CSM Campaigns

Defending against thieves is already something that can be done using roles. Most thieves have to put in effort to get themselves into roles which allow them to steal, and as long a they have to put in effort, not just *join with noob, point and shoot orca - demand ransom* (which by the way, also doesn't show up on killboards) it's fine. Keeping the current status quo where newbies aren't recruited as freely just to help the laziest of awoxers is a bad idea.

And hey, genius, they aren't changing how corp thieves work, so it's not going to be "a lot harder" to catch them, it's going to be just as difficult as it ever was.

I'm well aware that Skiffs have a yield slightly less than that of Mackinaws and Hulks, but the gap was closed considerably with a recent patch.

A Hulk fleet in a deadend system with scouts on the entrance gate (and, if desired, any wormholes) would provide ample warning of incoming gankers in high just as it provides warning of hostiles in null. The only real way gankers will get you then is a logon trap, which is more effort than it's worth, or a lapse in your scout's concentration. It still doesn't make sense to do so in general because Hulk yield isn't high enough to be able to pay the scout.


On the idea of fitting tutorials for new players - advanced fitting is indeed complex and there's a million and one exceptions to every rule. However, basic fitting strategies (don't mix tanks, don't mix active and buffer tanks, don't mix guns, carry a way to apply damage to small ships, fit weapons systems that your hull is bonused for and fit modules to enhance them, favor sustainable local repair in PVE, burst local repair in solo PVP, buffer in medium gang or fleet PVP) - all of these can be taught as rules that the intermediate player follows verbatim (and the veteran can break from time to time).

Before anyone asks...
Look at the multiple civilian shield booster kills.
NOTE: This is in referrence to the number of the mods as well as the KMs. And yes, all parties involved assisted the player on to improve their EVE experience by talking to them on a one on one basis and explain why said fit was bad. They had never learned it from the intro, and now they know better.

When did I say corp thieving was changing? That's not something I said man. I said catching a corp thief in general is harder, always has been. What I was saying, if you had listened, was that many of the people who currently do "lazy" (as you call it) awoxing will have to adapt and some may chose to become corp thieves. And you're correct, if they chose to ransom and honor said ransom then yes they are much harder to catch. I myself followed that approach (hilariously I did not change my bio while awoxing).

My point was that the corps that were falling for awoxing are typically going to be the same ones who will fall for corp thieves. These are generally corps that have awful recruitment standards (re: my bio) and are not particularly a positive contribution to the game society.

As for the change, I understand CCP's reason for removing it, and I think their intention is noble and their hearts in the right place, I just don't think that the change is actually going to accomplish what they claim it is.

I am in favor of level 5 missions being added (technically returned) to highsec, but with *very* careful balancing of rewards. They can (if done right) be a source of conflict in highsec.

They should serve as optional fleet content, not as something that is the clear best way to grind ISK.

I have a question for you. You stated that the concord LP you felt was watered down by incursions. But in a replied on page one you stated you would like to see incursions be more LP and little liquid isk. How do you plan on doing both? Do you have any figures you had in mind?

I want to unpack the caveats that I added to the post about balancing rewards.

Currently, there's a fair number of resource/wealth creating things you can do in highsec. Mining, level 4 missions, level 1-3 missions, incursions, anomolies, non-combat exploration, combat exploration, belt ratting. I'll exclude more immediately competitive activities that redistribute wealth rather than create it (such as trading or suicide ganking) and PI, production or invention (as they are mostly 'set and forget' operations rather than processes you are engaged in while you gain resources).

Of these, several are clear 'wrong' choices from a game theoretical point of view. Belt ratting, anomolies and level 1-2 missions offer so little in rewards that noone would consider doing them for the in-game rewards. Players that actively enjoy one of these activities find the game sharply pushes them out of their preferred activity.

Then there's the second tier - mining, level 3 missions, level 4 missions for corps with bad LP rewards, incursion scout sites, combat exploration and non-combat exploration. These provide resources that (generally) aren't worth bothering to fight over but that people that *actively enjoy* the activity won't feel they are wasting their time for doing them. (Noone actively enjoys mining, but that's a totally different issue)

Then there's the top tier - incursion fleet sites, and level 4 missions for the Sisters. These offer so much in the way of rewards that *even people that do not enjoy doing them* wind up feeling obliged to run them, or feel disadvantaged if they still elect not to.

I would not want to see level 5 missions added if they would fit into that last category. I'd rather see a rewards structure that, once you factor in expected losses, makes efficiently running level 5 missions in highsec on par with the current rewards for running level 4 missions for a non-Sisters corp.


As for lowsec and L5s - I do not see any evidence that L5s are drawing people into lowsec and do not consider them important to low at all. Highsec incursions, 0.1-0.2 belt ratting (for clones and Mordus spawns) and FW all offer better rewards and a lower risk compared to any of the main ways of doing L5s (solo with a carrier, solo swapping between blinged mission-tailored neut-resistant ships, spidertanked battleships, fleet with logi).

If I felt L5s were a unique thing pulling people into low, I would agree with you. They are not the game's premier repeat-almost-on-demand group PVE content (that is C5-6 sites and incursions).

However, I will repeat my caveat in different words - if L5s are added to highsec, and the same broad reward formula is used as is used for current L4s, they will actively make EVE worse, just as highsec incursions make the game worse for (almost) every non-participant in them. Balance is key.

I have a similar experiences. The only worm hole people I know who do not care about frigate link are in C5 and C6 systems.
corbexx does deny this and says CCP number show no major decline. However, further on that - what time frame? New or old corps? etc.

Every year someone from CODE decides to declare their candidacy and then ends up dropping out.

So tell us why we should bother reading this thread since it is likely a waste of time? Why should we take you seriously? What can you offer us that this is not the yearly CODE election troll?

Mr Epeen

Answering these.

We actually did discuss the question within CODE. "Do we want to take CSM seriously, or field a joke candidate?".

I argued for taking it seriously.

The AT doesn't shape EVE in any way***, so I didn't mind us not taking it seriously (although I wasn't involved in the decision). Some people thought our antics there were hilarious, some thought they were childish. The actual story was that we missed the deadline to get higher skillpoint CODE. supporters (like myself) that were not formally part of the alliance into the alliance, and so the team we had to field was basically unable to compete to win. They couldn't deal with opponents tanking against Kin/Therm damage.

We could lose graciously, or we could bet against ourselves and lose like trolls.

On the CSM, however, it's been a real issue that there isn't anyone on the body that understands the highsec predator gameplay mechanics well, and there also do not seem to be people that understand how risk/reward balance changes in highsec can alter the balance of other regions of space.

For example, the Tiamat anti-AWOXing changes will result in increased safety for (the more careless) highsec miners. This will lead to an increased Mexallon supply gamewide, and hence an increase in supercapital proliferation. A change aimed at highsec that has only tangential direct impact on lowsec will end up having significant indirect impacts on sovereign nullsec.

It's a bad thing for the game that the current CSM is comprised of (mostly) people that either do not understand this, or do not care.

In this situation, it was easy enough for me to defeat the arguments of a couple of people (who will not be named) that wanted a joke candidate. I don't believe anyone in CODE. still supports treating the CSM as a joke.



*** - This was wrong. I still feel the impact of the AT is minor.