CSM Campaigns

You seem to have a very limited view of "player interaction". I would think that corporations not being as at risk from a newbie recruit might well increase player interaction by reducing the level of trust required for players to cooperate.

An once again, I'm not stating your playstyle should be deleted. Very few people are. Once again you'd rather argue against that strawman than the actual point, which is that stating that any change which reduces conflict should be rejected out of hand is far too simplistic a view for a CSM candidate to take. Yet again, you seem to read what's written, then automatically assume that between the lines it says "DELETE ENTIRE PLAYSTYLE" and you choose to argue about that. It's pointless even trying to have a rational discussion with someone like you as you have absolutely no intention of comprehending what is said. In your mind everyone's out to get you. I say "Ideas should be considered on their own merits" and somehow you read that as "PvP should be removed from the game". Time and again with you I've seen the same thing. Someone suggests a tiny change, you freak out like they've just asked CCP to remove guns. And yet you expect CCP to take your protests seriously?

Then you need to stop acting like people are upset about "a minor change". It's dismissive and dishonest.




I expect CCP to take my statements equally as seriously as those on the opposing side. The problem is that they're only listening to one side of the argument, and it damn sure isn't my side.

Which is precisely why people like Sabriz must be elected to the CSM.

I think you are under a bit of a misapprehension about the reason for the change to intracorp aggression actually is. CCP has indicated that it is actually to increase interaction, and therefore conflict by getting more new players into highsec corporations where thy will compete with other corps for resources and market share, or directly using the wardec mechanics. CCP is not implementing this proposal to "reduce conflict".

The problem I have with the changes are two-fold. First, it is unlikely to work as new players that actually want to already have no problem finding a corp, so this will not influence the player's behaviour but it will protect and stabilize poor corps and down-right exploitive corps and allow them to abuse newbies. There is no guarantee that this change will get newbies into actually good corps that will increase their chances of staying in the game.

Second, in order to try to get highsec corps to accept more new players, CCP is essentially bribing them with a flag to turn of a major risk to the established players in the corp. This is actually a significant reduction in risk to these players and will reduce conflict in the sandbox. CCP is betting that the net increase in player retention/interaction with highsec corps will offset this loss in content. I think they are wrong.

So no, ideas that are designed to specifically reduce content should, and are usually are rejected out of hand by CCP. CSM members also should reject any change to the sandbox that the primary outcome will reduce interaction or content - that is self-evident. The problem arises when CCP (and the CSM) hopes that certain changes (like increasing the safety of highsec) will result in more player interaction or retention and when that doesn't materialize, such changes really just diminish conflict in the sandbox and the game is worse off than before.

We need insistent voices on the CSM to point out to CCP when they are in danger of doing this.



First, being vocal about change that removes your previous playstyle (or perhaps more accurately in this case, strongly nerfs) should not be characterized as "screeching" - that is condescending to the concerns of a fellow player. These changes to intracorp aggression mechanics do exactly that to the niche group of players that participated in these corporate infiltration escapades. A fundamental part of their gameplay has/will be altered by these changes and they should be heard.

DJ FunkyBacon, a CSM member, made an impassioned plea for the value of intracorp aggression during the summer CSM meeting (starting on page 77). Of course I can't know for sure, but I give him and his defense of intracorp agression much credit for the toning down of the proposal from the complete removal of intracorp aggression, to the optional flag we have now. So, your hypothesis that CSM members that support a pro-conflict view of highsec will be ignored by CCP or the CSM seems rather weak.

In fact, CCP Seagull has made it clear that her vision of Eve is one where players are always in grand conflict with each other - everything will be destroyable she says. It was also made clear at last year's Fanfest that players in social groups stay with the game much longer. Therefore, development resources are not going to be spent on changes to the game that reduce conflict or interaction (or at least that will not be the intention). Unless there is a major change in direction, there will be no significant new PvE content - that ship has sailed. Further, the importance of highsec will be minimized when the new player built stargates come online as a necessity to justify the current direction she is taking the game.

Representatives that get that Eve is about conflict - candidates like Sabriz - are exactly what is needed on the CSM as we move forward into the new golden age of this game.

Time to catch up on replies. Starting with the most interesting one, IMHO, then the hostile ones.




I want to address the 'highsec should be nothing more than a kiddie pool' argument.

Each category of space has game mechanics that define an identity for that space and in doing so promote a type of gameplay.

Lowsec, for instance, features game rules preventing bubbles and sharply hurting interceptor gatecamps. As a consequence, it's 'identity' is that it's the freefire space where escape is easiest, where supercapitals are at their most powerful*, and

Rookie systems have their identity set by the rules against non-consensual PVP and the total lack of attractive resources (level 4 mission agents, high end exploration sites, good asteroids, etc). This is what make them the 'kiddie pool'.

Highsec's identity is set by CONCORD. CONCORD create an environment where more 'neutral' players can coexist in a system than is possible in any other area of space. Outside high, it's not possible to have dozens of neutrals in a system except in unusual circumstances. This leads to an environment where a lot of people are willing to undock and act in a system at one time in a way that's just not going to happen outside of cynojammed systems deep in sovereign null.

It's also space that allows players to operate when they do not have the capacity to escalate fights. Outside highsec, the correct action to take when you spot an opposing force you cannot defeat is to go into lockdown. In highsec, you have the very real option of using the advantages CONCORD provide the defender in engagements to try to deter a superior force from attacking. This makes it conducive to solo play in a way that other areas of space are not.

Finally, you can't trust CONCORD with your safety, only with retribution. Retribution for illegal aggression is certain; your survival is up to your choices.

I do not feel that the removal of (non-rookie system) highsec will ever occur, nor would I advocate it. Much as non-sov null provides a competitive environment that is different to sovereign nullsec, highsec provides a competitive environment that is different to both.





* - Supercapitals are, of course, seldom worth fielding in lowsec because outside FW which isn't really all that conducive to capitals, lowsec offers nothing worth fighting for; that's another issue.

As for Tim's comments.

Firstly, the removal of AWOXing isn't something that can be compared to the reprocessing changes. I'm aware of people who used the old reprocessing system for two things:

1) exporting minerals from highsec to null via module compression (I did this, and own several blueprints that were acquired solely for this reason that are no longer being used) and
2) Reprocessing arbitrage - buying up meta items that have little/no merit as modules and melting them into minerals.

1) was replaced with ore compression. Different system, same overall result. A few losses were suffered as a result (including me getting stuck with a bunch of now worthless blueprints) but it's not a playstyle being removed.
2) remains viable; the prices of the modules where supply exceeds demand have just fallen to a new price point driven by the new reprocessing values.

So that playstyle remains viable, it's just a bit less profitable than previously. AWOXing is probably not viable at all, although I certainly have ideas to sow terror among corp recruiters. Unfortunately these are less viable for new players than the ten hour hero was.


Now to address the claims that new players will benefit from increased trust from recruiters.

Most 'career' AWOXers will likely change their playstyle to become corp thieves (which means that new players will be less trusted in corp applications than they are now. It was easy to defend yourself from an AWOXer - you only needed to carry ECM drones on non-combat ships in corporations with open recruiting. Corp thieves are more dangerous and much harder to defend against.

Other career AWOXers will engage in various methods to get blues shot in highsec (I've devised a few). These will catch a lot more newbies in the crossfire than AWOXing ever did. Expect a lot of newbies to lose ships as a result of the actions of disloyal corp members over the next few months than happens now.

The ability to be a disloyal corp member is a key drawcard of EVE. The Guiding Hand Social Club heist was the first time I heard of EVE. The recent 'All Reps On Cain' incident, Bad Bobby's fraud - events like those drive interest in the game. And as long as disloyal members of a corp can do damage, any sensible recruiter will take precautions to be as certain as possible that the 'new player' they recruit is not a veteran masquerading as a newbie, and they will take actions to mitigate the damage a disloyal member can do.




Finally, what's been ignored by CCP mostly is the far-reaching implications of increased safety for career highsec players, because the current CSM either don't understand the issues, or don't care about them. As AWOXing was pretty much the only viable way to kill a mission Marauder, it's a dramatic increase in safety for that type of player.

The CSM needs people that can pick apart proposed changes to see what the unintended consequences of them will be, not people that accept (or worse, push for) every change that claims to be intended to benefit new players but that actually is aimed at benefiting a specific subset of veterans.

I'm not. I'm not talking about a single change. The topic of discussion is not awoxing, no matter how many times you guys bring it up. What I'm saying is that a CSM who's approach to *all changes* is "reject automatically if they reduce conflict" is not a good approach to have.

And I think Sabriz is qualified only to serve his own interests. Clearly he doesn't even acknowledge the existence of other types of players as his campaign outline makes clear.

Marketing Propaganda. EVE is a game, a moderately alright game at most, and there's *nothing* about it that would make it hard core. It's insanely easy to recover from losses passively. So it allows scams and unwanted PvP, that's not what makes a game hard core. On top of all that, it's got a gradually disintegrating developer, and a shrinking community that's becoming more and more taken over by toxic hate-driven players by the day.

At the end of the day, EVE is field with all types of player. If you really think the game is going to shift towards favouring a single playstyle, you're kidding yourself, which is why there are many changes that have gone through and are on the way which have not involved increasing how much players shoot each other. As with most games, players like yourself claim you want conflict, but you only want conflict against players who don't want it, because they are easy prey. If the game shifts too much focus to shooting each other they lose the "prey" and then the aggressors get bored and quit. If CCP had no intention of supporting other playstyles, I'm sure they'd remove them.

Even CSM member Steve "Fuzzysteve" Ronuken, industrialist extraordinaire, gets that every change to the game should be primarily considered as to whether it increases or reduces confilct. Of course, the reality of Eve is complex and people can disagree on the outcome of a proposed change as the intracorp aggression mechanics have shown, but it is completely reasonable, and good for the game, for CCP and the CSM to ask themselves if a proposed change is going to increase or decrease conflict overall in the game, and reject those that will reduce it straight out.

The CSM needs more members that understand Eve at its heart is about conflict like Sabriz and Steve do. What the CSM does not need are more wishy-washy CSM members who are willing to water down the unique aspects of the game to try to make Eve into something it is not for all-comers. I am all for changes that make the game better and more accessible to new and/or casual players, but not at the cost of reducing the conflict and competition that is at the very core of what makes this game such an engaging and unique experience.

Ok, I have had my say on this. If you want to discuss this further, let's make a thread in the CSM subforum and we can ask what the other CSM members think, or if you have an actual question for Sabriz, you can continue this discussion with him here.

Hello Sabriz. I have only listened to a small part of one of your soundcloud pieces on wardecs but I like the idea of adjusting the payment so that smaller attackers pay less and corps with many members or corps pay much more to start a wardec. I would probably go with higher figures than you mentioned for really large corps and alliances to launch wardecs. 140 million is still coins on the ground for larger entities.

I know of miners who would really like to gain a small percentage of extra yield in return for staying in one player run corp. Two or three percent doesn't sound much to some people but it would indeed be attractive to most miners. Personally I would say no one would be allowed to stay in an NPC corp after they have been 'alive' for two months and people found recycling to continue to do so would be perma-banned. Do you have an opinion on that idea.

I don't think the 'new player experience' ie the tutorial is fit for purpose either. Do you have any thoughts on that one ?

Do you have an opinion on the Skiff mining vessel in relation to the other mining vessels available in regards to the Skiff not having any negatives but seemingly all positive values ? I ran a discussion on the forum on this issue initially coming from a standpoint that the Skiff was too hard to remove from asteroid belts. This morphed into a view that the yield on the Skiff should be reduced by a percentage determined by CCP to rebalance it compared to the other mining vessels.

New player experience does indeed need work. Some detailed fitting tutorials (like 'here's a fit for PVE, and why it works. Here's a fit for PVP, and why it works. Here's the price you pay for trying to mix the two, whether you do it or not is up to you').

I think NPC corps serve an important role as a fallback place for someone that suffers a catastrophic defeat. I'm more for adjusting taxation so that NPC corps are clearly the wrong choice for career highsec ISK grinders, rather than forcing someone that loses everything into an NPC corp immediately.

With respect to the Skiff. I think it serves its purpose well as the 'tanky mining ship that can fight back'. What it does too well is the actual mining. Its yield is close enough to that of the Mack and Hulk that taking the risk of fielding a non-Skiff exhumer is not rewarded.

Not sure on the exact numbers, but I would support a change that went along the lines of -10% Skiff yield, +5% Mack yield, +8% Hulk yield. I feel that using non-mining scouts and a Hulk fleet should be viable, whereas at present it's (usually) more sensible to have your whole fleet in Skiffs with one Orca.