CSM Campaigns

Can you please be more specific on who your advocating for? The high sec players or the High sec gankers / pirates?

1) I am not sure what you mean. Hisec is not 'safe' it is a place where consequences happen as enforced by npc's. In Null and wormholes the consequences come more from your fellow players. ANY freaking change will affect someones ability to live in the space, question is which change and who gets affected. Take the AWOX change coming this Tuesday. It has an effect but I was totally for it because it was a very dumb rule to begin with.

2) CCP has a game universe and an intellectual product and they are going a lot of different ways with it. I do NOT expect to see direct crossovers anytime soon for a few reasons. The first is time differential. WE fight in long 'age of sail' type battles while Valyrie is more twitch boom dead. (I have played it a few times) Legion/Dust is small group and also hard to tie in without a LOT of economic rulings for it all to make sense and not for a mediocre pilot to be able to buy and see squads at the drop if a few million isk. It is easy to demand integrration but a lot more difficult to actually envisage what the hell that means. As for walking in stations? I wrote this and stand by it.

3) Societies. Hell yes. I will continue to fight for them (and the name)

4) Market mechanics are cool IF we could have some sort of Concord securities commission. Otherwise it would be a madhouse with uncontrolled monopolies snatching up all the little fish. Go back through the histories like Eve Bank, the number of corps and alliances shut down or broken due to bad share management and tell me I am wrong.

m

Thanks for the answer.

1- Hi sec is safer if you don't attack. If you attack, yes, you start to have problems. We don't want to change this logic some suspicious candidates for CSM X proposed to be changed.

2- Peraphs you think about something too much. First demonstration of Project in Fanfest 2014 is enough far for us. You can make two games with a minimal link like they show. For Valkyrie, it could be exactly the same. And yes, they are time differential. That's the biggest reason they should be linked. Battle on the ground or in the sky can't be like in space. You could easily imagine it : there are wars in space, on ground and in sky. They would propose the adequate rythm in the adequate situation. For WIS, if i understood your blog, here also, you plan very far. A role playing like "Mass Effect" could be enough in the first time to make us discover inner stations. And if it's like in Legion demonstration, a game that boots from another, it's enough at first. After, it would be possible to increase interactions.

3- We agree even if the name societies is a bit luxurious when we have already organization (the word) in the game.

4- Your idea "some sort of Concord securities commission" is quite good. Fight for it.

With these additional informations, would you be able to be at least a spokesperson in CSM X of what IS a wish for some ?
Even if we understand you can have a nuanced vision on some subjects (almost impossible to be a clone for each opinion).

In any case, we like your ability to speak and exchange with players. This is what we are waiting for a CSM candidate.

Best regards.

It's only negative one in your opinion. A lot of changes you dislike I think are good for the game, so I'd say 0 + 1 = 1. You crying over the changes doesn't make them bad, it's simply a matter of opinion and they differ.

ROFL, a TMC posting by James 315. And that's supposed to be taken seriously and can be assume to be completely objective? I think not.

You realise if you guys didn't stand behind CODE you'd actually be worthy of considerably more respect, right? I say this in complete honesty and this is not designed to be insulting in any way - nothing anyone from code has ever said has ever come across even remotely as if it were supposed to be taken seriously. It's an enormous RP trollolol fest. You'd do far better to drop the act and be frank about issues. Drawing up fake graphs and presenting grandiose "the end is nigh" speeches really doesn't lend itself to being treated like anything more than comedic entertainment.

Excuse me if I don;t take your word for it. I've read James' articles before and the only thing it did was waste part of my life.

Yes, I'm well aware of Trammel, something that happened years before UO's peak player count yet for some reason takes blame from some old players for the downfall of the game. I don't really buy it to be honest. Beside the fact that the game went on to grow significantly for years following Trammel, it was also a separate world, so would have no actual impact on the "hardcore" world. The only thing it would influence is how much people cried because someone else was playing the same game but easier.

Tell me, do you get upset when you play a game in "Very Hard" while someone else plays it in "Very Easy"? Do you write letters to the developer demanding your money back because everyone should have the experience you have or not have it at all? No, you don't. Nobody sane does, that would be ridiculous. So why would it matter if an MMO had 2 different style of world?

That said, nobody is advocating Trammel in EVE. Mike just wants people who play the way they play and enjoy it to keep that style of play. Too many people want to force them to have to defend themselves with guns, which they don't want to do. Forcing someone to play the game your way is just as bad as forcing you to play it their way. There's room for a multitude of playstyles in EVE, and keeping that room is all we want.

It is hard to argue with such a well presented piece or at least I haven't seen any real attempts other than those rejecting it based on the author, or just putting their head in the sand and claiming no problem exists. However, CCP is the only ones with the numbers to show what we all suspect - players are increasingly moving back to highsec, or using highsec alts, to make their living in safety and that this is contributing to the stagnation and low population of the other spaces.

So Mike, CCP Seagull has presented us with a grand vision of player-built stargates and increased player conflict which many speculate will involve new (maybe Jove) space. Perhaps this question isn't fair as you have signed a NDA, but what do you think is the best way to get a significant amount of the player base to move to or use this space? I can only imagine if things are left as the status quo, no one aside from a few large null entities will move in and this expansion will be deemed a failure.

I know you have made some efforts to get new players out of highsec and PvPing, but you must admit that the near risk-free and significant income potential of highsec is tempting for established players to come back to and grind an income. Without hurting casual or new players, do you think there is anything that can be done to discourage this grinding behaviour on the part of established players and encourage them to move their home somewhere riskier than highsec, like perhaps this new space when it becomes accessible?

Home is a place you care about. That you will defend and work at improving. At least that is what I see it to be.

m

Just because CCP allows a mechanic doesn't mean it's not complete bullshit. Tacking without invoking aggression or generating a kill right is bullshit. -10's operating with impunity in secure space is like giving Charles Manson free admission to any social function he desires instead of keeping him locked up where he belongs. The most hilarious part is the fact you quote James 315 and think he is to be taken seriously, who next in the sociopath's hit parade? Erotica1?

And before you get too uppity I have lived in high, low and null security space and accept the benefits and limitations involved in each. When it comes time to fight I have no problems doing so on my combat alt. Tell me again about how being narrow-minded is "defending the sandbox." It amuses me.

There, I read it and I want that few minutes of my life back. It's exactly what you would expect it to be. It's a guy still crying about carebears and themeparks, and going though basically every fallacy there is in a post that could have been summed up n page 1. Essentially he believe that any change to help with highsec player retention is part of path which will inevitably remove all risk from highsec. The problem with that is that even the players campaigning for changes which reduce risk in areas are adamant that there should always be risk, but apparently they can;t be believed. Essentially his problem is that he wants people to live in what is effectively lowsec, but doesn't want to go though the pain of moving to lowsec.

He also makes terrible analogies, like comparing total safety in highsec to removing the ability to die from an FPS. Except there are still 3 areas of space you wouldn't be able to die in. More accurately, if highsec were made completely safe (which it shouldn't be) it would be more akin to having a safe spawn point, which is a feature used by several FPS games to great effect.

I'm convinced he wasn't even there for Incarna, since he seems to have the impression that the main issue there was WiS. The main issue was the potential threat of the game turning into a microtrans model which would effectively be flipping to a completely different type of playerbase. WiS it'self isn't a particularly terrible idea - or at least it wasn't, on CCP reduced staff numbers now it probably would be.

He also talks about how making the game less risky in highsec will drive away veteran players. What he fails to realise is that he's a shining example of that not actually being true. He's been complaining about how CCP caters to carebears for years, and yet still hasn't quit. Like it or not, CCP could do basically anything they want to help with new player retention, and the vets would still remain, even if they grumbled more. I'm pretty sure that when I'm old, grey and dying, my last breath will be "Make sure Chribba gets my assets for PLEX 4 good."

I did spend some time asking myself that same set of questions.

I bring experience, contacts, and continuity. I bring a long history of involvement with the CSM and a sense of the changes and direction that it is traveling. I have seen iterations of the NPE and look forward to helping with the new one as it grows.

Do we need some new blood on the CSM? Hell, yes. But it needs to be tempered by experience. It needs people to bring the new council members up to speed. THAT is why I am still running. Or one of the reasons, there are others.

m