corps all that much because in order to get in and out of 1.0 systems the war targets still have to go through 0.9 and below space. They just have to gate camp the 1.0 system and it’s basically business as usual. One could argue the possibility that 0.9 systems should be exempt from war dec’s as well but I wouldn’t go any further than that. Now these “neutral” systems wouldn’t be completely exempt from PVP. I wouldn’t stop the normal ganking, can baiting, etc.

Your ad is here. Good luck.

I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. As always I let some edge cases stay.
Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

The Rules:
3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counter productive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

27. Off-topic posting is prohibited.

Off-topic posting is permitted within reason, as sometimes a single comment may color or lighten the tone of discussion. However, excessive posting of off-topic remarks in an attempt to derail a thread may result in the thread being locked, or a forum warning being issued to the off-topic poster.

And in order to do that you must be able to provide relevant feedback which sometimes include solutions.




There is no division between "just a pvp" corp and "just a pve corp." They're not rival or competing factions or playstyles. Eve is a social game and anything that you try to accomplish works better in groups through the corp mechanics. If it made no difference, you wouldn't be having issues with wardecs. But I digress. Here's the beautiful thing about Eve...if someone does something to you, you can do it right back to them. Someone fights you, you can fight them. That's balance.

Balance doesn't exist when a hulk can fight off a gila. Balance exists when you yourself can fit up a gila as well (or a ship to counter the gila) and go fight them.




The problem is that you are trying to run a "pure industry" corp or alliance which is about as intuitive as trying to have a china shop in 5th century Germania. Eve is a violent brutal game and your ability to be violent to your enemies is what will ensure your security, not a sense of entitlement. And there are large corps/alliances in highsec that do industry, but most of them once they reach a large enough player base tend to migrate to more profitable areas of Eve such as lowsec, nullsec or wh space. If the defenders are being farmed easily and are socially averse, that's the problem on their end because they refuse to play the game and fight. They're free to do that, but don't punish the people that actually want to play the game in its full manner pvp and all.

This is a fairly common problem, and unfortunately isn't one that has any clear solution. Personally, I've found a happy middle ground through the way my corporation is run. The members of my corporation are almost all heavily involved in NPSI groups, either as FCs or devoted line members. As a corp, we don't maintain any blues - blues offer us nothing, and in return, decreases our number of potential targets. I've called members of my corporation as primary on multiple occasions, but we are all well aware of how NPSI "works" and what the rules of engagement are even if you see a green star in local.

NPSI as a playstyle is still relatively new; there are still a lot of people who haven't heard of it, let alone actually flown in an NPSI fleet. In the sov world, in contrast to the NPSI world, blues do have purpose. They help you win wars, they are paying to use space, or maybe they're just alts of your friends. A member who views blues as a potential target depending on their daily disposition can be considered a liability to the entire alliance. When we talk about blue-on-blue occurrences, there are many shades to how involved or "at fault" a person can be. Are you one of a hundred bombers killing a target during a hot drop? Well, guns away, he was going to die anyway. Were you the hunter killer who found your friend through unscrupulous means, and lit the cyno for a hundred bombers to come kill him? Well.... then maybe your alliance has reason to be upset.

When we're talking about ways to engage those who you are normally friendly with, both circumstances have to be considered. The most popular suggestion to combat this problem is the introduction of fleet standings, where the member of a fleet has the option to inherit the standings set by the FC. Ignoring ~legacy code~ problems, this should have to have restrictions so that it couldn't be easily abused, such as switching from blue to red mere second before landing tackle on a shiny target. Forcing a member to be docked before standings could be swapped is one practical fix that would encourage using it for the intended purpose. That being said - and as I alluded to above - even with the proper tag marking you as a valid target, the core of the problem is as simple as conflicting desires and loyalties.

The groups that you are flying with under the guise of a "proper" corporation and alliance have goals, and desires, and their way to enjoy the game. The NPSI fleets that you fly with on occasion have their desires and goal as well, although mostly short term goals in the pursuit of fun and content. As much as I'd love implement fleet standings as a way to broadcast intentions, no change in mechanic is going to prevent someone from judging you for participating with an organization outside of their own.

You had my vote as soon as I read about no off grid boosting on the "Align yourself with a candidate" page; then stole my heart at pirate faction warfare.