Matthew Dust for CSM 14 (Faction Warfare/Lowsec)

Vote Matthew Dust; End the venture menace!!!


you have my vote.

1 Like

Hi Matthew, just want to say good luck on the campaign. I think it’s wonderful that you are supporting a niche part of the game that is often overlooked, even by highsec carebears like me.

Go get 'em.


1 Like

Thank you all, I really appreciate the support. Please tell other people if you can!


Hi Matthew. Good luck on your CSM run, but a couple questions:

  1. What are your thoughts on the interplay between highsec and FW? Clearly the two bleed over a bit, but almost all focus is on the lowsec portion of the mechanic. Do you think there is room for expanding the relevance of faction warfare in highsec, perhaps to connect to newer players?

  2. What are your thoughts on the recent wardec changes? Do you think they will be good for the game or is there anything you would do different? Is there some way to repurpose or extend the War HQ for FW gameplay?

  3. What are your thoughts on AFK cloaking, and if you want more generally the availability of intel in the game? Do you think there is too much intel available or not enough? Is local overpowered? Do we need something to replace the watch list? Do you see ways CCP can build more gameplay around intel?


1 Like
  1. I completely agree, as the map is laid out all factions can enter Khanid and Derelik, the problem I have is that gallente and caldari are a bit far from khanid as opposed to say derelik is for minmatar/amarr.

Personally I think there is a possibility for strong storyline narrative there, one that restricts the use of capitals, and doesn’t allow for third parties to interfere, without wardec mechanic of course. I think that could be appealing to certain groups in FW who are tired of “getting dunked on by caps”

I would also like to see a staged Npc fleet in highsec staged near New player areas with an agent to enlist people in FW. I think seeing such a fleet my generate interest especially if you can interact with them. the wardec changes saw a lot of my friends I’ve made throughout my time as a mercenary leave the game, still on TeamSpeak but playing other games. So I can’t say I was a fan.

There are also flaws that affect fw, like if a non structure owning group of awoxers are in the warzone kill their own side you can’t really retaliate without a standings hit, and they may or may not be kicked out because standings for leave ng fw are corp based and not individual based.

I can acknowledge that it probably helped out the new players who were getting grief deced, but I recall mails when I was a new bro “Matthew Dust send us 50 million isk or we will gank you” and there are still people ganking ventures/barges without any way to retaliate due to wardec changes.

A ganking corp can now have a corporate hanger and share resources without worrying about decs that may have hindered logistics.

You can’t pay mercenaries either to harass the ganking corp. So I think that may have hurt mercs.

Overall I think wardec changes were beneficial to large mercenary groups and non structure owning Corps. I think it killed small wardec groups who hunted mission runners or other hvts.

As far as protecting the new player I think that’s sort of a wasted effort since you can’t stop them from being ganked.

Afk cloaking is definitely the enemy of the krab, but when you live under a super umbrella why not use the krabs as bait? Pretty easy to escalate/save if everyone is staged in the same area

Intel is a powerful tool. I use pirates little helper and have a good idea of what I’m walking into everytime I enter lowsec/nullsec. Zkillboard tells you if there are recent gate camp kills in a system you might be jumping to. I think there is enough in the game as it is, (though structure finding agents would be nice)

However all the Intel in the world can’t save you from complacency. This is self evident by super and rorqual deaths. So I don’t think local is op, but I do think delayed like wh or just a number of how many people in system would make nullsec less safe.

I think the player watch list to monitor your allies in fleet is a good tool, I would like to see more flexibility with broadcast settings so certain squads see warp to from their squad leader and others see a different command from their squad leader, and of course wing being visible to all under them.

Intel is sort of independent, third party websites, the choice to make Intel channels and report. It sort of hard to make any game play based on that

1 Like

If CCP were to table a motion that made a playstyle completely obsolete - say high sec ganking - would you challenge that even if you disagree with the playstyle and, if so, how?

I’m opposed to a lot of game play killing for example with ganking, CCP banned neutral logi assistance. I’m not saying it was a 100 percent effective way for saving freighters, but people were doing it out of spite to CODE to save them. They received a suspect flag, now they are also concordokened…They killed a play style and made it obsolete in favor of ganking. Simultaneously they killed station games that way too.

As friends who did both freighter saving and station games I can say I’m 100% against changes that make playstyles obsolete.

My personal stance on highsec ganking, if it didn’t exist people could play the game with the only risk being rats which are easily dealt with, this would lead to probably a lot of highsec mining/multiboxing/possibly botting, which I would see as bad for the game as a whole.

There is one mechanic I would however like to see removed, I don’t know how possible it is, but currently in FW you can have an alt on the otherside who can logi your main, forcing your enemy to take a standings loss to their own faction to kill the logi…I see this as an abuse of a mechanic, since standings loss gets you kicked out of FW it could be abused and force a lot of people out.

Generally speaking though, I think counter play styles are really important. Forcing everyone to play the same is bad

“We’re not trying to ruin the game; just ruin the game for you” a quote from a nefarious organization, seems to be actually affecting the CSM and the way the game is changing. This is clear from Olmeca Gold’s documentary, which I recommend everyone watch.

So to answer your question in a TL;DR: I would oppose CCP’s decision to ban playstyles, I would speak with the community of that playstyle, and probably ask them to talk about it, why they like it, make some videos, and present it to CCP as a narrative as why they should not destroy another person’s gameplay because certain people advocate for it.

1 Like

Vote Matthew Dust, as the only FW candidate, I ask that you include me if you want to see real changes, I have no allegiances except to the citizens of New Eden. I promise I will advocate for all playstyles especially the smaller niche ones, I will deliver a clear way to bring player proposals to CCP using the FW Committee’s current method, but I will reach to all playstyles from highsec to nullsec, ganking and whaling to the creative art community and 3rd party developers:

In no particular order except alphabetical I recommend the following candidates for their consistent willingness to participate in the dialogue of FW and interest in seeing it improve:

Jurius doctor
Liz Lizardbreath
Olmeca Gold
Steve Ronuken
Stitch Kaneland
Teddy Gbyc

The Judge and Matterall have also recently expressed they will advocate on behalf of FW

Regardless of who is voted for I hope Everyone Votes. I will continue my efforts to unite the FW community and hopefully this game will attract and keep new and old players and our community grows. Thank you all for your time

Hey Matthew, thank you for taking the time to sit down and interview with me, and I’d like to publicly apologise for the way I cut you off on your first point as I think it set the rest of the interview off on a bad tone. I wish you the best of luck in the campaign, and would like to encourage people to take a look at Matthew’s FW comittee discord here -

1 Like

It’s fine m8, I appreciate you taking the time. There is always next year. Hopefully I can organize my thoughts and articulate them better and focus on relevant issues rather than rant.

1 Like

You’ve convinced me, but tell me more.

Anything you want to know in particular?

1 Like

Well, mainly the fact you’re fighting an unwinnable battle against the changes in high security space.
I see an answer being in discounting citadels(in one’s mind) as a loss, it’s only a means to attack. Make them cheap as possible by having p4 planeteers make tons of them as that is their major component I think?
An astrahus or reitaru for some fun? Sounds doable? You think? Put the timers all over the place, just be a general azz about it.
CCP just wants people anchoring citadels for their fun-> more $$ for CCP, which they certainly need as eve has voided it’s bowels long ago.

I don’t think I can change CCP’s mind on Highsec Mechanics that have already come to pass this last year. I will do what I can and listen to the Highsec Community and their concerns (to include carebears/mission runners/miners/griefers/mercs/etc…) and try to advocate on their behalf, but I think Steve is a better point man and spokesperson for high-sec though

Ok i’ll vote for him then, thanks!

You can vote for multiple people :slight_smile:

Please enjoy for your poilitcal humor.

Original by Howard Dean.

As far as politics, I come to video games to escape politics, I have a twitter account for said thing in the real world and I don’t need it here. Thanks anyways!


Maybe you mean something else here, but as stated this is plain wrong. Remote repping a freighter being suicide ganked didn’t cause a suspect timer before and it doesn’t cause a criminal timer now… unless the freighter is in a limited engagement (which being suicide ganked doesn’t create)…

If you’re considering the case of freighters being tricked into a duel and then killed (not suicide ganked) that way then, well, trying to “save” that freighter with remote reps was as pointless when it would give a suspect timer before as it is now that it gives a criminal timer…

And if you’re considering the case of the freighter being in a limited engagement because of a webbing alt, then the webber should simply stop webbing the freighter if it starts being bumped, to let the limited engagement timer expire, so it can be repped if suicide ganked. Webbing a freighter that’s being bumped already is pointless anyway.

I’m very reluctant to that type of changes too, but I think being 100% against them just because of that is a bit extreme and not the right attitude to have. You have to fully understand the consequences as a whole and the new playstyles that may emerge as a result, before deciding you 100% oppose them.

For the reasons explained above, thinking this killed remote assistance of freighters being suicide ganked is an example of not fully understanding the consequences of the change in that case and why that’s a non-issue.

As to the suspect baiting, that would be (for me at least) an example of not being sure whether this is good or bad in the long run because, even though I see how it killed a particular playstyle (which I agree when taken in isolation is bad), it isn’t clear to me what would be the long term effect of pilots no longer having to be afraid of engaging a suspect because of what else might come with it…

The fact that the change killed a particular playstyle is a strong indication that it might be wrong, but one shouldn’t be 100% against it for that reason alone

EDIT: Just wanted to comment on those things, but you have my vote, FWIW, as the second option. :slightly_smiling_face: