CSM Campaigns

Just to save people a vote, the murder of a change passed with this shitcandidate's full blessing.
I think you have been ruining eve long enough, Steve, time for you to quit.

Well, I guess that answers half of the question that I've been posting to all CSM candidates :

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.



DMC

Thanks for the reply Steve,

This game was founded with the premise of having a balance on 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences'. It takes time for players to ruin their Faction standings and as such it should also take time for players to repair those standings. I know it's tough on new players who haven't learned the game yet. Anti-Empire missions should have a warning to alert players that accepting and completing those mission will affect their Faction standings in a negative aspect.

I agree there should be more options available for characters to repair negative Faction standings but I don't like the idea of having Tags for Standings. Just like Tags for Security, I think those are nothing more than a 'Get Out Of Jail Free Card' for actions that should merit some consequences. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.



DMC

This bothers me a little bit. Not the idea itself, but that you proposed it, as it has already been in the game for at least a decade. I'm starting to become concerned about the knowledge limits of the "carebear candidate."

Unless I've gone totally senile (always possible) the tags in game currently are single shot only agents related to the old Cosmos mission system, not reusable agents.

That said I don't like the instant nature of tags currently and would love it if they ran like a skill queue, where you 'fuel' it by handing in the right tags, and then over time (a week or two) it raises your standings to zero or when you run out of tags. That way it's not an instant 'free to go and gank again', but if you are actually trying to change your play-style it does let you transition to a new style.

Anyway, sorry Steve, getting a little off track here though it's something I'd love you to put forward to CCP as a possible mechanic, very much enjoyed your work and communication over the last few years.

Hi Steve,

I agree. Repairing negative Faction standings is definitely a large task to complete. Most players in-game don't read the forums so they don't even know about that guide. Also as I said before, new players can easily mess up their Faction standings right at the start without even knowing it.

These are some options I think would help players in-game.

Faction standing repair be implemented in-game to be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
Changes to Faction standings be brought to players attention with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
Any action that would cause negative Faction standing will trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
All Anti-Empire missions should have a warning alerting players that those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
Your idea to have Tags for Standings is acceptable if similar to Tags for Security.
CCP add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

Just wanted to pass that along to you. Once again good luck with the up-coming election.


DMC

Getting my vote it’s important the counsel has fair and measured representation and I think you bring this on the behalf of high sec, industry and solo play.

Keep up the good work.

Hi Steve.

What is your opinion on ganking?

Which one of those three statements is close to your position? :
1. Danger level in highsec is just right.
2. Life is too easy for gankers. We need more security in highsec.
3. Highsec dwellers are too lazy and complacent. We need to make highsec more dangerous.

P.S.
Love your indy tools :)

Thanks.

07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.

+2 For all your hard work, don't give it up.