Kazanir for CSM 18

“There is an old Vulcan proverb. Only Nixon could go to China.”
– Captain Spock, The Undiscovered Country

Greetings. If you’d to catch up on who I am and why, last year, the Imperium elected someone with zero kills to the CSM, you can find my original CSM announcement post and YouTube video here. Otherwise, read on.

When CSM 17 took office last year, the game was in the midst of a sort of summer doldrums: the hangover of the game’s longest-ever map-encompassing war, scarcity, and the changing nature of the real-life pandemic in early 2022. Fourteen months later, CCP has successfully released two expansions and has not seen the same sort of declines in player count this summer as the last. The game feels healthier, and the playerbase’s reception to the new content has largely been positive. On the CSM itself, our relationship with CCP has also been good: in spite of various missteps, we have felt like CCP is receptive to our feedback, and that we got good opportunities to influence each expansion pack for the better. This is the good-cop take on the term of CSM 17.

The counterargument goes as follows: EVE’s original endgame, the contest over the nullsec map, is somewhere between stagnant and dead. The major nullsec blocs are TZ tanking every possible objective, messing around with highsec war mechanics out of boredom, and have created a game preserve with a quarter of the map rather than find reasons to contest that territory themselves. Shifting player focus has led to surprisingly large ISK faucets being created or enlarged in high-class wormholes, Pochven, highsec, and through various event arcs – inflating the ISK price of PLEX and drawing players into theme park content at the same time. This is the bad-cop version: the game remains stuck in a metaphorical 2nd gear, without a proper engine of endgame competition to drive it.

The difficulty is that CCP has been burned repeatedly by nullsec. The Citadel/Ascension/Lifeblood trifecta and the ensuing “Rorquals online” period, as well as the playerbase’s reaction to Scarcity and the ensuing stagnation, have proven out the difficulty of changing nullsec’s mechanics without damaging the game’s economy or power curve. It is this complex and challenging situation towards which I attempted to orient my skills during the first year in office. Luckily for us, there are answers to this thorny set of problems, hiding in plain sight in the history of the game. After first being elected, I went and read the patch notes. All of them, in reverse order, all the way back to Exodus, Castor, and Second Genesis. And there, at the beginning of time, Bob revealed to me the true nature of EVE.

And behold: it was in the form of a Triangle.

The Triangle is an idea: that EVE’s fundamental mechanics lead, inevitably, to at least three separate playstyles which are critical to the continuing health and dynamism of nullsec and the universe as a whole. In a way, one can think of a playstyle as a psychographic and behavioral profile of a subset of the playerbase: similar in concept to the “Timmy, Johnny, and Spike” categories familiar to many Magic the Gathering players. But it can be more than just a profile: two playstyles can have in-game mechanical support for extracting the value of space in different ways. The key idea of the Triangle is that any given celestial should have different sets of mechanics for acquiring the value thereof, suited better to the playstyles represented at each corner. The result of this is apparent: different groups of players choosing to value the same slice of space differently from one another, simply because of how they play the game.

This is the case I have been working on for nullsec. The space should be far more flexible than anyone has given it credit for, and by building up multiple parallel tracks of differentiated nullsec mechanics, CCP can make things interesting again for more of the playerbase, and reclaim nullsec’s intended purpose as the competitive endgame. Stay tuned during the campaign season for much more on these topics and the future of EVE Online.

7 Likes

@Kazanir

  1. What has CCP got correct?
  2. What has CCP got incorrect?
  3. What do you wish existed in-game that doesn’t?
  4. What exists in-game that you wish didn’t?
  5. What exists in-game that you think ought to continue to exist?
  6. What doesn’t exist in-game that you hope never comes into existence?
  7. How would you improve PI?
  8. How would you improve the entire corporation UI?

A lot of words to dance around actually saying anything concrete about your beliefs for WHAT null-sec needs to be changed. I can give you a few, removing Keepstar anchoring off gates and reworking or removing Ansiblex. I do not know if the whole community feels this way. Still, from the people I have spoken to from multiple parts of the galaxy, in multiple sectors of gameplay from PVE to PVP, high esc, null sec, low sec, and so on, they generally say those are two obvious issues. You would think that the biggest alliance in the game would be aware of these players’ frustration with the current system. Yet, it would be against your interests to do anything about it, as mega alliances actively exploit these issues and fixing them would hurt their power. Instead, you retell the era of Scarcity that, in large part, was to combat the massive buildup of megacorp incomes and resources in null sec as CCP getting “burned” repeatedly. Yet your corporation and the other mega-corporations are the people who burned them repeatedly. To make it worse, you now want to ‘fix’ those already exploited issues and lead to the establishment of stagnant power we see today in nullsec. Bull that you want nullsec to change.

Will you stop RMT and Gambling operations being run off TOR and other means, Kazanir?

There is nothing offensive about asking questions that check for support for the EULA.

I can be more concrete. The Triangle is an attempt to diagram three playstyles archetypes which are implied by the structure of EVE as a game. No single player group or piece of content falls exclusively into one of the poles, but they are guides to how content in EVE should be structured.

Here’s a direct link to the Miro board if you’d like a better view.

What this implies is big, but also simple to explain: Nullsec needs a new set of capture mechanics which are favorable to Red Team, i.e. “Conqueror” – a means of capturing any given celestial in a way that creates “passive” income without the necessity of farming. Crucially, these mechanics should not replace the existing/dominant Blue Team (i.e. “Settler”) mechanics that have prevailed in nullsec essentially since the Aegis expansion. They need to be built up in parallel, with players given the (sandboxed) choice between them for multiple classes of celestial, and have mechanics which deliberately introduce the tensions shown in the diagram.

In turn, the Triangle implies that “Red Team”-conquered celestials of this flavor should serve as the environment against which the Gold Team (aka “Raider”) archetype can engage, where Red Team has mechanics which incentivize them to defend the environment, prevent the content from being run, kill the Raiders who might come to try to run it, and ultimately receive the fruits of their space for conquest & defense rather than farming.

1 Like

Thank you, I appreciate the clarification. I apologize for my hostile disposition before, your response has changed my mind tosome degree.

I think you are right that there are different types of players, but I’m not sure about your ‘settler, raider, conqueror’ division. I think the elements are more abstract… carebear vs elite, and a transitioning step. Lone wolfs vs community oriented vs observers. Even when farming, some players like boring but safe content, others like active fast paced content, and some are gamblers.

As far as your triangle is concerned I think you are far from describing playstyles or types of players and much closer to the 3 types of actions you can take in sov space. Either you are the settler, and it is your home and you invest resources to improve it and benefit from that, or it is land that you want and you invest in plans to overwhelm their defences and to take it over (so you become its settlers), or you have no desire for possession and only want to streak through and set some things on fire as barbarians for the fun, challenge and quick profit. If you are settled in one place, you may roam around raiding to find juicy places to conquer. All players in sov space will do all three of these to be successful. If you do not raid, you gather no intel on the surrounding regions and do not intimidate your neighbors enticing conquering. If you do not conquer you can never settle. If you never settle then you waste all opportunity and reward from conquering.

I think the real question you should be asking here is how do we keep things flowing around this triangle as much as possible without making the game too unprofitable to go from one to the other. If defence is too strong and settling too easy, then conquering is a fools errand. If conquering is too easy then why bother raiding and who would be mad enough to settle. If raiding is too hard, then no one ever sees opportunities for expansion and never bothers to conquer anything. If raiding is too easy, then why bother conquering when you can just ruin and pilfer from everyone without any structural investment?

1 Like

CMS 18
You are all welcome to advertise
introduce yourself on one of the largest German Discord servers
And to advertise 1300+ are waiting for you Respect Honor Passion

The candidates are invited LIVE in the stream

And with LIVE translation English to German !!
introduce yourself in an interview and ask questions
to be answered by German speaking players
Yours sincerely (Neo ceo RHP) gogogo

yes

yes

1 Like

How do I vote for you?