Bexey Songweaver for CSM

Council Of Stellar Management CSM Campaigns
, ,
1

Bexie Campaign

What I am Standing For

My pitch is balance, gaming experience and a desire to ensure that the game is able to thrive outside of the interests of the very large corporations that have historically dominated the CSM. In game I have always been prepared to help new capsuleers, help them get a feel for the game and set them in line towards learning how to work with the content.

Who Am I

I have been MMORP gaming for many years, for the last 4 in EVE. Initially I took to mining in hi sec, joining a Hi Sec corp for a few months until I found one that I could play with, providing the ever- hungry industrial hubs of the galaxy. The great HiSec mining nerf drew me into wormhole space with it weird hazards and rewards. Latterly I have been a part of Aurora Alliance, a little bit of industry, and little bit of PvE; like most seeking the CSM multiboxing content, sometimes with like-minded others. I am also probably the most fluffy capsuleer to stand for CSM. In the dream world of real life, I am a program manager, having managed teams of 100’s of developers, I have been a business to business trainer (useful skill for helping new buds online) and a part owner of a Brewery. Cheers!

What would I do for you?

The CSM is there to distil the “voice of the customer” in part, carrying the common gripes, not only of themselves, but other players that fleet up in common fleets. I will be there to listen to the smaller corps and new buds in game.

Some parts of the UI have room for, in the voice of an architect, Improvement. This is something that can be raised more strongly in the CSM forum.

PI is a mess. Anything that can improve this, from interfaces to manufacturing line changes would improve its appeal. Working on POCO’s from dead corporations would be another area for improvement.

Getting more help to the new buds in HiSec, from making it more difficult to harass HiSec players, to encouraging more HiSec guidance will improve new player retention.

If you put your trust in me, I will use my CSM voice to bring attention to common gripes, building a support base both in the EVE forums and using my discord presence as below. I am approachable when online and will usually help with a fleet invite when you need that Orca Boost. Flay the Rocks!

Contact Details

Here or at Bexie Songweaver

4 Likes
2

if hisec players are being harassed, like actual harassment, ccp will step in
 but if you have a certain point you are making here, its not gonna go how you think it will.

1 Like
3

What will you be advocating for in wormholes?

4

Having lived in WH’s for a couple of years, I would observe that on the one hand they can be “too safe” enabling sealed WH’s for what amounts to safe mining, on the other hand, game features such as “Safe” log off allow people to camp WH without consequence.

A debate needs to be had around using log off spies in WH to mark their position. It strikes me as taking advantage of game mechanics rather than game play. I would suggest that it would not be possible to “safe log off” and that shields would deteriorate if not restarted within 12 hours as a start.

As a second point, enabling the stabilisation of a WH for a period of time using a temporary gate pair for a period would balance the removal of logged out spies

It is worth debate.

5

What many HiSec players object to is the blatant harvesting of small miners by gangs of suicide gankers who are then able to easily flee in their pods.

A better understanding of what HiSec is for is needed. If players want a “safeish” place to play, then fine, lets have that; there is plenty of galaxy out there in lo sec, null sec and j space for people to slug it out together without picking on venture players to push up their killboard ratings.

1 Like
6

Please define the number ‘many’, in this context, and describe how you arrived at the figure.

I am a solo ganker who targets miners in asteroid belts. I also know the miners in my area. The inattentive and lazy ones get ganked; the professional, serious and committed ones, generally do not.

No one will be impressed by a killboard filled with Ventures; your point is lost.
What is a ‘amall miner’?
‘Gangs of suicide gankers’ do not often target miners; it’s unprofitable. Their prey are normally freighters.

If you object to Highsec suicide-ganking, you should try to come up with arguments more persuasive than ‘I don’t like it’. If you are going to try to persuade CCP (who have the figures about retention, etc.), you will certainly need to do better than this.

Highsec is already ‘Safe-ish’. Making it safer would have knock-on effects of which you, an experienced player, should be fully aware.

7

As it happens, I have talked to CCP about this. I have also talked to HiSec miners about this and can see it is a problem.

Advanced Search | zKillboard]}

as an example

8

Ok. Thanks for that.

If you spoke to CCP and they regard it as a problem, why haven’t they addressed it previously? I’m impressed; you have the ear of the game’s designers and - what exactly?

You have talked to some Highsec miners, some of whom have no doubt expressed their concerns, which you are now bringing to my attention. You don’t represent all miners, Bexey, just those who agree with you.

Watch their virtual faces when the price of ore drops through the floor as a result of over-mining in a gank-free Highsec harvesting free-for-all. They will blame you; and they’ll be right to do so.

The miners I know don’t seem to regard ganking as a problem. Either I’ve educated them or they did it themselves; they are usually well-defended, alert, well-informed, conscientious and committed. It’s slim pickings, I can tell you.

Perhaps you could do some educating of your cohort rather than advocating for the removal of a play style enjoyed by other gamers in EVE?

9

Hello, First on this I am going to mark any support I can for Bexey. As far as people go, Bexey is good people. If Bexey goes for CSM, we would be lucky to have Bexey.

What Bexey is advocating for in high sec miners being griefed or harvested by salacious individuals and groups does happen. This also costs CCP in lost subscriptions from the new player on the fence about ready to drop the money to play, then gets ‘‘ganked’’ in what was considered a safe place. Now that’s lost subscription you won’t get back.
Think it doesn’t happen? I’ve watched it happen to hundreds of new players. They’re gone, they won’t come back.

I’m not going to address points one off or not by posters that admit to high sec ganking as a play style. And I would strongly recommend that Bexey don’t even give them the time of day to reply to any of their garbage talk trying to justify their small p p existence.
You can educate the ignorant, but you just can’t fix stupid.

Many of the players that turn to solo ganking or griefing in game tend to be lonely players that don’t do well with others. When they see others in a group having fun and making good progress, they get jealous and envious due to them not being able to do the same. Even the big ganking corps that hunt freighters won’t have them. It’s sad, but the best way to deal with them is to spank them when they get out of line.

By all means, don’t stop them from ganking in high sec, just give the high sec miners a way to fight back. That’s the only reason the gankers are still ganking. Give them a way to fight back and the gankers will run away. Make it open season on gankers for a bit, they’ll find something else to do.

I think this is my first post on this forum in a couple years, I don’t like posting in forums where trolls are known to be. I did this for Bexey to show support for CSM. I won’t be replying to any comments.

1 Like
10

That’s good enough for me :slight_smile:

1 Like
11

Would you support the addition of vtuber and anime inspired events to the game including but not limited to anime skins and dating sim inspired progression tree/event? Similar to this post? https://www.reddit. com/r/Eve/comments/14ga0pc/weeb_echoes/

1 Like
12

That’s their problem, not yours. If it’s an issue for them, they’ll sure as hell step in.

Please link your evidence for these ‘hundreds’ of new players. I was ganked as a new player, and it made me determined to succeed.

Despite the losses you claim CCP has suffered at the hands of gankers, the game is still here, still thriving. CCP has admitted that there’s quite a bit of ‘churn’ anyway, with new players leaving for various reasons.

You have elected not to respond to the points I’m making, possibly because you cannot convincingly do so, Hoot. For a prospective CSM member, it’s surely important to hear and consider both sides of an argument and to decide not just what’s best for your game, but for the game as a whole.

Highsec Suicide Ganking is part of EVE Online and has been so for many years. If CCP decides to remove it, then let them. Bexey may justifiably raise concerns about the play style but CCP is under no obligation to act upon them. They certainly haven’t done so thus far.

This is twaddle, Hoot. You should be ashamed. I am a solo ganker, sociable and articulate. I choose to play EVE in this way; I lack no interpersonal skills.

Evidence, please. Aiko gets her fair share of plebs applying to join the ranks. She takes them in, regardless. It is they who leave after finding that they’re not a good fit. They are not the ‘loners’ against whom you rant.

Miners do have ways to ‘fight back’, but many of them are lazy and ignorant. They prioritise yield over tank and regard mining as an AFK activity. Gankers simply exploit these behaviours and attitudes

If gankers ‘run away’ or ‘find something else to do’ how does ‘don’t stop them from ganking in high sec’ work, as an argument? It doesn’t.

Honest and informed disagreement is not trolling, Hoot.

Then you’re not confident in the soundness of your arguments. Bexey is welcome to you.

13

I will say that WHs can feel safe to an extent, but that is mainly because many WHs are vacant or are just farms. If there is an increase to the population that would change drastically but as it is now, people are leaving more than they are making it a home.

“A debate needs to be had around using log off spies in WH to mark their position. It strikes me as taking advantage of game mechanics rather than game play. I would suggest that it would not be possible to “safe log off” and that shields would deteriorate if not restarted within 12 hours as a start.” For this point I would say it should stay, but there should be something you can anchor in space, just like null-sec, that can disrupt cloak after the cloaking strength is down.

I would note though that one thing that many Wormholers are wanting is to bring the drifter back for sub-caps and to make avengers more profitable with the amount of risk is being brought to the field. The amount of isk you get without the drifter is ridiculous with the fits you have to run for the sites. A fit is at a minimum of 3 billion isk while the sites with the drifter only net 250-225 million at most (Garrisons and Strongholds).

Because of this, we now have problems just like Pochven where the best way to make isk is to multibox like crazy. Players like me (single boxers) are suffering because of this.

Many people say that they (CCP) cannot revert the change, but I would like to point out that CCP has indeed reverted highly contested changes such as the Incursion isk nerf, the Pochven isk nerf, the Blackout changes for null.

If you were to advocate and get those changes you would probably get some votes.

14

I have had some discussions with players about this. There is a view that WH is the riskiest part of the game, therefore the risk/reward should be greater. I certainly agree about this in relation to the cost of fits.

Having said that, ratting a C4 for an hour can net the better part of a Billion ISK, a secured hole can net 250 million per hour in a mining fleet, so the rewards are there.

I will certainly advocate for more and better content in WH’s and open the discussion for how it can be made more profitable for the solo player at the high end, whilst being more accessible at the lower end to newer players,

15

@Bexey_Songweaver Do you support hiring (EVE Vanguard) Warclone Mercenaries as an attack/defense vector in Capsuleer conflicts? Like attacking/defending Planetary Infrastructure, Skyhooks/POCOs and Upwell Structures?

As a CSM would you try and pitch for CCP to make stack multi-split (splitting a stack of items into multiple stacks of same size in one go instead of just on split at a time) happen?

16

Two questions here:

The stack/ unstack tool could be improved, say number of items/ number of even splits. This would need to be assessed against player need v development practicality

Re Vanguard I have to say I am the world’s worst PVP FPS player, People generally said horrid things when I played Planetside, and my experience of Vanguard was no less suicidal.

What I would say from experience in Everquest is that the use of mercenaries is a game changer for a solo player, and a necessary one. Therefore they should be useable where they can without turning the game into an AI v AI game.

1 Like
17

Another little bugbear for me to take up is the LP nerf. It was irritating for those who had mined LP store credits to have some of the buyable rewards removed. Not Fun At All!

18

O7 Bexey Songweaver,

Last year I asked eight questions and then compiled the answers into a huge mega-thread. It was massive. With the exception of MILINT_ARC_Trooper, no one had a thread bigger than mine, to be fair MILINT_ARC_Troopers’ thread was so weighty and knowledgable it teetered on the edge of collapsing into its’ own core.

That catalogue of replies is now a time-capsule and encapsulated within are the hopes and disappointments that CSM 18 candidates considered worth speaking about during the year of EVE’s 20th anniversary.

The responses gave voters en masse an opportunity to test and compare each hopeful CSM 18 candidates commitment to their claims of being community oriented, knowledgable, responsive and representative of player values. Given that the CSM does not directly control any aspect of EVE’s development and that the successful candidates are those that can identify existing and future consequences, co-operate with other CSM members, and communicate issues -from a player perspective- to CCP staff one-to-one, I’ve formulated a set of questions designed to seperate the compressed ORE from the Long-Limb Roes in this years election race.

Year-on-year the Independent Representatives, Solo players with single accounts, Worm Holers, Triangle People, Semi-nomadic Role-Playing Sandbox Explorers, and Salvagers, have been organising and gaining traction against the self-secure Null-Bloc Empire Candidates and their vast hordes of leather-skinned, evil, flying-monkeys. More-and-more players are choosing to vote in members they believe can positively impact CCP’s approach to the game regardless of their in-game affiliations.

Exposure matters, who are you, what is your clue?
As was the process last year I will post each candidates reply in a super thread, first-in first-served.

This years questions:

  1. What ONE identifiable consequence requires CCP’s attention?

  2. What PROVABLE evidence can you supply to support your belief in this situation?

  3. What practical, and balanced change can be made to support a solution if any?

  4. What support do your observations have from other CSM candidates?

  5. How will you present your findings to CCP?

If you have already identified and spoken about a problem in your CSM candidacy bio at the top of this thread feel free to copy pasta that response where applicable. I’ll copy paste directly from your response to this post. Choose your goblet
. wisely.

Let the games begin, and may the odds ever be in your favour.

19

Can you be a little more clear here? consequence to what?

20

I could be a little clearer, that’s true, it would also defeat the purpose of being vague.

I’m not sure what consequence of CCPs’ decision making has caught your attention so
 id din’t myself provide one.

Respectfully, since your point is reasonable, an example may include CCP’s recent decision to add significantly reduced vulnerability windows to the Orbital Skyhook.