CSM Campaigns

 
3 Pages123Next page
 

High Sec Candidate

Author
#1 - 2017-02-05 18:21:15 UTC
Hello!

My name is Lorelei and I am announcing my candidacy for CSM XII. I am running whilst focussed on High Sec. I am a self-confessed High Sec Carebear and am proud of it. I have analysed the commitments planned/coming up in my life for the next year and have decided that I can afford the time to run for CSM XII!

I really haven't changed, neither has what I am thinking, (and therefore neither has my opening campaign post, really) and I am looking forward to discussing with you all!

This is my Campaign Thread from last year:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=464501&find=unread

This is my Campaign Thread from the year before:

https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664


This is my CapStable Podcast Interview from 2015:

http://capstable.net/blog/2015/01/26/lorelei-ierendi/

And this is my infrequently used blog:

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

But to recap for people that do not want to jump to other web sites:

Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart?
I would like there to be a "High Sec" platform, for a candidate for the CSM. If no one else can step up to the plate, then I will. If someone else wants to run for CSM for the benefit of High Sec gameplay, then I am happy to step down and support them... if they can do a better job.

The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem...

This I know. I know that, although numerically High Sec has the largest number of log-ins... accounts... players... I know that High Sec will probably never be able to gather together enough in order to support a CSM candidate. But that is no reason to not try!!
Come on, High Sec! If something is important for you, stand up for it!!!

Who am I?


I am a High Sec Carebear, and proud of it!
High Sec Carebears tend not to socialize too much, and are only members of NPC or small corporations. If you are reading this thread, then sadly you probably do not belong to the player-metric that I mostly represent!

Well, this is not the first character I have created in order to play "EVE". I have never been a member of a big alliance or coalition. I have never been a member of a big corporation. Hell, I have never left High Sec space before the CSMX Election..

I gained my love of Spaceship games by playing Elite... way back on my ZX Spectrum 48k+ (with a jammed SHIFT key (jammed as in... raspberry jam)). Back then it was possible to try docking with a space station and to accidentally line up with the back of the station... and die whilst trying to fly through the back of the station to the entrance. Fun times.

I graduated to Frontier: Elite II on a 486 PC, and spent my time happily flying between Barnard's Star, SOL, and Wolf 359. I should have been studying, but flying a (mostly harmless) panther fully loaded with robots was more fun.

I kept my eyes open for an online version of a space-sim... and that is where EVE comes in.
I really enjoy (as in "really") flying transports, fulfilling contracts, and, sometimes, mining.

My CSM Interests for 2017:

I think it is important for people to know what the CSM is, and can achieve. I could not run claiming that I would make all spaceships pink. As a member of the CSM I would not be in a position to dictate to CCP or enforce any "election promises". The scandals of the past have meant that the Player Base has lost some trust in this institution.

But well:

None Of The Above: Campaigning for an opportunity for people to vote for the CSM, but to vote for None Of The Above. The problem of player participation is disproportionately affecting those of us in high sec (because we carebears are not exactly non-solo).
In order to increase the possibility of player participation, maybe CCP could work up some Popups. Reminding players to vote is not a bad thing.

Ganker: I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank. At the moment this is not the case. On my blog I mentioned changes to Concord that I would like to see. I would also like to see some changes to Ice Spawning (maybe in random systems?) that would mean that the gankers would have to move around to gank ice miners! Local chat could also be changed to provide less free "intel" to people. No need to announce to everyone who is in local... just the number of pilots.
Please read my last threads before posting questions... we really do not need to cover the points that have been discussed before... high sec is worth fighting for!

New Player Experience: That was a WOW change in the last year. I managed to try it eventually. It is about a bazillion times better than the old way. It does however need observing, and I am looking forward to the statistics from Fanfest!

Player Corporations: See my blog and previous posts in Campaign threads for details. The need for player groups that are just social has not changed.

But when all is said and done, I believe a CSM member needs to be a conduit for information exchange between CCP and the players. I do not think that the CSM should be used for the Metagame.

Thank you for reading this far. I am looking forward to working with you / hearing from you, and although I am always busy at this time of year, I promise to read every post in my thread

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Gallente Federation
#2 - 2017-02-05 21:27:41 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
"The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem..."

What is wrong with independence? This is a problem? Is being in a group the only way EVE should be played? Should they be forced to be social? Why would a carebear want to be part of a "we" in a game full of overly aggressive unpleasant types that you can't trust?

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
"Come on, High Sec! If something is important for you, stand up for it!!!"

Why? What is the point? CCP aren't even interested in high sec players, they seem to only want people to join a gang and be F1 monkeys. Someone playing for fun and to look at pretty space themed eye candy is not high on their list.

Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
"high sec is worth fighting for!"

Told you last year, that moto is dangerously close to the moto of a known ingame ganker corp. Not a phrase synonymous with trust.




I did however vote for you last year, and will do so again this year.



#3 - 2017-02-05 22:37:44 UTC
Thank you for stopping by my thread!

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
What is wrong with independence? This is a problem? Is being in a group the only way EVE should be played? Should they be forced to be social? Why would a carebear want to be part of a "we" in a game full of overly aggressive unpleasant types that you can't trust?


Nothing is wrong with independence... but plenty is wrong with apathy. Especially if my fellow carebears sit around whining in local about this or that... and then do not try using the avenues open to them to get their voices heard.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
.... CCP aren't even interested in high sec players, they seem to only want people to join a gang and be F1 monkeys. Someone playing for fun and to look at pretty space themed eye candy is not high on their list.


I'm sure that if there was a big enough carebear lobby, some of the issues affecting high sec play would have been tackled earlier... and before people start jumping around... I am not advocating turning high sec into more of a theme park.

Erebus 'TheChin' Sundance wrote:
I did however vote for you last year, and will do so again this year.


Thank you!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Tactical Supremacy
#4 - 2017-02-06 07:38:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
Well I started to go through your blog but I was onto page 3 of older posts and...

I think that CCP should have a hisec carebear focus group which focus on making it fun for people who just want to play casual which would be a counter weight to the get them out of hisec 0.0 crowd hammering away at CCP. What do you think?

Personally I think ganking is in a good place at this point, except for a couple of things, the first is bumping, this makes it too easy and very annoying for the freighter pilot needs to be sorted. There are a number of ways this can be dealt with, but having a no consequence way of pointing someone for hours if they wanted is very poor game play. My preferred option is to put a bump counter on that after 20 bumps there is a an increasingly random chance that the bumper will go suspect when bumping a freighter.

Another change would be removing docking rights fro -5 or worse, there are now citadels in hisec, that will hopefully change how people look at ganging together and going after ganker citadels or those that give them docking rights.

The Astrahus and Raitaru have to have better cap and improved defences, the missile system in hisec is too weak and needs improving, perhaps an alternative is some very effective RR ability on those citadels which will make people more likely to defend them.

War decs, the system is in my opinion actually quite good, but need a few tweaks, the first is cap the war dec fee against major alliances, the second is give the locator agent the ability to say if someone is online as a request, but add in that if the agents corp has good standings with the player being asked about they will warn him of the interest, this also replies to the location request. I would make the war dec follow a character if he joins another player run corp within the week of the war dec, but on the other hand I would also limit the time that entities with less than 50 charactes can be war decked, perhaps two weeks max.

Hisec is made up mainly of people with support and indy accounts in hisec which is why it is so stale, but another reason is that people who are actually more hisec focused and casual, play so as not to be noticed by war deckers who they have no chance of fighting effectively. That is a statement of the issue in hisec, but changing it is not easy because as you quite rightly pointed out it is I rather than we that is the issue here. I was hoping that people would gang together to keep Citadels alive but they are so weak and the issue of not being able to rep allies in the war dec screws that one, CCP needs to change it so that RR can be applied to allies in a war. I know that this will benefit war deckers too, but only when they come in as defending allies....

Anyway a few things for you to respond to, or develop further.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

#5 - 2017-02-26 11:07:30 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
Well I started to go through your blog but I was onto page 3 of older posts and...


Well thank you for stopping by my thread...

Dracvlad wrote:
I think that CCP should have a hisec carebear focus group which focus on making it fun for people who just want to play casual which would be a counter weight to the get them out of hisec 0.0 crowd hammering away at CCP. What do you think?


Not really sure I understood what you were getting at here. Of course making it fun for high sec players is a very important thing...

Dracvlad wrote:
Personally I think ganking is in a good place at this point, except for a couple of things, the first is bumping, this makes it too easy and very annoying for the freighter pilot needs to be sorted.


I do not agree with you there. But then I have written about that on previous posts and my blog.There is a long thread on the EVE forums about bumping... have you read it?

Dracvlad wrote:
because as you quite rightly pointed out it is I rather than we that is the issue here.


As you quite rightly say, I was indeed quite right.

Dracvlad wrote:
I was hoping that people would gang together to keep Citadels alive but they are so weak and the issue of not being able to rep allies in the war dec screws that one, CCP needs to change it so that RR can be applied to allies in a war. I know that this will benefit war deckers too, but only when they come in as defending allies....


There are many things that one could change in War Decs to make the system more workable... changing the relations between allies is one of them... especially with the large number of small corporations that might have to band together (as if that would ever happen)... The population of high sec will probably never change in this respect. I think that we are still in the relatively early days of citadels... but over the years I expect we will reach some sort of equilibrium...

Thanks for taking the time to write.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

CODE.
#6 - 2017-02-28 20:06:24 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
I would like at least a 50% chance of walking away from a gank.


Lorelei, you have a 100% chance of walking away from most ganks - if you're prepared to take some precautions and to use the tools with which CCP has provided you.

If you're implying that ganking is too easy (i.e. needs to be nerfed), then you should really come out and say so, citing whatever evidence you can produce (I think you'll struggle there, to be frank).

I think you might more usefully describe yourself as the Highsec carebearing candidate, and have done with it. You obviously won't be able honestly to represent the PvPers and Pirates who daily bring content to the region.

I'm working my way down the list of candidates, hoping that someone from Highsec will take on the challenging task of stopping the drip-drip-drip of nerfs to our playstyle and get those carebears actually involved in the game. It's an MMO, not a Multi-Single-Player-Online RPG.

But I realise that expecting a lone candidate to represent the interests of such a broad constituency may be just too much.
#7 - 2017-02-28 23:37:11 UTC
Thanks for stopping by my thread, Sasha. I've listened to several of you recordings. I think they are nice.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Lorelei, you have a 100% chance of walking away from most ganks - if you're prepared to take some precautions and to use the tools with which CCP has provided you.

If you're implying that ganking is too easy (i.e. needs to be nerfed), then you should really come out and say so, citing whatever evidence you can produce (I think you'll struggle there, to be frank).


I don't think ganking is too easy. Did you read the discussions at the time in my last two campaign threads? I think what I think was quite well talked about...

Did you see my post about my ideas for CONCORD adjustments? http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/2015/08/concord.html
What do you think about what I said in my opening post about making changes to local chat?

I do (for example) definitely think that just adding more EHP to mining barges is not the right way to go about adjusting things.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
I think you might more usefully describe yourself as the Highsec carebearing candidate, and have done with it. You obviously won't be able honestly to represent the PvPers and Pirates who daily bring content to the region.


Really? I think I could represent PVPers and Pirates. Of course, more PVP and Pirate oriented players would have to tell me what they think/feel... but that is what communication would be for. If I were to be elected I would be spending more time talking to people and less time flying around niarja. What do you think PVPers an Pirates want? And what do you think a member of the CSM can actually do?

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
I'm working my way down the list of candidates, hoping that someone from Highsec will take on the challenging task of stopping the drip-drip-drip of nerfs to our playstyle and get those carebears actually involved in the game.


Getting carebears more involved in the game would be a great thing, and that is why it is important for CCP to keep tweaking and developing the NPE. I would be very interested to see information about where in the NPE the majority of "new" players stop and quit EVE (see Summit Minutes).
Last year your alliance supported Xenuria. Probably you will be doing it again. That is not necessarily a bad thing... just not a High Sec thing.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
It's an MMO, not a Multi-Single-Player-Online RPG.


I know. I do not think I ever said anything about wanting to make solo-play easier. I am also in favour of increasing the possibilities to be social and interact with other players - and my thoughts about social player corporations have not changed over the last couple of years.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
But I realise that expecting a lone candidate to represent the interests of such a broad constituency may be just too much.


Noone can do everything. But High Sec needs voices, and high sec is worth fighting for!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#8 - 2017-02-28 23:45:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Serves me right for being lazy / pushed for time...

I was called out about wardecs. I do not know much about war deccing, not really having done it in any great way... but I am aware that war dec in high sec and also the bounty mechanics are very much broken... so much so that war decs just do not impact my play in any way... in case of dec drop corps and reform.... or wait it out. in fact in my original campaign war decs were #4 on "the list"


"4) Wardecs.

The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored.

I am also quite prepared to represent/push issues that other High Sec Carebears have, even if I have not mentioned them above. I think it is all-important that High Sec gathers behind a candidate... (even if it is not me) so that our interests do not get swept under the table by the massed/organised nullsec coalitions."

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

CODE.
#9 - 2017-03-01 07:11:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Sasha Nemtsov
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
(a considered and measured response)


I'm supposed to be on a train to Clapham Junction, so this is a very quick-fire reply Lorelei...

Your name reminds me of a boat-trip along the Rhine many many years ago, with school friends. Great times!

I'll pick up your references on my return, later today, but thanks for expanding a bit on your position; it was helpful. Thanks also for listening to the recordings; I appreciate your respect for player-generated content.

Catch you later!
CODE.
#10 - 2017-03-01 18:12:04 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
(helpful explanatory reply)


I looked at your CONCORD wish list Lorelei - thanks for the link.

Suicide ganking - whether of Retrievers or Charons - is a very exact science (or should be). You do seem to understand the mechanics behind the playstyle and thus I credit you with far more nous than the average Highsec Carebear.

Our basic aim is to maintain the presence of non-consensual aggression in Highsec and, as I said previously, to provide both the ganker and the person ganked with adequate tools for attack and defence.

CONCORD is naturally an important factor in our calculations, because upon their behaviour is based our ability to remove barges efficiently. Obviously we don't succeed at every attempt (I've been thwarted many times), and that is why my initial reaction was that there really wasn't very much wrong with the mechanics of ganking.

It seems that your suggestion is more about making the encounter less predictable - for both sides (I imagine).

CONCORD response behaviour is certainly predictable, which enables us to plan our ganks with some degree of precision. Naturally, introducing a random element as you suggest would affect that, but I'm not sure what actual benefits would be offered to the miners or to the gankers. If the outcome of a suicide gank became less certain because of the risk of CONCORD turning up before our blasters had finished their work, most of us would simply bring 2 instead of one ganker (some of my comrades already do this to be sure of snagging the pod). In effect, the change would be neutralised as soon as possible. There would thus be no real benefit to the miner, who would get ganked anyway - if not at his keyboard, paying attention, etc.

Introducing a random element into an activity usually does make it more interesting, but our business is not that kind of activity.

We don't like the Faction Police, though. If you could suggest something about getting rid of them, that would be interesting!

Thanks again Lorelei.

I'll continue looking down the list, but realistically, unless someone from our own community steps forward, our point of view may be aired but couldn't be pushed. I guess that's why so many New Order members vote for other supporters of our very distinctive playstyle. It's impossible to have an effective 'Highsec Representative', because of the broad scope I mentioned in my previous post. Perhaps playstyles should be represented in addition to regions; but then, I fear the bill for trips to Iceland might break into CCP's 'bottom line'.

Smile
#11 - 2017-03-01 22:59:05 UTC
Thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
I looked at your CONCORD wish list Lorelei - thanks for the link.

Suicide ganking - whether of Retrievers or Charons - is a very exact science (or should be). You do seem to understand the mechanics behind the playstyle and thus I credit you with far more nous than the average Highsec Carebear.


Thank you. In my first campaign thread there was some discussion with Admiral Root about ganking... and I even tried it out a couple of times to see how it worked (the poor victims got more than reimbursed by me, and are still on my zkillboard to see).

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Our basic aim is to maintain the presence of non-consensual aggression in Highsec and, as I said previously, to provide both the ganker and the person ganked with adequate tools for attack and defence.

CONCORD is naturally an important factor in our calculations, because upon their behaviour is based our ability to remove barges efficiently. Obviously we don't succeed at every attempt (I've been thwarted many times), and that is why my initial reaction was that there really wasn't very much wrong with the mechanics of ganking.

It seems that your suggestion is more about making the encounter less predictable - for both sides (I imagine).


Less predictable for both sides, and also to "feel" like it makes more sense. And of course, after a big freighter gank there are many CONCORD ships floating around that cause even more lag for someone playing on a low-end box like mine. Lag is not fun. So I am not just talking to stir things up, but also to improve the New Eden experience for people like me!

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Introducing a random element into an activity usually does make it more interesting, but our business is not that kind of activity.


I am quite sure that the gankers will more quickly adapt to any changes than the gankees. But that is the way of the carebear... that is how we are.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
We don't like the Faction Police, though. If you could suggest something about getting rid of them, that would be interesting!


Interesting, but there is already the chance to buy tags and turn them in... or rat them. Sure it costs and/or takes time, but it is there to be taken advantage of. Not sure how much sense it makes to have to go to a station and turn the tags in but CONCORD need their blood money... bit like with wardec fees.

Sasha Nemtsov wrote:
Thanks again Lorelei.


Thank you for taking the time to at least read what I was writing!

BTW I actually found Mike's post about the nature of the CSM encouraging... maybe there is hope for the future after all!
https://mikeazariah.wordpress.com/2017/02/28/bb-80-voices-and-wrappers/

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Pirate Coalition
#12 - 2017-03-02 02:04:17 UTC
I almost dismissed you entirely, but after reading your exchange with Sasha, whom I hold in high regard and have great respect for, I will be watching you closely. You have not earned my vote yet, but you still have a chance to do so.

o7

Rabble Rabble Rabble

Praise James, Supreme Protector of High Sec.

Minmatar Republic
#13 - 2017-03-02 08:14:41 UTC
Hello,

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

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC
#14 - 2017-03-02 11:10:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
thanks for stopping by!

Tengu Grib wrote:
I almost dismissed you entirely, but after reading your exchange with Sasha, whom I hold in high regard and have great respect for, I will be watching you closely.


I feel I have grown up since my first (and most successful) campaign. The exchange with Sasha however is nothing new... there are similar exchanges in my last two campaign threads... I am neither naive nor arrogant enough to think that CCP will suddenly change their minds about (non-consensual) PVP just because I say so... anyway... I am playing EVE because I choose to play eve. When I want to play in peace and quiet I play something like Transport Tycoon (although my old computer is too quick for that now).

Tengu Grib wrote:
You have not earned my vote yet, but you still have a chance to do so.


Fantastic!
Um... just a couple of questions...

1) Can you think of a way to turn war decs into a meaningful, consistent and playable experience for everyone involved?
2) Do you bring a voting block with you, or is it just you?
3) What do you want?

Tengu Grib wrote:
o7


o7

PS Bumping has been raised a lot as a theme... again. I belong to probably the 10 people that has actually gone and read the *whole* C&P thread on the subject... I plan to make a longer post about that this evening / night (EU Time). Maybe you could critique it, let me know what you think?

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#15 - 2017-03-02 19:43:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
Thanks for stopping by.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

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

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


Faction standings? They seem a lot more superfluous since more things are getting done in Citadels, even in high sec. I wish someone had told me at the beginning that by doing missions I could end up being unable to fly in Gallente space... but other than stuff like that I think the issues they cause are overshadowed by other things! If I were to get elected however, of course the concerns of all carebears should be taken into account.

What is you problem with faction standings and what do you think CCP should do about it?

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

Minmatar Republic
#16 - 2017-03-02 21:08:35 UTC  |  Edited by: DeMichael Crimson
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:
Thanks for stopping by.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Hello,

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

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC


Faction standings? They seem a lot more superfluous since more things are getting done in Citadels, even in high sec. I wish someone had told me at the beginning that by doing missions I could end up being unable to fly in Gallente space... but other than stuff like that I think the issues they cause are overshadowed by other things! If I were to get elected however, of course the concerns of all carebears should be taken into account.

What is you problem with faction stanings and what do you think CCP should do about it?

Thanks for the reply.

As a CSM candidate for high sec, I would think you'd view Faction standings a lot more than just superfluous since they have a large impact on high sec game play. As you very well know, the consequences of not knowing about Faction standing game mechanics can easily mess up a players game play activities, especially new players.

Personally I don't have any problems with Faction standings, especially after creating the Faction Standing Repair Plan back in 2010..

What I'd like to see CCP do is have the process of Faction standing repair be implemented into the game so that it's intuitive instead of being obscure. Anti-Empire missions should have a warning to alert players that accepting and completing those missions will have a negative affect on their Faction standings. Lastly CCP could add another group of NPC Agents to the game strictly for Faction standing repair, sorta like the proposal I have listed in my forum signature.

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



DMC
#17 - 2017-03-04 17:44:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Thanks for the reply.


My pleasure.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
As a CSM candidate for high sec, I would think you'd view Faction standings a lot more than just superfluous since they have a large impact on high sec game play.


I play in high sec. Faction Standings - now that I know not to do missions that end up with me being banished from (for example) Amarr Space have actually no effect on my high sec gameplay at all. Especially now that the standings requirement for Jump Clones has been removed. It is true I could make more ISKies trading at stations with better standings, refining at stations with better standings and manufacturing at stations with better standings... but then there are (for example) citadels that make me regret having wasted so much time grinding standings out. I make more than enough iskies without caring about standings, and the characters on which I ground out standings are actually now more or less sitting around so I can make more money with Skill Injectors.

Just in case I had one of those "not really knowing what it means" moment, I looked it up...

su-per-flu-ous
adjective

1. being more than is sufficient or required; excessive.
2. unnecessary or needless.
3. Obsolete. possessing or spending more than enough or necessary; extravagant.


Which I think pretty exactly hits the nail on the head. I am sorry, I just don't think they are as relevant as they were in 2010.

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
As you very well know, the consequences of not knowing about Faction standing game mechanics can easily mess up a players game play activities, especially new players.


That is indeed my only concern about them.... new players getting trapped into grinding after reading outdated guides, or accidentally getting their mains "kill on sight" by the Caldari Police.....

DeMichael Crimson wrote:
Anyway, thanks again for the reply and good luck in the upcoming election.

DMC


I hope the other candidates had something constructive to say on the issue... maybe you should collate the responses somewhere... so that people interested in faction standings can easily reference who best to vote for!

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#18 - 2017-03-04 22:47:46 UTC
Lorelei Ierendi wrote:

PS Bumping has been raised a lot as a theme... again. I belong to probably the 10 people that has actually gone and read the *whole* C&P thread on the subject... I plan to make a longer post about that this evening / night (EU Time). Maybe you could critique it, let me know what you think?


Just posted about bumping on my blog. Link is in the signature if anyone is interested.
Didn't want to reproduce it here... the forums have seen enough posting about bumping.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#19 - 2017-03-05 19:52:15 UTC
So the eve of the elections is upon us.
I would like to take this time to encourage everyone to vote, for whoever they want (or whoever their block tells them).
It would be nice, now that we have all forgotten the drama of CSMX if the percentage of participants in the voting could start climbing, so that the "playerbase representation" of the CSM could become fact instead of fiction.

I am afraid CCP has a long way to go in getting the numbers working for high sec... and from what I have observed in the last three years the interest in the CSM is dwindling...

"No and I'm also not going to look for one as I'm not going to vote." - A fairly typical response from one of my ex-Supporters on the subject of "a solution to the low turnout in High Sec Voters..."

I think it would be nice if CCP could bombard us with popups or notifications (like that cluster shutdown thing for downtime) - for example at login - so that everyone that logs into EVE is at least aware that the CSM exists.

Still I am looking forward to seeing what happens.

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

#20 - 2017-03-06 15:48:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Lorelei Ierendi
I am actually planning to vote towards the end of the week, because I am waiting to see if anything new comes up... but...
I know that statistically, most of the people that are going to vote do so in the first couple of days. They have already made up their minds, or had their minds made up for them.

So this is what my voting list looks like at the moment. - in case any of my supporters are unsure what to do with their votes. I will happily answer any questions people have about it.

Lorelei Ierendi

commander aze

Toxic Yaken

Roedyn

Steve Ronuken

rhiload Feron-drake

Ariel Rin

Juvenius Drakonius

Erika Mizune

DJ Thomas


Alternates:
Xenuria

JTClone Ares

http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/

3 Pages123Next page
Forum Jump