CSM Campaigns

When I started playing EVE in 2003, I was not keen on the MMO/pay to play genre. At the time, I did not see much value in paying a monthly fee for a game. Between that and a general sense of confusion over what I can do in EVE, I stopped playing after my first month out of Beta. I was drawn in again a few years later and played for a longer period before I stopped playing for personal family reasons and over several more years started and stopped again until picking up full time play of EVE in 2010.

What stands out to me in all cases is that I came back to EVE due to the Intro movies and later the Alliance Tournaments showing up on YouTube. The idea of EVE being this big universe full of danger and adventure was attractive. The idea that I could fly with other people co-operatively and fight others was attractive. My decisions mattered and effected my wallet in interesting ways.

I am interested in making this game attractive to new players for the reasons EVE is attractive to the older players: a dangerous universe where you are not tied to any one thing. You can become something more and become something better. You can get kicked in the face and learn so that perhaps, one day, you can return the favor. The story line in EVE is a good solid story line. It is not one that pretends you are the center of the story - to be that, you have to make it yourself in EVE. To be a Band of Brothers, a Mittani, a Pandemic Legion, etc, you have to work at it to make yourself part of the narrative. These are good things. I believe maintaining risk and depth of play is crucial to player retention.

My focus, if elected to CSM 11 will be to seek improvements to the player experience as a whole. To make EVE less safe overall while improving the interactive experience of the player to the game. The scarcity of something brings strife and conflict. The vulnerable seek the strong to protect them or hide where they may be safe for a time. The story line of EVE should progress the universe as a whole, adding content, making the excuse of why something exists the way it does, and otherwise giving those that role-play a solid focus without turning to the foolish model of making the story of EVE Online about the player itself.

* The PvPers should have the tools and resources to get into action, whether a long roam hunting for targets or jumping online to take someone out in a prepared way; PvPers should find their combat challenging and in the end gratifying. No PvPer likes twiddling their thumbs searching for combat and their combat records should be easier to find in game for their fame and glory in combat.

* The Mission runner should be able to fly missions but a concentration of missions should 'deplete' the availability of missions from a given Agent making it necessary for the mission runner to seek out other agents until the prior agent has something again. In turn this can increase the value of LP for a given group by scarcity and CCP can equally increase mission rewards so that the casual Mission runner gets more for their effort. This depletion is based on everyone obtaining missions for that particular agent so potential PvP situations can be created between mission runners seeking to monopolize an agent. (Agent Y offers up to X amount of missions per time period and finds Z many new offerings over a period of time). "My apologies capsuleer, but I gave out my last available mission to 'some other capsuleer'."

* For what purpose do war decs exist? Except for most structures all things can be destroyed without invoking a war dec (CODE. is a prime example of this). I would say the War Dec mechanic as it is now is broken. Should corporations without anchored structures in High Sec (MTUs excluded from this) be subject to war decs when their blingy ships, freighters, and mining ships can be destroyed without one? Unless a player corp. plans to anchor a structure, then perhaps they should enjoy the same immunity from war decs a non-player corp. enjoys.

* In the spirit of promoting conflict, Null Sec anomalies should be treated as a commodity that can suffer from over-harvesting. Why do more NPCs decide to go to a system where more of them have died? Too much harvesting of anomalies, be they mineral or be they NPC, should result in an overall decrease of their availability over time. The advantage to this is it will require movement out of a system and into others by ratters and miners. Empires may have to look at expansion to obtain more hunting grounds and PvP seekers will find targets with greater frequency as there should be less empty space.

I believe in the integrity and responsibility of the CSM as an organization representing the interests of the community as a whole in dialogue with CCP. A vote for me is a vote for the items I represent above and most importantly an independent voice. It is one vote less to certain large power blocs.


Thank you for your support.


I would also like to thank my fellow TOGer Doggfather for his valuable input and critique.

Which is why I bring up the question. Whether one thinks that wardecs are broken or need tweaking is a matter of opinion. However, regardless of one's opinion, changes can be made to improve war decs. Ultimately: how? This is a discussion that should be had.

I do not think that adding a class of corp that cannot be war dec'ed if they choose not to be and have no assets in space would be considered a nerf when a very large population in High Sec exists in NPC corps which, by default, cannot be war dec'ced nor can they have assets in space. The difference is that the corp can segregate itself in a distinct way that NPC corps do not allow and retain the benefit that NPC corps give: protection from war decs.

But how would you look at tweaking the war dec system to improve and refine it?

I am currently working, so I am unable to respond in full, but quick answer to this:
No. The idea only applies to the defending corp. All corps would have the option to be war dec'ed as well initiate war decs (by default it should be set to allow) or turn it off at the sacrifice of accepting the same limitations that NPC corps have with regards to structures (and maybe even corp hangers etc.) It does not fix war decs but expands options for players. Yes, it would mean that Marmite and other corps would not be able to war dec that corporation, but it is no different than had the individuals remained in an NPC corp.

One could add further restrictions to balance it out.

While it will result in fewer dec-able targets, you should be more likely to get a decent fight from a defending corp rather than waste ISK and time dec-ing a target that will turtle or simply reform as another corp. After all, you want a fight when you issue a war dec, right?

I'll expound further later on when I am not working.

Nice way of looking @ wardecs. I think this could make EVE a better place while not ruling out the harsh place that it is.