Crime & Punishment

I am in a hisec corp, and last time around I voted for Tora because he had some good ideas to change things up (while still not nerfing anything non-combat related into dust). I even seriously considered Sabriz, because well, I like Sabriz. And because stuff getting blown up is good for business

I have read all of your posts and ideas. I admire your love of the game and that you want to make things better than they are now. Respect. But you have a long way to convince me to vote for you. If I just had one thing to offer, is that you have to decide if you want to stand by your own designs, or actually want to win a seat.

Either way, best of luck and keep posting in your threads. Love reading your stuff!

Confirming Jennifer is a pain in the backside, albeit a fun pain. Especially when she falls for the ol' 'follow the pod into a trap' trap.

You don't. The "average highsec corp" needs to die in a fire and be replaced with a different concept, a more whollistic view of the game instead of a PvE centric bunch of rabbits.

Confirming that 1-man corps can be real pains in the arse. I can only aspire to Jennifer's level, but I like to think that I hold my own.

Without debating the effectiveness of the CSM in total...

I have always percieved an inbuilt and unjust exclusionary principle with CSM voting when it comes to content-friendly C&P candidates.

In short, there is entrenched and systemic racism against content-creators from many of the carebears and pansies in hisec, who simply will never support a C&P candidate. It is also fair to say that content-creators in hisec represent the minority of population, and the majority of said carebears will always work against such a candidate being elected.

There have been occasional abberations, like FunkyBacon successfully getting elected; but his huge media presence is the exception not the norm as an enabler for election for a C&P type person.

To this end, and for *true* representation of all players on the CSM, CCP must reserve a couple of seats at the CSM table for content-creating C&P members, and appoint them by another means.

tldr;
Bronson is righteous, as is Sabriz, Tora et al -- but the systemic voter racism against C&P candidates in the elections process must be addressed by CCP. Qualified C&P names should go into a hat, and CCP pick two of them from the hat each year and put them on the CSM.

Nullsec is always represented. So too is losec. As is the hisec carebear position. Hisec C&P candidates however get the shaft.

This injustice must be addressed, if only to counter the claim that CCP has set up a system precisely TO dis-enfranchise the C&P position in hisec, and such a position not part of their kindler-gentler narrative for hisec of late.

With the ejection of FunkyBacon from the CSM...this action is needed more than ever to confirm true pursuit of equal representation of *all* players on the CSM each year.

F

Alekseyev Karrde arguably should have been a subject matter expert CSM member. His entire CSM candidacy was based on the foreknowledge that changes to wars were imminent and that representation was needed for everything to not be a ****-show. However his stance of "Voice no opinion to CCP about proposed changes, wait for them to implement whatever they want and then see how it is afterwards" resulted in disaster.

It turns our he was actually enormously out of touch and didn't actually care about the war system at all even though that was the only reason he was on the CSM. The only thing he really expressed concern about was the catastrophic cost scaling bug that destroyed the majority of the extant mercenary corps.

Most highsec wardec magnets are too stupid or too poor to hire mercs, and if they aren't, they will likely end up hiring someone that just sits on hubs all day rather than actually hurting the opppsition.

I admire what JEM does; it's a shame there aren't more people pursuing that play style. A white knight with the SP, experience and alt support to be effective is a rarity.

Much of the problem relates to the fact that many of the people starting corps in highsec have no business doing so. But I don't see any way to change that. I can't think of any mechanical barrier to keep idiots from starting a corp.

Agreed on all counts. My seeming bias against large corps running blanket wardecs isn't so much that I oppose that style of play, it's more that it seems to have become the norm. I would like to shift the norm more towards the middle of the spectrum while still leaving it possible.

I really like this idea in principle, but, as with all bounty systems, I am concerned with potential abuses. If this new wardec bounty system calculates the bounty per kill like the current system does (i.e. no way to scam the system), I would get behind this.

I agree that the available in-game information regarding wardecs should be more clear. The current notifications are useless and as far as I'm aware, there is no NPE category for wardecs. I would support improving the available in-game information and notifications, but I would not support linking directly to out-of-game material. There is plenty on the web on this topic and Google is free to everyone; why should wardecs get a special link to outside material but not, say, missions? We should make the mechanics easier to understand in-game for sure, but I don't think we should spoonfeed players either.

I think that an "Ally advert" that works like a corp advert would help here, but you can already largely do that by linking the wardec. Agreed though that this needs to be easier.

I like these ideas, but I don't necessarily like them together. I would implement the unilateral surrender option as you described and make the terms of unilateral surrender settable upon initiating the wardec; the defenders would then get to see, up front, what the aggressors terms are and they would have the option to pay up front. While this may not drive in-space conflict, it would drive content and make wardeccing purely for profit easier. After accepting such a unilateral surrender, the aggressor could not re-dec the defender for some period of time, but there is still the potential issue of aggressors jumping corp to abuse this against the same defender. This would not replace the existing surrender offer system; defenders would still be able to make offers if the aggressors didn't set up a surrender condition at the start.

I would also allow aggressors to limit a war to certain areas of space for the sake of asserting control over an area, independent of the unilateral surrender option. I would even go down to the constellation level: if you come mine in these belts, we will shoot you. I can see some potential issues from a mechanics abuse standpoint (i.e. what happens when a fight spills out into a non-war system?), and this would have to be accompanied by the overhaul in #3 to make perfectly clear what is going on, but I really like this idea.




For my views on hisec capitals, I have this thread.

Thanks again.

A unilateral surrender conceptually doesn't make sense. The entire point of surrendering is to capitulate to the aggressor in return for an end to violence. If the aggressor can't refuse, or can't determine the terms then it's not really a surrender at all.

What really needs to exist is an actual functional negotiation system where both parties can table offers. For example on declaring war an aggressor should be able to establish an isk amount they will accept a surrender for and set the duration of the mandatory post-war peace period which the defender can accept at any time or make a counter offer to. In an ideal world it should also facilitate the transfer of structure ownership too.

Keeping the war bill in escrow and returning it to the aggressor if the defender disbands or to the defender if the aggressor disbands (this does happen sometimes) would largely end the issue of people disbanding their corps and reforming them to evade wars.

Also you can already request allies. The real issue with the ally system is that it's totally unilateral, the defender can escalate near infinitely for little cost and no mechanical consequence for either the defender or their allies which if you're a carebear sounds awesone, but in reality serves as a massive deterrent to conflict between legitimate rivals. It's my opinion that bringing in an ally should allow the aggressor to bring in one of their own for the same cost. This would make it undesirable to ally into a war you're not committed to just to get a free war and to facilitate super awesome widespread conflict in highsec.

Also anyone who wants continuously increasing costs for protracted wars is dumb. That would serve as an incentive to just sitting docked and waiting it out, because sooner or later your opponent won't be able to pay the bill. It's fundamentally an anti-gameplay concept.

I would fully expect most of the NPCs we wardec to be as unreasonable at the negotiating table as the civ NPCs are.