CSM Campaigns

As you have said, I do make an issue of trying to make Eve accessible. I talk to folks with borderline cases and forward their suggestions to appropriate UI folks.

-insert obligatory ;Eve has sound?' joke here-

I try to remind UI and art teams about people with colour-blindness and visual acuity issues. Hell I usually wind up cranking the chat font up about 5 steps.

If elected to CSM10 I would continue what I have been doing all along.

m

Calls for nerfing highsec income are usually based on the idea that 'they are playing it wrong so we need to FORCE them to play our way.' I disagree with that style of thinking. If you want to make another portion of New Eden have an advantage such as industrialism in low and null, I was in favour of that.

If you start quoting risk/reward I will ask what risk afktars in null suffer. Or rental agreements. Some things are not a matter of risk they are a matter of EFFORT. TIME. A miner may not be doing glorious battle but his effort is soemthing he is willing to do. Why should we asdk that he do it in places where anybody can pop him for the fun of it (more so than they already can in highsec)

The generalization of 'more profitable regions' is just that, too general. I think each section of space has appropriate activities and then some edge cases. It is smarter to carebear in relative safety. It is better to run industry where YOU are the government (null sov). Profit margins for a trade center in low should be higher because of the risks that they take.

But give me a good reason why we should nerf highsec rewards. Then ask if that same reason applies to other regions.

Or is it you just want more targets in your space?

m

gets my vote

Hi Mike,

I have questions/concern about new players and getting them integrated into the game. I think most people agree that the quality of a new player's Eve experience in the game (and ultimately the time the stay playing Eve) depends greatly on the initial social contacts that they make. Ideally, they will shortly after finishing the tutorials end up in a good corp that can not only teach them, but support them in the activities they find most enjoyable. However, getting newbies into the correct corp can be challenging, and I am concerned that many new players can end up in small, incompetent (for lack of a better word) or downright exploitative corps which are unable or unwilling to help new players learn the game making their initial Eve experience more frustrating.

So firstly, do you think enough is being done to help guide new players into competent corporations that are interested in training new players? Do you have any ideas on what additional mechanisms could be implemented to help new players find not only a social environment where the thrive, but into corporations willing to train and support them?

Secondly, there are upcoming changes in Rhea which will facilitate the "spamming" of new players with corporation invitations and a proposal in the last CSM minutes (pg. 78) to ban intracorp agression in highsec. Together, these will remove two "checks" on this spamming behaviour that is so prevalent in other games, as there will now be zero risk in accepting new players into your corporation. This will make a strategy of "spam inviting" in starter systems to gather new players into an exploitative corp that has excessively high taxes or a low ore buy-back program a viable one, and one that will have a detrimental effect on the experience of new players.

So, what can we do to help prevent new player's lack of knowledge of game mechanics from being exploited by nefarious, or just clueless CEOs? Personally, I think this is a strong argument against changing the intracorp aggression mechanics, but assuming they go through, what can be done to limit the danger of new players ending up in terrible/exploitative corps and just quitting the game?

You'll be getting a vote from me, Mike. Good luck!

The incentive for making more isk is the same every where so I assume you mean the means. Right?

Look, we can play this point counterpoint all day because you missed what I was saying. I am NOT trying to ruin or even change your gameplay when we discuss ways of making isk but I, in return, ask the same. Do not look to nerf someone else to make your own situation be better. Look to improve your own space, make it attractive.

It is like real estate . . . graffiti on the next block over might make yours look better, relatively, but it is a downward spiral and in the end, few want to live anywhere nearby. If we make highsec untenable then we block a distinct portion of the game population who have no want or need to go to low or null. THAT hurts the whole game.

Make your space better . . . not by making someone elses space worse but by actually making your space BETTER. As a result the whole game will benefit.

m

Doubtful. It's one thing for Miniluv or CODE to target known logistics alts and alt corps of enemy power blocs. It's quite another to massacre every freighter that enters a pipe system.

Even if nullsec was far and away the best place to do industry you would still see people doing it in highsec and you would still kill them so your argument is pointless justification. But that is to be expected from james 315's followers.

i see mike as one of the more active csm on the forums, soliciting opinions and visibly reading and responding to feedback threads. i don't regret voting for mike in the past and i'll vote for him again despite his being a horrid dirty carebear



given these conditions,
- if players were avoiding activity in dangerous space due to rewards not stacking up to the effort/time/risk,
- when players would otherwise enjoy activity in that space including hazards (i believe players generally gravitate to the most optimal method for an activity regardless of 'fun factor'),
- when making changes would probably cause players who would prefer to play there to move there,
- when making changes would not cause safer space to have inoptimal rewards for effort/time/risk for those who would prefer to remain,
- and when changes would create additional or more enjoyable pvp/piracy encounters for everyone who desires such gameplay,
i feel 'making more targets move to this dangerous space' would be a good goal, because it's adding to the entertainment value of the game by presenting more engaging options for those who want to take them

that's not reason for simply nerfing the 'better' options, though. it's a hypothetical circumstance that may justify a certain goal. i imagine there's many paths to achieving the goal, and by taking the most obvious, nerfing something, you're possibly ignoring more effective or less disruptive options


i think it'd be ideal to have any given activity have about equal viablity in all areas of the game. for example, shooting red plus signs. pete might like lowsec belt ratting over running highsec missions, but before the clone tags were introduced, pete only ran missions because he when belt ratting he felt he was wasting his time. now with mordus rats and clone tags, pete flies around lowsec belts and enjoys his pve hours more than before. pete sometimes runs into pies but even with the bother and the hazard, the isk is more worth his time now

e: uh wow that last bit has nothing to do with what's quoted. i guess i wanted it in there as a positive example of making space more appealing to people who might want to play there

Mike Azariah is one of my most very favourite people in all of New Eden. And that's before I even take into account the amazing work he has contributed to CSM9. You should vote for him - I will be.

+1 vote from me. every little bit helps.