CSM Campaigns

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
2 Pages12Next page
 

Borat Guereen for CSM XI

First post
Author
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2015-09-29 22:35:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Introduction VF

This is the time of the year where candidates start throwing their hats in the ring to become part of the next CSM.

I ran last year as a candidate for the Solo play style.
I consider myself a solo player because I do not pay any taxes to any player controlled entity with any of my alts for anything that I do, and I am not receiving any income from any other player except when selling the goods or services I am producing (on my own POSes production lines) , looting the wrecks I can get my ships on, exploring the vastness of New Eden, and the occasional short term loan when needed from one friend or another.

I have found out during the last year that there are many shades of solo, and this term is often used with different meanings for each one of us. There are many other players that I also consider solo, some unknown living their gaming passion in anonymity, others more outspoken about their play style, like Gevlon Goblin or Zosius.

Being solo does not prevent us from interacting with other players in different ways, affecting the meta according to our means, or trying to accomplish some things of significance. Above all, I believe that solo players are not looking to rule over other players and take advantage of other players' game time to fill their own pockets.

My work in my alliance is to help players that have already a few years of experience playing Eve transition from being a cog in a larger machine to achieving their own independence, counting only on themselves, with all the risks that it entails.
As a secretive resistance group, we are waging a war on taxes, and within the Minmatar lore, we are outcasts and freedom fighters, fighting against the oppression of the Amarr Empire. We also fight all the players' alliances, large or small, that are chosing to tax their corp members or wage war on the free circulation of goods in High Sec.

But for CSM XI, I am throwing my hat to represent all guerilla fighters. From lone wolves, as CCP Seagul called us in her latest videocast about the return of expansions, to small groups and gangs that are fighting against larger forces, guerilla warfare is on the rise, with the game moving away from the domination of N+1 fleets.

I am not the best PvP pilot, even if PvP represents 75% of my game time, I am not the best industrialist or market overlord, I am quite simply a random player lambda that chose to stop bending the knee in the past and walked away to establish my own play style, that is not willing to kiss any ring and that got moved to participate to this electoral debate after seeing the influence the established power players wield within the CSM itself, and how this affects the game we all play to their own advantage.

In CSM XI I want to be the voice of the guerilleros, those that can't be bought with ISKs or positions of powers because they are fighting for an ideal that no imperialistic power will ever be able to embrace.

My name is Borat Guereen, and I am candidate for CSM XI.

Candidate for CSM XII

Minmatar Republic
#2 - 2015-09-29 22:45:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Here is my campaign's platform.

One term limit for CSM members

The CSM is a group of elected lobbyists representing a faction or a play style. I support only one term for each CSM member, so that every term newer engaged members of the active community can help shape the discussions with CCP on the game we all share. My position has not changed much from last year, except for promoting having one vote per active player, rather than one vote per active account.

Develop exposure to lore in-game while continuing the efforts to support the new players experience better.

Continue developing the new player resources in an integrated way within the game, in line with the work that has been done in the past years, and develop the tools for new players to easily be exposed within the game itself to the latest Scope videos and lore happenings that shape the ongoing non-static storylines.

Encourage new ideas that would facilitate a nomadic life style.

With the introduction of citadels in the game, I’d like to promote having all current POS become Orca-style ships once they run out of fuel or are unanchored. All the POS’s online deployable would be automatically stored in their cargo bay. Such “towering” ship would have the capacity to travel in New Eden like an Orca does. The fuel bay of this ship/POS could only be filled inside a Station or a Citadel, and they could head back to be anchored near a moon and be onlined again. As such, they would become a truly nomadic asset with a built-in limited deployment time before they have to travel back again for refueling. It would allow existing POSes to smoothly transition to a role that is different from Citadels, without becoming extinct, provided the problematic shield can be replaced by the new tethering mechanic.

Support guerilla friendly features.
Guerilla is about wearing down enemies organized in larger numbers, and that have access to overwhelmingly greater forces.
In the same way that sov-holders value control over their region, guerilla tactics must provide a value for the efforts deployed to weaken stronger forces, without becoming overpowered when used by the larger groups themselves. Labeling guerilla tactics as “trolling” is part of their propaganda metagame geared at protecting their influence on the game.

Defend and promote new mechanics that could be effective guerilla tools, like siphons.

Today, siphons are mostly useless because the APIs are ratting them out within hours of their deployment. These are one-use only assets that are fairly costly, and end up totally inefficient to use by small ISK-strapped entities that are unlikely to have any moons themselves, while they are a more useful tool for larger well-funded groups (the opposite of its original design goal). We need to hold CCP to their own statements, and stop having API give out the location of new siphon.

The entosis ban on interceptors is yet another example where the null sec blocks actively work to limit the guerilla capabilities of smaller groups behind their lines. This issue was more about the nullification capabilities of interceptors. Instead of this ban, I would have defended, for example, making HIC bubbles negate nullification around gates.

A last example is the upcoming regeneration of entosis nodes. The existing powers want entosis to strictly be a sov taking feature, and are purposefully negating its potential use as a guerilla tool. I do acknowledge that the concept of regeneration of nodes is needed, but the current rate of regeneration that has been communicated and is to be deployed soon is way too rapid, making any use of entosis as a guerilla tactic useless. I would have lobbied to have this rate apply only to capital systems, and significantly increase the regeneration time according to the distance of the system to the capital system. By linking the regeneration time to distance from capital system, large groups controlling large portion of space would be more affected than smaller groups living in a few systems.

Add some amount of fog-of-war to existing out of game API data, and limit new API sources.

I would actively lobby to limit new API data that would replace in-game activity. API should not be providing too much Out of game information and allow large entities to be managed by relatively small groups of players with the largest out of game technical abilities. I’d also like to introduce some kind of in-game data privacy option. I support consensual watch lists or not seeing the destroyed modules in a kill mail unless the pilot opted in for this information to be publicly available.

Put bridging ships at risk

The capacity to bring in reinforcement by bridging ship to a cyno is a powerful tool against guerilla actions. Larger groups have the advantage of numbers to field stand-by response fleets. To make instantaneously reinforcement become a more difficult tactical choice for anyone using this powerful projection tool, I would lobby to have the bridging ship jump to the location with the bridged fleet once the bridge closes, without the possibility to prevent that jump.

Allow capital ships to cyno to any system’s sun in range.

The ability for all capitals to jump to a cyno is highly dependent of good cyno beacon infrastructures or cyno alts. For the more casual players that can’t afford multiple accounts, or the smaller groups, the use of capitals is limited by this lack of infrastructure. I would promote allowing capitals to jump to sun in systems in range (unless they are cyno-jammed), and prevent deploying any citadel within less than 1 AU from a system’s sun.

Candidate for CSM XII

Minmatar Republic
#3 - 2015-09-29 22:46:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Require that all players link all their alts publicly, with a slight change in the EULA, and remove the character bazaar.

There are some activities in Eve that do not yet fit into the risk versus reward model that is widely accepted as being core to Eve game design. Cloaky campers, infiltrated spies or destabilizing agents using anonymous alts are activities with high potential rewards and little risks. They favor power players with the means to maintain multiple accounts.

Anonymous alts may have been a good thing for the past decade, but it may be time to examine how this affect the more recent players. Any rising group can be easily infiltrated, and is never going to evolve anymore beyond being a “farming” ground for the bigger groups, or will implode from being destabilized from inside to the profit of the already established groups that can keep their hand in all the pies all the same time with anonymous alts.

The game should allow new entities to grow with players whose in-game experience and loyalties can be established with their pilot’s histories and the influence that each player can wield is made visible by linking together all their alts publicly, after giving current players a chance to choose the alts they will chose to keep to represent their in-game experience going forward. I do support making Skill Points another commodity through the recently announced transneural packages, and I would also lobby once this feature is implemented to remove the character bazaar entirely, so that all pilots history and name remain tied to the player that created them in the first place.



In its first decade, Eve online was a wild west where dreams of empires were achievable. The mechanic of the game so far has encouraged players to join larger groups to find security in numbers and organization. Still, the domination of N+1 fleet has been correctly identified as a problem for the game, and the stagnation of null sec has been called out as an issue. This second decade must be the age of revolutions, and the game must offer mechanics that can threaten established alliances, forcing the largest groups into actively defending their territories, or become splintered. It should also prevent hidden influences by established power players protecting their personal interests. There are no revolution without the ability to wage effective guerilla warfare, and the CSM needs voices that can lobby to make sure features that are designed to be guerilla friendly do not end up being nerfed to uselessness to protect established interests.

Candidate for CSM XII

Minmatar Republic
#4 - 2015-09-29 22:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
CSM XI Voting Endorsements


As the campaigns for CSMXI are developping, and more public data is available, I will copy here the names and campaign pages of the other candidtaes that I will recommend voting for for CSMXI. A full ballot should have 14 candidates names on it to take full advantage of the voting system. If you like my platform, put me first on your ballot, and order these other candidates in the order that fits you best.

Go check their campaign thread and give them a serious consideration.

1/27 - Uriel Paradisi Anteovnuecci
An excellent Cap Stable interview, and I believe that the CSM XI needs to have a lore and in-game event representative.

1/30 - Joffy Aulx-Gao
A strong candidate having the support of one of the best known low sec pirates group, led by Rixx Javix. As a player who is confined to a bed or a wheelchair he can also bring some good insights to CCP for their user interface.

2/16 - Jintaan
A great interview and a clear focus toward the interest of the provi bloc and the NRDS play style.

2/16 - DoTooFoo
An independent candidate, industrialist, solo players with a focus on low class WH lifestyle.

2/16 - Vic Jefferson
A voice from NS that does not necessarily represent the interest of the larger groups, and advocates clearly for a balanced CSM with only three NS representatives (which sounds right).

2/16 - Diana Olympos
Experience in Null sec with small groups as an ex-PFR as well as current member of mercenary coalition will give a good voice to small to medium sized NS and mercs groups.

2/16 - Nikolai Agnon
A great interview from a Low Sec Faction Warfare focused candidate, with some side of API and PVE interests.

2/18 - Toxic Yaken
Representing the Dark Side of High Sec, with a focus on fixing wardecs and bounty hunting

2/22 - Utari Onzo
A Logi FC specialist and capital triage player that is both RP oriented and flying in Null Sec

2/22 - RF Gneaus Crassus
HS player that is part of big haul in New Eden and non-PvPer. He considers (rightly so) than HS ganking is more like PVE than PVP

2/22 - Lorelei Ierendi
I have three HS picks for this year as I believe HS needs attention quickly after Citadel. I had Loreli on my ballot last year, and another euro-player representative of HS will round up my votes in that area.

2/22 - Capri Sun KraftFoods
He is the closest of a NS bloc candidate I am willing to endorse. I hesitated between Gorski Car and him, but I'll go for a smaller group (TISHU) over an established powerhouse (PL) anytime. Of course I disagree with his stance about removing Aegis sov.

2/27 - Xavier Azabu
The choice was tough for this last entry into this endorsement post. Steve Ronuken will not need any independent votes as all the blocs are already going to make him their independent vote. Commander Aze was on my short list but he supports Sion's suggestion of CSM driven focus groups which would be a terrible nepotistic thing for the game. A few others were close but I settled for Xavier, as a WH and PVE centric candidate, that can also speak Japanese.


Check these other CSM XI analysis resources

- Vote Match

- Mike Azariah post

- Cap Stable Analysis shows 1, 2, 3, 4

- Eveoganda endorsement

- Jakobs Eve checklist 1, 2, 3

- EveNT CSM XI interviews

- Declaration of war Roundtables 1, 2

- XeX endorsements

- I'd be remiss if I did not link Gevlon CSM XI post. He supported me last year. I disagree with his approach this year, instead I believe we should not put any null sec bloc player in our ballot if we deem ourselves to be independent. But he still holds an interesting viewpoint on the CSM.

Candidate for CSM XII

Minmatar Republic
#5 - 2015-10-03 16:42:36 UTC
Ok. I'm primarily a solo guerrilla-fighter type player myself, so I want to like you. However, you haven't actually detailed any kind of platform. What are your thoughts on... oh let's go with highsec wardecs.
Minmatar Republic
#6 - 2015-10-04 09:49:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Syeed Ameer Ali wrote:
Ok. I'm primarily a solo guerrilla-fighter type player myself, so I want to like you. However, you haven't actually detailed any kind of platform. What are your thoughts on... oh let's go with highsec wardecs.


You can check what I was supporting last year, even if some of my thoughts have evolved since then.
I am still working on my platform for this year, and should have the high level items up within a few weeks.

I am far from being an expert on high sec wardecs, so I will not delve into details of current rules I am not familiar enough with, as I mostly operate outside of high sec.

This said, there are some principles I strongly believe in that would educate any input I could provide to possible changes.

- The game is a sandbox for all play styles. If the wardec mechanics cause highly risk adverse players to stop playing until the war is over, it is not a good system.

- Low risks should always mean low rewards, and the highest rewards should always come when competing against other players.

- High sec players should be able to create social groups without opening themselves to wardecs.

NB.
As a note I have little sympathies for CODE. and what it stands for.
"fighters" preying on high sec farmers that are not looking for a fight has never ranked very high on my own scale of values, and is certainly not guerilla, which involves fighting stronger forces.

Candidate for CSM XII

Minmatar Republic
#7 - 2015-10-27 20:38:03 UTC
At last, the details of my campaign's platform have been published (scroll up Lol)

Candidate for CSM XII

Gallente Federation
#8 - 2015-10-27 21:59:24 UTC
Forgetting changes you would advocate for, what experience do you bring to the csm that is not covered by the current members?

Founder of Violet Squadron, a small gang NPSI community! Mail me for more information.

BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie's Space Mediation Service!

Minmatar Republic
#9 - 2015-10-28 01:17:55 UTC
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie wrote:
Forgetting changes you would advocate for, what experience do you bring to the csm that is not covered by the current members?


I am not sure if you want me to compare my experience with members of CSM X even if they may or may not run next year, or only with the ones that are currently campaigning for CSM XI

This said, I started playing the game in 2009 and outside of a six months long lull I have played regularly, with one account first, then three when I chose to live solo in a WH, and now with five accounts.

I once have been part of Large alliances, and lived in null sec for around 2 years, then left the sov holding coalitions when b0tlrd accords were signed. I also lived for around two years in wormholes, mostly solo living off sleeper sites, hunting in null sec and WH space and performing PI. I have built my first capital myself, participated to multiple fleets, small and large, and have contributed to faction warfare in low sec. i have been mostly flying subcaps so far, and these days I like traveling light and PVPing all across New Eden. Nearly half of my playing time has been spent as a mostly solo player.
this is overall my in-game experience.

Out of game, I used to be an IT project manager, and now own and manage my own business. Eve Online is my main hobby. I could be building and flying RC models, but I chose to fly internet spaceships in an exciting and challenging virtual science fiction Universe.

Candidate for CSM XII

Minmatar Republic
#10 - 2015-11-22 16:17:04 UTC
The upcoming Patch notes includes the following:
"The API no longer makes any attempt to fake the quantity of materials being stolen by siphon units."

if, like me, you value the ability to wage guerilla warfare in the game, especially against the richests of the richest, i.e. moon holding entities, go add your voice on this thread

Candidate for CSM XII

#11 - 2015-11-22 22:37:21 UTC
Borat Guereen wrote:
Require that all players link all their alts publicly, with a slight change in the EULA, and remove the character bazaar.


Outrageous - what gives you the right to eliminate people's (read: paying customers, who would probably flock away if this batshit suggestion ever came to fruition) choice to either anonymity and/or privacy, in the name of some perceived problem on your behalf?

Perfection is a dish best served like wasabi .

Bumble's Space Log

Minmatar Republic
#12 - 2015-11-23 04:16:48 UTC
Bumblefck wrote:
Borat Guereen wrote:
Require that all players link all their alts publicly, with a slight change in the EULA, and remove the character bazaar.


Outrageous - what gives you the right to eliminate people's (read: paying customers, who would probably flock away if this batshit suggestion ever came to fruition) choice to either anonymity and/or privacy, in the name of some perceived problem on your behalf?


You are as free to not like my platform and not vote for me, as I am free to develop the reasons why this item is on my platform.
So if you have any interest about thje reasons that this is part of my platform, here are the details:

Is the gaming field in Eve Online truly fair today as the power of a player is multiplied exponentially by the number of unrelated accounts one has?

This was very visible with the thankfully now banned input broadcasting, where fleets of bombers handled by one player could destroy a gang of numerous players with a single coordinated bomb run, or locust mining fleet could empty a site in mere minutes to the dismay of local residents with a more casual approach to their gaming hobby. They were not alts of the same accounts, but different accounts organized to operate at the same time. In that case, they gave away their anonymity to multiply exponentially the effect of one player on the game.

The community as a whole started seeing that as an abuse two years ago, while it had been accepted for many years before. But as it started being more visible, as more players saw it working for some and duplicated the trend, this created a snowball effect that could not be ignored anymore. Gone is the very visible input broadcasting, because it became too obvious, but it also clearly showed that some players could afford many many accounts....

... and there are still today many ways that are not as visible to influence the game with a lot of anonymous different accounts and only one player behind them. From corps infiltration by "clean" alts, to non-productive cloaky campers that block in-game activity for local residents, to trading manipulated by alts of the same player, the power of multiple anonymous accounts is very much around, but it is not visible.

My goal with this point of my program is to cast a light on it, and continue the cleaning process for a fairer gaming field to all players that the input broadcasting ban started. Multiple anonymous account is, simply put, a subtle form of pay-to-win.

Removing the anonymity does not mean preventing players from having multiple accounts, as I believe this is truly a staple of Eve, but it will change the impact on the game that these extra alts can bring to the same player.

All activities in Eve are designed around risk versus rewards. Anonymous alts is all rewards with no risks. Where is the difficulty in the spy game today? you are not working to turn another player, but you are adding a new account and having a real easy, no risk involved, run at a group of players in their corp that have no other way to protect themselves than not recruiting anymore...

What is the difficulty and the risk of sending a cloaky alt for weeks around, totally anonymously so that the recipients can't even know who is behind it and retaliate in other ways? A cloaky alt does not produce anything for the game, and has a no-risk opportunity to jump those that ignore the cloaky camper at the first opportunity. Why being afraid of retaliation against other productive alts?

The tenants of this type of play are the worst and most hypocritical carebears of the game, wanting to wield significant influence with multiple anonymous pilots, and wield an influence that has little risk involved. It is not about the number of accounts, it is about their anonymity hence my proposition to change the EULA accordingly.

I am only talking about the anonymity of alts, not the anonymity of players. Only CCP should know the players' names behind the accounts, of course.

The last point I am adding from my last year post on this very subject is that I also believe the mere presence of anonymous alts stiffles the development of new organizations, as the most recent players are condemned to either only play with real life friends, or join already existing power blocs and the ease of infiltrating rising groups is only benefiting the already established powers.

Candidate for CSM XII

Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#13 - 2015-11-23 14:02:30 UTC
A side effect of the 1 year term limit, which you may not have thought of:

It means, each year, the CSM has to start from scratch on knowing who the best people, at CCP, to talk to about some topics are.

It's a loss of institutional knowledge, which degrades the effectiveness of the organisation. In my two terms, it's been evident that knowing who to talk to, is really valuable, and I've been grateful that (in year one) I could leach off that from the older members.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter

Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2015-11-23 17:11:10 UTC
Steve Ronuken wrote:
A side effect of the 1 year term limit, which you may not have thought of:

It means, each year, the CSM has to start from scratch on knowing who the best people, at CCP, to talk to about some topics are.

It's a loss of institutional knowledge, which degrades the effectiveness of the organisation. In my two terms, it's been evident that knowing who to talk to, is really valuable, and I've been grateful that (in year one) I could leach off that from the older members.


I only mentioned "one term" in my platform because I do understand that the current one year term would not be the best with a limit of one term for CSM members, for the reasons you point out.

I also support an increase of the term for CSM to two years, keeping one election every year for half of the members so that the older members can still help the newest members every year. This was already part of my platform last year on that subject.

My main point is that being elected only once will keep in check a non-CCP employee individual's influence over the game we all share, and allow other voices and faces to rise up. As younger players become vets, there is no shortage of talents in the player base to represent a community that evolves each year.

Candidate for CSM XII

EvE-Scout Enclave
#15 - 2015-12-22 21:10:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Alan Mathison
Borat:

Your thoughts on "alts" is interesting, and I understand where you're going with it. However, what about those players who have no "alts."

Insofar as I can tell, the definition of an "alt" would be a character (alt) that works hand-in-glove with another character (main) to give the main advantages. I can see your arguments here.

However, what about those of us who play separately. I, for example, have no "alts" as far as I'm concerned. I have 3 characters who have independent lives and operate independently far from one another. Why should, say, the activities of Character 1 in, say, Goonswarm, harm the chances of another character being accepted into a corp because the first character is seen as at least a potential spy?

I also currently know of circumstances where is is legally forbidden for people to know that certain characters are linked via the same player, although if a change is made to the EULA, I'd have to think that could be dealt with.

You do have some interesting ideas, but I'm not quite sure I like this one.

Good luck!

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2015-12-22 22:34:45 UTC
Alan Mathison wrote:
Borat:

Your thoughts on "alts" is interesting, and I understand where you're going with it. However, what about those players who have no "alts."

Insofar as I can tell, the definition of an "alt" would be a character (alt) that works hand-in-glove with another character (main) to give the main advantages. I can see your arguments here.

However, what about those of us who play separately. I, for example, have no "alts" as far as I'm concerned. I have 3 characters who have independent lives and operate independently far from one another. Why should, say, the activities of Character 1 in, say, Goonswarm, harm the chances of another character being accepted into a corp because the first character is seen as at least a potential spy?

I also currently know of circumstances where is is legally forbidden for people to know that certain characters are linked via the same player, although if a change is made to the EULA, I'd have to think that could be dealt with.

You do have some interesting ideas, but I'm not quite sure I like this one.

Good luck!


I see Alts from the same account the same as alts from different accounts. Like you do point out though, they are less likely to help directly as you can't fly both at the same time, but they are still able to bear influences without much risks.

By being part of the same "stable" or "family", by having alts publicly linked together with a simple EULA change, you will have to be mindful of your actions, which in turn will define your true loyalties. Your "family" can bear the consequences of the choices you make in game, whereas right now, you can create an alt (even from the same account) that is totally disconnected, and make a decision that will "sacrifice" an alt but has absolutely no bearings on your other alts.

Let's take the example of an hypothetical (or is it?) President Mc Scrooge, a Titan pilot. Let say this player has used his Titan and lost it stupidly, then sold his character. The player did the mistake, and the Titan pilot still ended up in the character bazaar, then used by someone else, possibly unaware of the consequences of such a bad killboard rep.
With my platform, this player would not have been able to get rid of the stain of losing a Titan. Losing a Titan is part of his history, but he avoids the consequences of his mistakes by using the anonymous alts system. As I am pointing out, anonymous alts do not fit the risk versus reward that is the staple of Eve Online.
This is but one minor example.

Those that have the means to pay multiple accounts carry a hidden influence that is disproportionate in the game, and linking alts publicly will only curtail it and force players to be responsible for their actions and their choices.

If you chose to join goons with one character, why would you then be able to join another organization that is actively trying to fight goons influence and curtails it, if not for spying and when the right moment come be in the position to reduce all significant efforts deployed to nothing? This is not difficult to do, and there is no risks involved. If your spying alt is caught, you as a player do not suffer any consequences nor ill-will. You are shielded by your anonymous alt, and just start or buy another one.

This game is as much a science fiction experience than a social one. Except that anonymous alts provide more advantage to the already established power groups to maintain their grasp on the game without much risks.
Now turning a player, like goons did with Corbexx after he ran as a WH independent, is the stuff of true legends. Corbexx being a public figure will live with that forever. A player that decides to burn a spy alt during a critical battle has no chops, unlike Corbexx, as he is not putting any risks on his true assets.

Like ISBoxing, anonymous alts is a system that could be accepted before, but needs to be looked at again, which is why I am bringing it up as part of my guerilla platform, because foremost, it stifles true attempts to upset the current politics.

There would be exceptions to the EULA like ISDs or Devs being able to bypass it, as there are internal controls already for them.

Candidate for CSM XII

EvE-Scout Enclave
#17 - 2015-12-28 15:01:56 UTC
Borat:

I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I DO understand the examples you're giving and why they may be a problem

From my standpoint, roleplaying 4 separate characters, a publicly database like this would harm them to no good purpose. What if you want to experience Goon culture and Signal Cartel culture, but a Signal person runs the character's database, sees another character in Goons, and decides an "alt" is too much of a risk when one character has nothing to do with the other.

Is that an odd way of playing? Perhaps, although the roleplayers amongst the player base would probably not see it as such. So, for the roleplayers, I do see this idea as problematic, but I do appreciate the tactical game issues you've brought up.

Many thanks for the reply!

-- Alan Mathison, Explorer & Industrialist, Star Tide Industries

Minmatar Republic
#18 - 2015-12-28 21:39:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Borat Guereen
Alan Mathison wrote:
Borat:

I appreciate the thought you've put into this, and I DO understand the examples you're giving and why they may be a problem

From my standpoint, roleplaying 4 separate characters, a publicly database like this would harm them to no good purpose. What if you want to experience Goon culture and Signal Cartel culture, but a Signal person runs the character's database, sees another character in Goons, and decides an "alt" is too much of a risk when one character has nothing to do with the other.

Is that an odd way of playing? Perhaps, although the roleplayers amongst the player base would probably not see it as such. So, for the roleplayers, I do see this idea as problematic, but I do appreciate the tactical game issues you've brought up.

Many thanks for the reply!


I am a role player, have been for many years, both DMing and playing D&D and many other RPGs. My characters are all part of New Eden with different storylines (You can read more about one of those here)

I do understand that a player would like to be part of the goon empire and part of MOA and part of PL at the same time. They can have content at any time of the day and the year, with any ship types... The current system of anonymous alts allows that. The problem is that it drives the psychology of the game toward the blue donut, and the new players are being sold on something that will never happen: a non-staged large scale conflict driven Sci-Fi Universe.

Power players that can so easily have so many hands in so many pots have established interests that they are not likely to upset anymore. Or if they will it will be on staged fights with no real losers, or chosen winners. Many are those that have been lucky enough to rise to their position because they started the game earlier than the others, before the power consolidations happened.

For the more recent players, they are stuck only playing with friends they can trust in real life, or join one of the established groups. And those will not allow a new group to rise to threaten their interests. They may encourage spin off (Code, PFR, Signal Cartel,...) but those are not independents entities, they remain controlled by the same clique. They are just staged content and/or conflict drivers.

So forcing players to reveal their true loyalties by making their alts publicly linked will at least give the younger players a chance to build something that can become with time and efforts a real challenge for the established interests. It will also remove the NSA-like cancer that are full APIs. It will be risky to not comply with the EULA and use alts to infiltrate, rob or destablize rising powers, unless another player can effectively be turned into a spy, and could (why not) become double-agent (but it won't be as easy or safe for power players to use anonymous alts to keep their grasp on all aspects of the game)

Candidate for CSM XII

#19 - 2016-01-13 11:10:03 UTC
You seem to be one of the more "serious" candidates running for CSM XI, interesting Cool

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg

http://bit.ly/1egr4mF

Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2016-01-13 19:20:17 UTC
Freelancer117 wrote:
You seem to be one of the more "serious" candidates running for CSM XI, interesting Cool


Thank you, I believe the CSM is a group that should represent a range of players from the sandbox as wide as possible, and the best way to demonstrate what you believe in is to tell on your platform what you would advocate for.

There is a new interview of CCP Leelo about the CSM that is worth reading. She highlights that "Each CSM delegate has their own agenda and opinions. Often they don’t match not only our point of view, but even the point of view of other delegates and the community."

Candidate for CSM XII

2 Pages12Next page
Forum Jump