CSM Campaigns

I'm actually happy Sabriz responded to my posts. That post is entirely quoting and responding to Haedonism Bot.

Thanks Sabriz! Now I can be really lazy!

The ganking stuff has already been discussed, short version: Ganking needs more activity from White Knights to make it more interesting for both parties. This thread does contain a few discussions of ideas to work in that direction.

Interested to hear what Sabriz has to say about low sec though.

Ganking (both of freighters and of miners) isn't totally risk averse. I've lost an Ishtar and a Hyperion to killrights related to ganking (although I'm somewhat of an exception to the norm as I gank on my main and do not run -10; in fact Sabriz has always been 0.8 legal and almost always 1.0 legal).

Ganks can be disrupted which normally results in a ganker losing a ship for no gain. It's just that while anti-gankers can effectively defend an individual specific freighter (particularly if the freighter pilot trusts the anti-gankers), they can't protect *everyone*. Where anti-gankers can be effective is teaching the pilots of noncombat ships basic opsec - something CODE's most vocal rivals at the moment refuse to do. I post a lot of courier contracts as a trader, and see a few repeat names that accept them often - these people never lose ships despite often carrying highly gankworthy cargoes (such as a recent contract where I had someone move 2.4b worth of T2 ships, or another where someone moved 3.5b worth of tech 2 components).

Currently there's two main factors that disrupt -10 operations in highsec - faction police, and players being allowed to shoot you. I'd endorse changes that keep the sum of these factors about the same, but increase the power of players to disrupt ganks.

But most of all, the mechanics of mining encourage players to spread out and (outside deep null where belt rats are more of a factor) strongly discourage players from bringing any sort of combat escort to mining operations. I would strongly endorse changes to mining mechanics that made bringing combat escorts more worthwhile. Sites with both lucrative ore AND rats would be an interesting starting point, and I'd endorse a 'claim' system on these sites akin to what Steve Ronuken has proposed in the past (where one corporation can claim a site via some method, possibly driving off rats, and mining that site then becomes a suspect level offence for other people). Balance would be key, however - as any change to mining throughput could increase supercapital proliferation.



As for risk versus reward in non-FW lowsec.

First mining - lowsec is arguably the most dangerous place to mine, and has terrible rewards. As for suggestions, one thing I have proposed before is changing the 105%/110% density ores to be higher (perhaps 140%/200%), putting very few of them in highsec, and more in dangerous space. Mining in Tama probably wouldn't ever become worthwhile, but mining in quiet low might be worth considering if you can get a moderate amount of 200% quality ore and a good deal of 140%. Same caveat about supercapital proliferation applies here, of course.

Secondly missions. It's not just that risk/reward calculations favor highsec over lowsec, it's that the reward for efficient highsec mission blitzing (level 4s in semi-blinged Marauders) are higher than the reward for efficient lowsec mission running (level 4s in tech 2 fitted HACs or cloak-capable T3s) even before you consider risk. Level 5s have different issues payout wise as their payout is almost entirely in low to medium demand LPs and the small number of people blitzing them hyperefficiently can crash those markets.

Third and related, incursions. Even the addition of a BPC worth tens of billions to the drops, and 50% higher payout, doesn't make lowsec incursions *close* to as lucrative as highsec ones where you can just use blingfits and do the sites much faster. Constellation control amplifies this - lowsec incursions generally have a higher degree of Sansha control when sites are attempted.

One suggestion I have is rebalancing mission payouts and incursions so that higher level highsec missions pay primarily in LP, but sites in more dangerous space pay both ISK and LP. This way, the more people that run missions or incursions in highsec the lower the payout becomes, and it's a noticeable dropoff.

Another suggestion is expanding on the theme of burner missions, changing them so that a PVP fit is required (i.e. the mission target tries to warp off, this change would require rebalancing of the rat stats), making them involve a few more jumps, and making them more prevalent and more lucrative in lowsec. More people traversing gates in PVP fitted ships would revatilize low somewhat.

I don't see any. In fact I see a pretty poor crop of candidates overall, to the point where I expect at least 4 incumbents to be retained, probably more like 5 or 6 or even higher.

Sabriz stands out rather well.

None of them are High Sec content creators though.

Their track record of advocating for nerfs to our playstyle, and of general uselessness speaks for itself. I realize that CSM is a sort of club and that most current and former members like to stick up for each other. To the rest of us, though, if we are paying attention and being honest, CSM9 looks to have done as poor a job as CSM8 did.

The field doesn't look much better for CSM10 either. Sabriz and Tora both stand out in that they both represent an important and historically underrepresented playstyle.

It is true that there are others out there who are better qualified to represent highsec content creators than Sabriz is. Unfortunately, none of them is running this year. And Sabriz is more qualified than you may think. If you judge him purely on his killboard (which certainly isn't bad) you may scoff and say, "Bah he's no Cannibal Kane, no Arden Elenduil, no Jerry Rin (Jerry Rin for CSM! and unban him too please...), but the fact remains that Sabriz is smarter and more fair minded than all of us put together.

And unlike most highsec content creators, he actually takes the CSM seriously. If you elected me to CSM, I'd show up at the summit just for the free food (is there free food?) and just troll the whole process from start to finish.

To me this is the key and why Sabriz, Tora, or ideally both should be ellected. They represent a play style that currently has ZERO advocates as CSM candidates. Funky Bacon filled this role on CSM 9 and I was happy with what I saw from him, even though it wasn't his primary field of focus. If neither of these guys get elected, than every CSM member will represent either nullsec, wormhole space, or carebears. Having at least one of these two candidates will give a voice to a play style that currently has NO representation on the CSM. And no, Sabriz is not running as a Code candidate (though he is in Code) he's running as a content creation candidate.

Vote Sabriz!

This is worth reiterating.

I want to see more conflict in highsec. Not all of that will be driven by my alliance, and some of it may well be conflicts we end up defeated in.

One of these proposals is for defender entities in wardecs to be able to collect some or all of the wardec fee by inflicting damage upon the aggressor entity. CODE. often initiates wardecs and seldom is the defender in one, so this would materially assist our rivals. I am still for it because it would increase conflict in highsec.

Don't forget to vote.

http://www.superbwallpapers.com/animals/kitten-16219/

This kitten wants you to vote.