Culaure for CSM 21 - A Strong Voice for Faction Warfare and Low-Sec

Council Of Stellar Management CSM Campaigns
1

CSM 21 — A Strong Voice for Faction Warfare and Low-Sec

I am running for CSM because I want to represent every pilot who lives, fights, builds, and earns a living in low-security space.

I have played EVE for years and lived in nearly every area of space, but Faction Warfare and low-sec have shown me some of the best experiences EVE can offer. Low-sec gives smaller corporations and alliances room to establish themselves, develop rivalries, build communities, and fight wars that matter without needing to become part of a massive null-sec coalition.

I want low-sec to become a place where groups can build their own small empires.

Corporations and alliances should be able to establish a lasting presence within the warzone and directly influence their faction’s war effort. Their victories, logistical work, industrial support, system defense, and continued activity should matter. A group that invests its time and resources into a system should be able to see the results of that commitment.

This does not need to become traditional sovereignty. Instead, low-sec needs mechanics that recognize sustained participation and allow groups to develop influence through Faction Warfare objectives, system improvements, local infrastructure, industry, logistics, and defense.

Individual pilots must also be able to make a living in low-sec. Whether someone flies solo, joins a small corporation, supports fleets through industry and logistics, hunts enemy pilots, or captures objectives, their contribution should provide meaningful rewards. Faction Warfare should offer several viable paths to income instead of concentrating rewards around repetitive farming.

We must also confront botting and large outside organizations entering the warzone solely to extract ISK while contributing little to the conflict. Outside involvement and third-party interference are part of EVE, and they should never be removed. However, the system should reward pilots and organizations that actively serve their faction, defend its territory, and remain invested in the warzone.

Rewards should be connected more closely to active participation, risk, system conditions, and meaningful contributions to the war. Mechanics such as stronger loyalty incentives, contribution tracking, diminishing returns for repetitive farming, and rewards tied to strategic objectives could make botting and passive extraction less profitable while improving the experience for legitimate players.

My goal is not to represent only one militia, alliance, corporation, or style of play. I want to represent the entire Faction Warfare and low-sec community—including all four empires, pirate-aligned pilots, independent corporations, industrial groups, small gangs, solo pilots, and the alliances fighting to create something of their own.

Low-sec should be a place where:

  • Every pilot can build a sustainable life.

  • Corporations and alliances can establish meaningful influence.

  • Local groups can directly support their faction’s war effort.

  • Conflict produces lasting consequences and new opportunities.

  • Active participation is rewarded more than passive farming.

  • Botting and exploitation are aggressively addressed.

  • Smaller organizations can create their own stories without answering to a massive coalition.

Low-sec should not simply be space that people visit when they want easy ISK or occasional content. It should be a place where pilots can build communities, defend their territory, shape the warzone, and create their own empires.

That is the low-sec future I want to fight for on CSM 21.
Culaure

10 Likes
2

Great platform Cul, give FacWar Lowsec back to those who live here and fight for their faction day by day o7

3 Likes
3

Says the guy who regularly parks AFK Vexors in plexes to farm huh

1 Like
4

Rolder,

It actually has nothing to do with farming. Those are specifically about holding systems and keeping contested down. Thanks for bringing it up though. I don’t do any of my FW work to farm lp it is specifically to keep contested levels down and keep the systems we hold gallente.

Thanks,
Culaure

1 Like
5

I heartily endorse this event or product

1 Like
7

Sorry I’m changing question*

My concern is less about the idea and more about how effective you would be as a CSM rep.

CSM is ultimately free labour. You do not write the patches, CCP can ignore suggestions, and the value comes from whether you can actually get concerns across in a way they listen to.

So what experience do you have beyond just playing the game that makes you effective at that?

FW already has plexing, rendezvous, towers, I-Hub upgrades, system pushes, logistics, industry, market supply, solo fights, small gang, fleet fights, and frontline supply. It already covers a lot of different playstyles.

When you talk about groups building “small empires” in low-sec, my concern is FW drifting into null-sec-lite instead of remaining its own thing.

How would you communicate concerns to CCP (FC), filter out the noise, and persuade them without it just becoming “I play low-sec, therefore I understand low-sec”?

3 Likes
8

That is a fair concern, and I agree that simply playing EVE for a long time does not make someone an effective CSM representative.

Outside EVE, I have more than 20 years of experience in technology, including technical support, programming, data analysis, and over 10 years in SaaS product management and product leadership. I have managed product strategy, discovery, prioritization, requirements, and releases across multiple products, including platforms used by more than 65,000 schools.

A large part of that work closely resembles the useful part of being on the CSM. I do not personally write every line of code, and I do not have unilateral control over what a company chooses to prioritize. My job is to listen to customers, separate recurring problems from individual feature requests, validate concerns with evidence, explain the impact, and present the issue to the right people across an organization in a form they can evaluate and act upon.

That means I would not approach Fenris Creation (FC) with, “I live in low-sec, so I know what low-sec needs.” I would approach FC as a company and clearly explain:

  • Who is actually affected?
  • Is this a widespread problem or simply the loudest opinion?
  • What player behavior is the current mechanic creating?
  • What evidence supports the concern?
  • What tradeoffs or unintended consequences would a change create?
  • What is the smallest practical change that could improve the situation?

I would actively seek input from people who do not play the way I do: frontline fighters, logistics pilots, industrialists, market operators, solo pilots, small gangs, larger alliances, pirates, and even groups opposed to my own. Good representation requires finding the common problem underneath competing proposed solutions. It also requires going back to those players afterward and explaining what FC said, what constraints exist, and what can realistically move forward.

On the “small empires” point, I am not proposing that faction warfare become null-sec with a different security status. I do not want low-sec dominated by sovereignty mechanics, excessive structure grinding, passive territorial control, or defensive advantages that allow established organizations to permanently lock out smaller groups.

By “small empires,” I mean player-created influence: building a local market, maintaining supply lines, establishing staging systems, supporting industry, forming relationships, and becoming invested in the success of a particular area. FW already provides many of the activities needed for that. My interest is in making those activities connect more meaningfully to the war effort while preserving what makes low-sec distinct: accessibility, mobility, danger, local rivalries, and opportunities for solo pilots and smaller organizations to matter.

FC may still disagree or choose another priority. A CSM member cannot promise patches. What I can offer is professional experience turning noisy and often contradictory feedback into clear problems, practical options, measurable outcomes, and honest tradeoffs—the form of communication most likely to receive serious consideration across Fenris Creation.

4 Likes
9

Fair answer.

You addressed the concern well enough.

You have my vote.

Use it properly.

2 Likes
10

+Support
o7

1 Like
11

Culaure, sir.

You have my vote.

If you need campaign support, I have a Thrasher fleet standing by.

1 Like
12

So you are pro Cyno-Nerfs?

Because, you know.. we once had a thriving LowSec, full of life. Small corps bashing it out on each other on every corner. Until Hotdropping became the new meta, stomping every small gang from lightyears away with a full DPS+Recon+T3RR fleet and - more recently - BlackOps Blob.

What exactly are your ideas to prevent that from happening, so Lowsec can be a staging area for small PvP corps again, looking for small- to medsize fights, without being blobbed to death by large entities on every occasion?

1 Like
13

Hello @Culaure, what about this?

  • The connection between EVE Online and EVE Vanguard

Do you have any expectations what that could be, how it could work? I am aware there is nothing tangible yet, but it’s rather inevitable if I red FC correctly.

1 Like
14

What do you think about the advantage mechanism?

In my opinion, it is an endless, daunting, soul-destroying grind that generates little PvP opportunity. I wish it would be replaced with a temporary VP boost.

15

I actually really like the idea of diminishing returns for repetitive farming, which would be easy to implement too.

What are your ideas on how to nudge fights/battles such that they’re more engagable and enjoyable for both parties? Null-roamers like myself complain often when we get disproportionately countered. E.g. 20+ Rorquals cyno on our ~40-member bomber fleet?