These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

Toxic Yaken for CSM XII - Highsec Candidate

Author
Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#21 - 2017-02-12 02:00:23 UTC
Ashterothi wrote:
I had a chat with Toxic. Great guy! Find out more: https://crossingzebras.com/csm-chat-toxic-yaken/


Thanks for having me on Ash! Pirate

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2017-03-02 18:07:44 UTC
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.



DMC
Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#23 - 2017-03-05 21:34:25 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes would you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.



DMC



Sorry for the late reply.

(Disclaimer: I don't really run missions and most of my knowledge here is second hand)

It's always bugged me that there are faction damaging missions because most mission runners will just avoid them anyways. Maybe there is a reason for this that I'm not yet aware of, but I've always had the impression that only newer players who don't understand the implications of running these missions and having bad standings that they then have to grind back up. The consequences for newer players of bad standings tend to far outweigh the benefits of good standings with these factions. It would be nice to have tags to improve standings to Empires, similar to security tags where you wouldn't be able to gain positive standings, only bring up negative standings IMO.

It would be nice to see factions hold a more meaningful role in Empire space and the actions being made through these missions affect an empire's control over border systems or something. Have the missions that damage standings actually be over control of these border regions as a more PVE focused kind of FW. Just a thought.

Hopefully this answered your question.

Toxic

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

DeMichael Crimson
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#24 - 2017-03-06 13:58:48 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Toxic Yaken wrote:
Sorry for the late reply.

(Disclaimer: I don't really run missions and most of my knowledge here is second hand)

It's always bugged me that there are faction damaging missions because most mission runners will just avoid them anyways. Maybe there is a reason for this that I'm not yet aware of, but I've always had the impression that only newer players who don't understand the implications of running these missions and having bad standings that they then have to grind back up. The consequences for newer players of bad standings tend to far outweigh the benefits of good standings with these factions. It would be nice to have tags to improve standings to Empires, similar to security tags where you wouldn't be able to gain positive standings, only bring up negative standings IMO.

It would be nice to see factions hold a more meaningful role in Empire space and the actions being made through these missions affect an empire's control over border systems or something. Have the missions that damage standings actually be over control of these border regions as a more PVE focused kind of FW. Just a thought.

Hopefully this answered your question.

Toxic

Hello and thanks for the reply.

I like your idea of having Anti-Empire missions help affect control of FW Border systems. Definitely something to think about.

I agree that positive Faction standings should have a more meaningful impact on game play, especially since Eve Online is based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences'. That's what makes this game great. In the past characters were accountable for their actions, now most everything is being dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

In my opinion CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have positive Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. Having that requirement made Faction standings mean something more instead of just a way to access Agents or to get lower Broker fees.

Now I would love to see more content pertaining to positive Faction standings be added to the game. However at this time my inquiry is based on the negative effects of Faction standings to the playerbase. Since it takes time for players to ruin their Faction standings then it should also take some time to repair those standings. Unfortunately that info is basically nonexistent in-game when it should actually be readily available and easily understood by players.

I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase on the forums back in 2010. Over the past 7 years it has helped countless amount of players to rectify what seemed like an unsolvable issue. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in that guide. In fact most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life.

There's a lot of players in-game who don't read the forums and don't know that guide exists. They've basically accepted the fact they're cut off from engaging in available content due to negative Faction standings. Repairing negative standings is a big task even for experienced players who are familiar with 'The Plan'. New players who haven't learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings without even knowing it right from the start, resulting in no access to half of Empire space.

Anyway, I think all players should have the option in-game to gain Diplomatic Immunity with the Empire Factions. The fact that the info pertaining to Faction standing repair is hidden from players in-game is the reason for my post. After 7 years of helping players in the forums to repair negative Faction standings, I just wanted to provide some feedback through the CSM for CCP to consider.

I believe these options would definitely help all players in-game.

Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game and be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
Changes to Faction standings will notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
Actions that would cause negative Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning informing players those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
Implement Tags for Empire Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security.
Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

Once again good luck with the upcoming election.


DMC
Hr Mesetas
Domain Trade Corp
#25 - 2017-03-06 15:48:01 UTC
Hi,

Whats your view on an option to put corpshares on the market ?
Ralph King-Griffin
The Romi Inquisition
#26 - 2017-03-06 16:55:48 UTC
Good luck toxic, you got my #1 slot for all eligible characters this year.
Random McNally
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#27 - 2017-03-06 17:15:41 UTC
You will be on my ballot again this year, Toxic.

Host of High Drag Podcast. http://highdrag.wordpress.com/

Space music http://minddivided.com

I G Channel HighDragChat

Broadcast4Reps

Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#28 - 2017-03-07 01:22:20 UTC
Hr Mesetas wrote:
Hi,

Whats your view on an option to put corpshares on the market ?


I always thought that corp shares were kind of strange considering they mainly seem exist to control power over the corporation and create the necessity for holding corps... and I honestly can't think of any groups actually selling shares to payout shareholders. It seems like a neat idea though I could see a lot of players using it for exploitation, as you could sell shares for your corporation and then just fold the corp. Having better visibility for groups that legitimately want to seek investments in game would be cool though, and kind of feeds in my hopes for having a services hub as I mentioned in my platform.

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#29 - 2017-03-07 01:51:51 UTC
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Good luck toxic, you got my #1 slot for all eligible characters this year.


Happy to have Devils on my shoulder :)

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Ralph King-Griffin
The Romi Inquisition
#30 - 2017-03-07 01:56:06 UTC
Toxic Yaken wrote:
Ralph King-Griffin wrote:
Good luck toxic, you got my #1 slot for all eligible characters this year.


Happy to have Devils on my shoulder :)

o7
Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#31 - 2017-03-07 03:16:11 UTC
Random McNally wrote:
You will be on my ballot again this year, Toxic.


Happy to have your support Random.

Also more Highdrag please <3

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Cochise Chiricahua
The Inglourious Bastards
#32 - 2017-03-08 21:28:07 UTC
07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! They’re much appreciated.

I’m preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, that’s to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and I’ve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? I’ll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.
Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#33 - 2017-03-09 05:53:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Toxic Yaken
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking?


For the first few months of playing EVE Online, all I did was mine. I rarely communicated, didn't try to learn new aspects of the game or explore possibilities for the future, and eventually, CODE. came along and blew up my new Mackinaw. For a lot of players this is breaking point, but for me it was a turning point. I still credit that gank as the single most important turning point for my EVE experience as it broke me from the grinding of mining to actually go out and see what the greater game had to offer.

Now I use ganking as my main source of income, and generally target haulers and small ships carrying way too much loot near the trade hubs to keep my fun going. It's a playstyle that I love even though I know so many hate it.

Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
I’d like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption?


Personally I've always disliked that trick of looting using fleet hangars, though I expect making that change wouldn't be addressed by CCP unless there were a larger overarching rework being done to crimewatch as it's kind of a small issue that's part of a niche gameplay, and would require a look both at crimewatch and looting mechanics. I'm pretty sure that the current CSM has already made CCP aware of this issue after the ganking roundtables last Fall.

Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?


I will direct you to the idea I shared with Dracvlad when he asked me a couple of weeks ago:

Quote:
To be honest I don’t have a lot of meat for the subject of ganking in part because I’m trying to balance what gankers think ganking should be, what anti-gankers think it should be, and what I think CCP wants it to be. I’ve been toying with the idea of changing the way that CONCORD works, that instead of nuking a criminal after eventually arriving on scene, that they would simply apply significant damage reduction to that criminal. Eventually faction police would arrive and slowly tear them apart, but it could provide anti-ganking players with more ability to meaningfully interfere with ganks as it would take significantly longer to kill someone under the damage reduction. It could also lead to more freedom for gankers to use different ships than just max DPS gallente blaster boats or stealth bombers. The biggest downside to this would be that I think it would make ganking more prevalent in general because well tanked, larger hulls would be able to terrorize players outside of largely populated space. My thoughts here are still a work in progress but I’ve been reaching out to gankers, and soon anti-gankers for their opinions on the subject to hopefully build up some better ideas.


Again, this was just a rough idea I tossed out to give you an idea of where I'm coming from. I would like to see more opportunities for interaction with gankers without significantly breaking our playstyle. Keep in mind though, the CSM has no direct power to make any kind of changes. If you have any suggestions or thoughts I would be happy to hear them.

Also if I could be unbanned from Anti-Ganking so I could come talk in there about stuff like this I would appreciate that as well... Blink

Thanks for the question,

Toxic Pirate

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Starrakatt
Celtic Anarchy
The Bastard Cartel
#34 - 2017-03-09 17:15:43 UTC
I have been doing Wardecs on and off for a few years, and I agree that some changes needs to be made, and so far I apreciate quite a few of your suggestions, including other on topics.

You got my ballot.
Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#35 - 2017-03-09 17:22:04 UTC
Starrakatt wrote:
I have been doing Wardecs on and off for a few years, and I agree that some changes needs to be made, and so far I apreciate quite a few of your suggestions, including other on topics.

You got my ballot.


Appreciate the support. If you ever feel like chatting about wars hit me up or check out the wardec project discord in my signature.

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

renwahh
R I 0 T
R I O T
#36 - 2017-03-10 08:29:29 UTC
Good Luck Toxic,

All my eligible chars votes are in and on you Big smile
Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#37 - 2017-03-10 12:25:48 UTC
renwahh wrote:
Good Luck Toxic,

All my eligible chars votes are in and on you Big smile


Appreciate it man. Pirate

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Tengu Grib
Divine Wing
#38 - 2017-03-14 23:53:10 UTC
You'll have 10 votes from me old friend. I'll try to convince my HS buddies to vote for you as well.

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

TheSmokingHertog
Julia's Interstellar Trade Emperium
#39 - 2017-03-15 04:51:56 UTC  |  Edited by: TheSmokingHertog
Trying to form a ballot, saw Steve promoted you. Read your thoughts, like it. On the list. 07

"Dogma is kind of like quantum physics, observing the dogma state will change it." ~ CCP Prism X

"Schrödinger's Missile. I dig it." ~ Makari Aeron

-= "Brain in a Box on Singularity" - April 2015 =-

Toxic Yaken
The Dickwad Squad
Rote Kapelle
#40 - 2017-03-16 04:56:59 UTC
Tengu Grib wrote:
You'll have 10 votes from me old friend. I'll try to convince my HS buddies to vote for you as well.


Thanks for the support Tengu, it means a lot! Pirate

TheSmokingHertog wrote:
Trying to form a ballot, saw Steve promoted you. Read your thoughts, like it. On the list. 07


Thanks for the support!

Curator of the Wardec Project - Join our Discord to join the discussions about Wardecs

Previous page123Next page