CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
5 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Erotica 1 for CSM 9

First post First post
Author
#1 - 2014-03-07 06:33:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Erotica 1
Platform

Vote for the sandbox/against a theme park.

Vote to make highsec a better place. I expect record turnout from highsec miners to celebrate the Code. If highsec miners are, instead, afk for the vote, then they are effectively voting for a dramatic increase in enforcement actions until satisfactory compliance objectives are met.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

#2 - 2014-03-07 06:50:37 UTC
Are you serious though or are you going to do a james 315?

Will gank for food

Solyaris Chtonium
#3 - 2014-03-07 16:12:45 UTC
are you planning to promise us a double vote?
#4 - 2014-03-09 18:41:44 UTC
Tarojan wrote:
Are you serious though or are you going to do a james 315?


He/She did a 'James 315' already last time (as in start to run then quit).

Tried sucking up to the goons for support and that didn't work.

Exposed by goon

Then quit




#5 - 2014-03-09 19:02:48 UTC
Judging from your posts, you seem to have some sort of infatuation with me. I'll mark you down in the "more enforcement" column. Thanks.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

#6 - 2014-03-10 00:55:21 UTC
I always approve of the noble task of separating fools from their money, and so I'm a fan of your efforts in general.

Nonetheless, I find myself skeptical as to your suitability as a CSM representative. Most CSMs come to the table with some kind of plan, to improve EVE, making things better and more fun. You, on the other hand, have an anti-plan; you want a certain segment of the playerbase to stop having fun (for whatever value of 'fun' is to be had from mining).

As such, even though I have no respect for AFK hisec miners, I can't support your position unless you're offering something different. Ok, so you want AFK mining to not happen. Do you have an alternative in mind? Would you support, say, an exploration-type minigame to replace the senseless tedium of mining? Or do your ideas stop at "I want those guys to stop doing what they're doing"?
#7 - 2014-03-10 01:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Erotica 1
Yes, but in steps for testing purposes. It's not like I want to break the game or anything. For instance, remove all the ore and ice (1 variety, or more over time) and have players accept missions to work towards unraveling the mystery and putting things back in order. This would be an ongoing group mission sort of thing, which would encourage miners to work together. Rewards from these missions would be carefully considered so that there is minimal impact to the players themselves for plexing their accounts. In a plot twist, missions would also be offered to aid the pirate faction that is behind all of this.

There are a number of possible solutions to afk mining that do not specifically target one group of people over others, but have a broad impact.

I'm not here to impose my will on anyone. It's important that a good CSM member be open to community ideas and actively work with the community.

Every idea (beyond the obvious crazy ones) would get fully considered and researched.

Of course, ideas by pillars of the community such as James 315 or the Mittani would get fast tracked since we all know their ideas have already been thoroughly considered by some of the best minds in the game.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

#8 - 2014-03-10 07:44:38 UTC
I see where you're coming from, but that's more or less exactly what I'm referring to.

Suggestions like "remove all the ore and ice" fail at the first word, remove. CCP isn't in the business of removing features; it's bad for business. If a new expansion included in its patch notes anything approximating "Removed all the ore and ice from high security space", subscriptions would plummet. It is a fact that CCP lost subscriptions off of Odyssey, based on changing "push button, receive bacon" into an actual piece of content requiring some effort. It may be argued that that was partly due to flaws in the implementation (re: the much-hated loot scatter mechanic, which is already confirmed to be on the chopping block), but the fact remains that there are a lot of players who will simply stop playing in response to being required to put forth effort... and as a CSM, that's actually something you need to be concerned with.

Similarly, though the question of "How exactly is it that the belts respawn, anyways?" is a valid one, and one could conceive of interesting gameplay regarding prospecting and the discovery of new belts... you don't actually go there. Your proposed ideas have too much stick and not enough carrot; you've simply suggested that stuff go away until arbitrary objectives are completed. Okay, fine... but once those objectives are completed, then what? More of the same thing that was there before? Again, insomuch as I'm taking you as a serious candidate, my problem is primarily that I don't see you bringing anything to the table. You've got things that you want taken off the table, but you don't have anything to replace them with. In this context, that effectively means that you want to implement plans which will lower the subscriber base, and have no corresponding plans to increase it. And that doesn't actually work, since the CSM is an advisory body, not a governing one; if you're not bringing things to the table, you're not effective as a CSM.

That being said... what do you think you can bring to the table? Do you have 'Reasonable Things' to champion, or actual plans to improve gameplay? Or am I essentially right in seeing you as an anti-CSM, wanting mainly to implement anti-plans against the things you dislike?
#9 - 2014-03-10 07:51:49 UTC
Quote:
CCP isn't in the business of removing features; it's bad for business.


Bad features are worse for business.

Oh, and I should point out that they are removing loot spew from exploration. Since it was a bad feature.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.

#10 - 2014-03-10 08:08:17 UTC
For reference, I already mentioned that. Also note that the specifics of that change haven't been announced yet; there may be some other non-standard loot mechanic in the works, or otherwise be something other than the default 'box with stuff in it'. Even if loot spew were simply replaced with the standard loot mechanic, though, I'd argue that there's a largish difference between changing a wildly unpopular bit of one particular feature and removing the feature entirely; it's the difference between reworking loot spew and removing exploration. CCP is prepared to change specific minor details to improve the gameplay experience. They do not remove features wholesale. Incarna was horribly unpopular, but the crappy hotel simulator in space is here to stay, and probably won't even be improved or tweaked much in the foreseeable future.
#11 - 2014-03-11 01:31:58 UTC
I'm okay with all of the highsec miners quitting EVE, if that's what happens. We can replace them with new miners who want to be at their keyboards for some sort of active mining mechanic.

You can't make decisions based on pro-themepark carebears crying.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

#12 - 2014-03-11 10:03:32 UTC
Thats Endoviors point though Erotica. Your ok with all the high sec miners quiting eve, but most people aren't and CCP definetly isnt. I think if you did a survey of miners who mine because they enjoy it, they would love an active mining mechanic (as opposed to the guys who do it on a tabbed out alt for the free isk). Make mining actually FUN. You could champion this, your smart enough to see the benefits of this and there are many ways to do it.

Your not saying this though (or appear not to be). Your simply saying get rid of the high sec miners/remove their play time.

Will gank for food

#13 - 2014-03-11 16:17:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Cavalira
Erotica 1 wrote:
We can replace them with new miners who want to be at their keyboards for some sort of active mining mechanic.

You can't make decisions based on pro-themepark carebears crying.


I wonder where you'll find enough players willing to mine to compensate for all the ones that will quit.

Also, if EVE was to be a full sandbox without moderation, you wouldn't have any concord at all. Do you think that's a good idea to remove Concord entirely?

EDIT: Found this on the minerbumping site:
"- The New Order of Highsec continues to recognize The Mittani as the legitimate Chairman of the CSM. This determination remains the rule in all New Order territories."
#14 - 2014-03-11 16:24:21 UTC
Would a removal of concord help or hinder the game? Thats a very good question. I too would like to hear the ops thoughts on this. Its one way to ensure miner interaction as they are all forced to spam dscan or die.

Will gank for food

#15 - 2014-03-11 18:45:46 UTC
Erotica 1 wrote:


I'm not here to impose my will on anyone.


Such hypocrisy. That is exactly what you want to do. Roll

"If a miner needs to go to the bathroom, for instance, I ask that they dock up first, or at the very least ask the Supreme Protector for permission to go."  -  James 315 - aka - the miner bumper

#16 - 2014-03-11 20:36:00 UTC
Helena Russell Makanen wrote:
Erotica 1 wrote:


I'm not here to impose my will on anyone.


Such hypocrisy. That is exactly what you want to do. Roll


And you would be wrong.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

#17 - 2014-03-12 04:06:54 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Erotica 1 wrote:
Judging from your posts, you seem to have some sort of infatuation with me. I'll mark you down in the "more enforcement" column. Thanks.


What a terribly unpopular thread you have here.

No I just have an "infatuation" with fail blowhards. However what a mature and stable answer addressing your trying before and bolting when things got a little tough the last time you said you were running for CSM.

*Snip* Please refrain from personal attacks. ISD Ezwal.
#18 - 2014-03-12 04:54:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Erotica 1
Do you have a question? Please be respectful in the forums. Thanks.

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

TSOE Consortium
#19 - 2014-03-12 15:29:20 UTC
Like many others in this thread before me, I also strongly dissaprove with you being even a candidate for CSM.

You bring nothing remotely interesting to the table and your "ideas" are unthought through and unimaginative. Seems more like you're trying to (again) promote yourself and your imfamy like an attention wh**e.

So.. hell no.
#20 - 2014-03-12 15:57:31 UTC
Lakotnik wrote:
Like many others in this thread before me, I also strongly dissaprove with you being even a candidate for CSM.

You bring nothing remotely interesting to the table and your "ideas" are unthought through and unimaginative. Seems more like you're trying to (again) promote yourself and your imfamy like an attention wh**e.

So.. hell no.


Another vote for extra enforcement. Thanks for coming!

See Bio for isk doubling rules. If you didn't read bio, chances are you funded those who did.

5 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump