CSM Campaigns

 
 

Eduard Teach runs for a seat at the CSM

Author
#1 - 2017-02-19 13:11:44 UTC
Blackbeard...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMCe7qxEujw

Find me ingame if you have questions.
Post on forum if you have questions.

I am running for a seat at CSM.

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

#2 - 2017-02-21 03:51:15 UTC
The application period ended on the 17th. Did you submit your application in time?

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

#3 - 2017-02-21 08:25:48 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
The application period ended on the 17th. Did you submit your application in time?

Yes I did.

I didnt make a post yet, because straight after handing in the application. I went on a holiday! Just got back last saturday :).

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

#4 - 2017-02-23 04:54:18 UTC
I was wondering if you would answer some questions.

1. You say you run Incursions. Do you fly with one of the communities on a regular basis? Also, do you think the payout for incursions is too high, too low, or just right?

2. You say that you've been involved in factional warfare. Which faction and was it more as a PLEX farmer, or were you involved in combat?

3. It sounds like you have a separate character for each area of the game you participate in. Do you think that EVE requires multiple accounts to play? And do you think that CCP should cater to those with multiple accounts?

4. You said you have a character in TEST. Were you involved in the Catch war last month? If so, what is your opinion of the current sov warfare mechanics?

The Nosy Gamer - CCP Random: "hehe, falls under the category: nice try, but no. ;)"

#5 - 2017-02-23 11:07:26 UTC
Rosewalker wrote:
I was wondering if you would answer some questions.

1. You say you run Incursions. Do you fly with one of the communities on a regular basis? Also, do you think the payout for incursions is too high, too low, or just right?

2. You say that you've been involved in factional warfare. Which faction and was it more as a PLEX farmer, or were you involved in combat?

3. It sounds like you have a separate character for each area of the game you participate in. Do you think that EVE requires multiple accounts to play? And do you think that CCP should cater to those with multiple accounts?

4. You said you have a character in TEST. Were you involved in the Catch war last month? If so, what is your opinion of the current sov warfare mechanics?


1.) I think the pay out is good, however I do feel that the site mechanics may be adapted. More improved AI. The hardship in incursions is getting the fleets organized and enduring the endless grind.

2.) In factional warfare I fought for Amarr. This lead to both combat as well as plexing. I did not find this part of the game as thrilling as for example null sec warfare or NPSI fleets.

3.) I do not believe that you will need multiple characters to play Eve online. I have played the first 3 years without additional characters. It was not untill a friend of mine decided to quit and give me his character that I started multiboxing. However I do believe that playing the game with more characters really adds value to the quality of the gameplay. In short I wished I start multiboxing earlier.
CCP should cater people with multiple accounts, like a staffle discount. First account 100% second account 95% or something. This way CCP would award loyal players who have made this game what it is today and reward players who are looking to invest more time and energy. Therefor convincing more players to create more accounts.

4.) I really dislike the current sov warfare mechanics. CCP changed them because it was supposed to lead to more interaction and combat. However I felt (besides the bugs, where timers ran out and then didnt disappear) that it became more of an endless grind, more boring then actually the incursion grind.
Ofcourse my sense of humor, moves me to say that it was ofcourse because TEST alliance is best alliance and nobody opposes us in Catch and esoteria region.

Extra,
I also do believe CCP should allow name changing. Its one of those things that could not only bring in $$$, but also add more value to the game. For example people who started out as a joke, then got hooked but stuck with a ****** ass named character. Or people who buy/sell characters and people who got characters (like me. cause I really do not like the name Adare darmazaf, my test character)
1) There should be a name history involved so people can always track them.
2) searching on character unique ID numbers
3) Name changing should be expensive so people wouldnt change names every week or so.
More rules could be put up to make sure abuse of this mechanic would not occur.

Thank you for your interest Rosewalker :)
Hopefully this answered some of your questions. If you have anything else do not hesitate to ask.

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2017-03-02 16:16:34 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
#7 - 2017-03-05 08:59:26 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



Hi DeMichael Crimson.
Regarding faction standings I think its covered good by the social skills. HJowever I would say that just with sec standings where you can find/buy tags and hand those in to improve your standings. Something similar should arise for faction standings.
However I do not know how feasible that plan would be for CCP. For that I would need to open that discussion and see how its received.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind regards,


Eduard Teach

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2017-03-05 14:05:21 UTC
Eduard Teach wrote:
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



Hi DeMichael Crimson.
Regarding faction standings I think its covered good by the social skills. HJowever I would say that just with sec standings where you can find/buy tags and hand those in to improve your standings. Something similar should arise for faction standings.
However I do not know how feasible that plan would be for CCP. For that I would need to open that discussion and see how its received.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind regards,


Eduard Teach


Thanks for the reply,

I agree, turning in Tags for Standings is definitely an option. However in my opinion Social skills just barely keep the effects of negative Faction standings in check. And that's only if players keep watch on their standings and adjust their gameplay accordingly.

I think Faction standings should have a more positive 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 more meaningful instead of just being 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 more 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, 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 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 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
#9 - 2017-03-05 20:07:45 UTC
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Eduard Teach wrote:
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



Hi DeMichael Crimson.
Regarding faction standings I think its covered good by the social skills. HJowever I would say that just with sec standings where you can find/buy tags and hand those in to improve your standings. Something similar should arise for faction standings.
However I do not know how feasible that plan would be for CCP. For that I would need to open that discussion and see how its received.

I hope this answers your question.

Kind regards,


Eduard Teach


Thanks for the reply,

I agree, turning in Tags for Standings is definitely an option. However in my opinion Social skills just barely keep the effects of negative Faction standings in check. And that's only if players keep watch on their standings and adjust their gameplay accordingly.

I think Faction standings should have a more positive 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 more meaningful instead of just being 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 more 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, 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 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 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



Hi DeMichael,

I totally agree that removing the need for good faction standings for POS anchoring was a mistake. Negative factionstandings is not something NewBros look into. I only found out after 6 months of playing and only thought at that time that factionstandings only got hurt through storyline events, which is not the case.

So I do believe repairing those standings should be more clear. As I stated above the tag issue thing would be a start especially if repairing those would only got as far as a specific number (lets say boost until negative standing -1.00). But I also do believe faction standings should be in balance (so when you are great buddies with Minmatar you can't be with Amarr i.e.)

So that this forces players to make choices on who they want to be friends with. Otherwise the following would happen if it becomes to easy to get good standings, everyone has great standings with the 4 big factions and the pirate factions).

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2017-03-06 13:21:04 UTC
Eduard Teach wrote:

Hi DeMichael,

I totally agree that removing the need for good faction standings for POS anchoring was a mistake. Negative factionstandings is not something NewBros look into. I only found out after 6 months of playing and only thought at that time that factionstandings only got hurt through storyline events, which is not the case.

So I do believe repairing those standings should be more clear. As I stated above the tag issue thing would be a start especially if repairing those would only got as far as a specific number (lets say boost until negative standing -1.00). But I also do believe faction standings should be in balance (so when you are great buddies with Minmatar you can't be with Amarr i.e.)

So that this forces players to make choices on who they want to be friends with. Otherwise the following would happen if it becomes to easy to get good standings, everyone has great standings with the 4 big factions and the pirate factions).

Hi and thanks for the reply.

I agree with most of what you wrote except for not having the ability to have friendly standings with all Empire Factions. I think that cuts off a lot of available content to players. Also I'd like to point out that Pirate Faction standings will still be negative after gaining high standings with Empire Factions.

When I gave the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' to the Eve community in the forums, it gave players the knowledge to change their standings and engage in content they previously couldn't access. However that info isn't readily available in-game and as such a lot of players are still missing out on accessing content due to lack of knowledge.

I think all players should have the option in-game to invoke Diplomatic Immunity with the Empire Factions. The fact that the info pertaining to that is hidden from players in-game is the reason for my post.

Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck with the election.


DMC
#11 - 2017-03-08 13:32:46 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.
#12 - 2017-03-16 05:15:54 UTC
Cochise Chiricahua wrote:
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.



Hi Cochise,

First of all sorry for my late reply. I hope you are still interested in my answer.
I strongly believe that ganking itself should remain how its currently set up. However I do feel that new players should have more information about the dangers that gankers pose and how to do something about it.

I have always been pro 'loading screen tips'. Where as a game loads you have one tip from the makers on how you could handle a specific task or skill in the game.

This I believe is what Eve really lacks, because Eve does not really have loading screens, instead you have cinematics on you docking in a station or jumping the gate. Still I feel when this would be incorporated this would increase player awareness and also adds quality to the game. So instead of changing the game mechanics, you'd be giving players that would usually get ganked a chance to really up their game and fight back.

Oh and don't haul billions in a T1 industrial, outsource it to red frog or another hauler community.

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

Circle-Of-Two
#13 - 2017-03-17 05:33:44 UTC
I suggest a temporary ban from the server for 2 hours for killing a neutral in high sec and after that double the ban up to 1 day of a ban. Or maybe kind of mute button when you can't say **** in local but this way you can't use your weapons. And I suggest griefing report system for ******* gate campers in high sec. Especially near trade hubs. I suggest CCP start doing something against ******* gate campers. I swear to god if Goon swarm or PL complains CCP will listen but if a regular shmuck like me complains CCP does not give a ****. Introduce a ******* griefing system for a ******* gate campers who are killing everyone who is neutral. And don't ******* tell me that this is eve you die in eve. ************, you were newb too and you can't ******* avoid certain systems because the route will become too long. I can't ******* fly jump freighter or freighter. But what I suggest is simply neutralize ******* from killing neutrals. Especially in high sec. Only in high sec/ near trade hubs. Don't care about low sec


Dear CCP do not disregard my suggestion. And if you can deliver my suggestion to CCP dev I will vote for you.
Sarcos Federation
#14 - 2017-03-20 09:29:44 UTC
Madina Shouna wrote:
I suggest a temporary ban from the server for 2 hours for killing a neutral in high sec and after that double the ban up to 1 day of a ban. Or maybe kind of mute button when you can't say **** in local but this way you can't use your weapons. And I suggest griefing report system for ******* gate campers in high sec. Especially near trade hubs. I suggest CCP start doing something against ******* gate campers. I swear to god if Goon swarm or PL complains CCP will listen but if a regular shmuck like me complains CCP does not give a ****. Introduce a ******* griefing system for a ******* gate campers who are killing everyone who is neutral. And don't ******* tell me that this is eve you die in eve. ************, you were newb too and you can't ******* avoid certain systems because the route will become too long. I can't ******* fly jump freighter or freighter. But what I suggest is simply neutralize ******* from killing neutrals. Especially in high sec. Only in high sec/ near trade hubs. Don't care about low sec


Dear CCP do not disregard my suggestion. And if you can deliver my suggestion to CCP dev I will vote for you.



Oh the salt LOL

but seriously it's Hi sec and its the most unsafe space in eve. Why because people don't get that concord isn't a preventive measure like safe zones in WOW. YOU aren't playing WOW. Your playing EVE. so next time instead of wishing somebody else will save you like the CSM or CCP why not get off your butt use a scout and play like you have some brain matter in between your ears. Thank you CCP CSM and 3rd party sites like Zkillboard for providing methods for us understanding this maxim "never underestimate the power of stupidity in large groups" George Carlin
#15 - 2017-03-20 20:36:30 UTC
Well as I stated before. The mechanics are on their own good. However the way CCP reaches newbro's on prepping them might not be. Hences the fact I believe they should implement these info lines when you are docking/undocking or when you jump the gates.

This could be very suttle, such as "The Amarrian empire wishes you a nice flight, beware of gankers" or "The gallentean authorities wish you a nice flight, beware that shooting other players in high security space could lead to falling of security status".

Also I am pro bringing back isk gambling sites. I think RMT (real money trading) should not be a reason to ban them. However implement rules (such as CCP supervision).

With a Yooo Hooo Hoo and a bootttlllee of rrrruummm....

Forum Jump