RGC for CSM 18

Council Of Stellar Management CSM Campaigns
1

Introduction:
For me joining the Council of Stellar Management (CSM) is a mission to safeguard the interests of all High Sec spacefaring citizens in New Eden. My campaign, “Stellar Guardians,” focuses on addressing two crucial issues: anti-ganking efforts and the protection of new players in high-security space, along with a secondary goal of reevaluating war declarations and their impact on the EVE Online community.

Main Topics:

Anti-Gank Initiative: Overall goal is eliminate ganking ( no safety red in highsec) but if not:
We recognize the need to create a safer and more balanced high-security space for all newer players. As a Stellar Guardian, I will:
    Collaborate with CCP Games should they not be willing to remove ganking to develop more effective anti-ganking mechanics that discourage excessive aggression towards new players and solo pilots.
    Advocate for improvements in CONCORD response times, ensuring that gank attempts are met with swift and proportional consequences.
    Promote awareness campaigns and educational resources to help players defend against gankers and navigate the dangers of high-security space.

New Player Protection:
The future of EVE Online depends on the influx of new players. To protect their interests and enhance their experience, I will:
    Work with CCP to implement a comprehensive tutorial system that educates new players about the risks and opportunities of EVE's complex universe.
    Collaborate with player organizations to establish mentorship programs, providing new players with experienced guides and fostering a sense of community.

Secondary Topic:

War Declaration Reform:
War declarations have a significant impact on gameplay and player interactions. As a Stellar Guardian, I will:
    Initiate a dialogue with CCP to revisit the mechanics of war declarations, aiming to strike a balance between meaningful conflict and excessive disruption.
    Propose a return to the original state of war declarations not requiring structures, allowing for more dynamic and spontaneous conflicts without the need for extensive preparation.
    Advocate for clearer rules and guidelines surrounding war declarations, ensuring that they remain a tool for conflict without unduly impacting players who wish to focus on other aspects of the game.

For Wars I’m wanting to return to an older format of not needing structures to wardec/be wardecced. This would require a few guidelines in an attempt to prevent people from abusing it like the old days.
-Take into account the member number difference. A massive pvp corp (few hundred members) shouldn’t be able to dec a smaller industrial corp. (anything under 100)
-A max number of wars you can dec at one time to prevent those corps that just dec everyone because they can.
-Some sort of recruitment stasis during a war to prevent a spike in numbers from people trying to get around the first ticker listed here
-Some sort of stasis on leaving a corp during a war to prevent people from dodging a war just by leaving a corp.
-Max number of allies you can have in a war assisting you.

Get Involved:
Join the Stellar Guardians campaign and be a part of shaping the future of EVE Online! As a member of the Council of Stellar Management, I pledge to represent your interests and advocate for changes that will benefit all players. Together, we can create a more welcoming and balanced universe while maintaining the essence of EVE’s sandbox gameplay.

Conclusion:
My campaign is dedicated to championing the cause of anti-gank efforts, protecting new players, and reforming war declarations. By participating in this campaign, you are contributing to the growth and sustainability of EVE Online, ensuring that it remains an engaging and rewarding experience for both new and veteran players alike. Cast your vote for a brighter future in New Eden!

Further Topics:

* Turn High Sec into Islands that are broken up by race/faction. Meaning no direct route from one trade hub to another will be completely High Sec.

* T2 variants of ignored but loved ships like the Rokh or Maelstrom.

* T3 ships of other types not just cruiser and destroyer.

* Deal with neutral logi in Faction Warfare.

* Return of walking around in stations/structures

* More hair/facial hair options

* More corp logo shape/color options

* Minimum requirement of members in a corp to be allowed to put a structure down. 

* Play as other races already in the game not just standard 4

* Give love to the other Trade hubs not just Jita.
8 Likes
2

Solid grounds. Got my vote.

1 Like
3

lol no.

6 Likes
4

Everything you propose is bad for the game, let me explain why:

  1. Preserving Gameplay Diversity: Overly strict anti-gank measures could limit gameplay diversity by stifling piracy and lawful counterplay, reducing emergent experiences.
  2. Risk and Reward Balance: Excessive protections might undermine EVE’s core risk-versus-reward dynamic, dampening the excitement and tension of high-security space.
  3. Community and Interaction: Restricting ganking could diminish player interactions and alliances formed through negotiations and retaliation, weakening community ties.
  4. Skill Development: Over-protection may hinder skill growth as players adapt and strategize against threats, making the game less engaging.
  5. Economic Impact: Reduced ganking could disrupt the player-driven economy, affecting supply chains and related markets.
  6. Potential for Abuse: Anti-ganking measures might be exploited, making it difficult for legitimate gankers to operate, disrupting game balance.
  7. Low-Security Impact: Focusing on high-security may lead to unintended consequences in low- and null-security regions.
  8. Resource Allocation: Excessive anti-gank development may divert resources from other vital game features and updates.
  9. Unpredictability: Too much protection could make gameplay predictable, eliminating the surprise factor that defines EVE.
  10. Learning Curve: Ganking provides valuable lessons for new players, helping them adapt and thrive in EVE’s complex universe. Excessive safeguards could deprive them of these experiences.
14 Likes
5

But but but, the children need hand holding! Somebody needs to think about the children!

Just kidding, you’re right, devoid of any threats and highly predictable outcome EVE ends up being what its actually is, a boring sandbox.
The players and their interactions make EVE worth the time spent. The more restricted and formalized the interactions are the higher the number of automatons in the game…
Choose a different poison!

7 Likes
8

It pains me how incorrect this is. Clear signs of indoctrination from the ideals of gankers.

  1. HS still has many modes of pvp dangers and confrontation. For starters the new massive updates to FW that are being regularly updated. The changes/returns I’m wanting to make for actual wars would bring in a lot more possible conflict between groups. Engaging with criminals and suspects is still always going to be a thing.

  2. Removing Ganking as a thing would push people into more lucrative forms of pvp. Be it a wardec corp, FW, or even start actually supplying low/nul sec areas with more people who are coming looking for pvp. This will heavily increase pvp in pre existing pvp outlets in the game. This means content.

  3. The player driven economy is and always has been a nightmare. spiraling horribly out of control over the past dozen years that Ive been playing. Removing ganking I believe will not heavily impact the over all market as human greed will always be a thing.

  4. Having highsec as a “safespace” and i use that term lightly because its not, would allow players to learn the game in a slightly safer space that would actually improve the learning curve. With corps/alliance and people in place like EVE Uni and Brave as examples, new people can be better taught the game mechanics in a safer environment. When they feel more comfortable with the game they can move on into the future of eve as decently trained capsuleers. To better reinforce either pre existing groups or make themselves known with a personal created group

13

Again, everything you propose is bad for the game, let me explain why:

  1. HS PvP Diversity: While HS offers various PvP options, ganking provides unique, unexpected encounters that challenge players’ vigilance and excitement. Removing ganking might lead to a less dynamic and diverse gameplay experience.
  2. PvP Avenues: Assuming ganking removal would redirect players to lucrative PvP forms oversimplifies player motivations. Some might opt out of PvP entirely, reducing overall participation and limiting emergent gameplay.
  3. Economic Impact: Ganking is intertwined with EVE’s player-driven economy. Its removal could disrupt supply chains and market balance, with broader effects beyond greed-driven dynamics. Just look at high sec in EVE echoes, industry is dead because there is no ganking.
  4. Learning Curve: Sheltering new players from ganking contradicts EVE’s core philosophy of risk and consequence. Overcoming challenges and adapting to threats prepares players for the game’s intricacies.
4 Likes
14

  1. Eve Echos is failing for a multitude of reasons, no ganking being either not a reason or so low of a reason its not even on the charts. Lack of any real advertisement for the game being one of the biggest reasons. It being a glitchy hot mess of a mobile game is one of the other big reasons.

  2. Your assessment of what would happen with the market is guess work at best. Most of the major industrial resources for building come from nulsec ore and ice. The reinvigorated and possible bolstered numbers that would be placed in the area from the lack of ganking in HS would make transporting it or even gathering it possibly more dangerous. Counteracting the lightweight movement of HS ores that would be lost from the thugs who operate and gank in HS.

  3. The fact of the matter is, Recruitment numbers for the game have dropped steadily and drastically over the years I’ve been playing. New players join, get pushed out of the game by trolls and thugs who operate in HS because they dont have the drive or the skills to go into low/nul. Those same groups of people complain about the lack of fresh recruits to keep the game alive so they go and just make another alt to fill a task they could have simply recruited for.

  4. Several Older and/or far more successful MMORPGs have been doing this for years and while sure they dip in recruitment numbers from time to time they have thrived with higher over all numbers with time. They all have 1 thing heavily in common that EVE doesn’t. Situational and/or area based PVP. You can’t just sit around anyplace you want and kill all the new players just because you wanna be a troll or a thug. Be it Arenas or designated pvp areas. For EVE that would be FW, Wars, Sus/Crim, Low, and Nul. Thats already a lot more options than most other games have available to them.

15

Got my Vote. Also to address the Ganking(Concord Response Actions). When the game started losing your ship to npcs was enough of an incentive not to gank. After 20 years of the game running Resources are abundant and it is time to make an adjustment to how the game operates for encouraging new players to join and player growth. We have already seen some efforts for reducing concord related actions in High Security Space with Alpha players. Now its time to make the changes to affect Omega players. This will cause the game to evolve and make low security space and null security space more lucrative as well as push those that want pvp content to go into the areas where there is no punishment for pvp content. It will also change the way trade hubs and way people operate in the game. I have played the game off and on since 2009. The game has evolved many times in that period. Some of the changes not for the better. It didnt kill the game.

1 Like
16

It appears that we have a Highsec CSM candidate who doesn’t actually understand highsec mechanics. :facepalm:

Not particularly surprising but indeed, you have quite a significant amount of understanding both mechanically and economically yet to obtain before you’re going to have any real chance at this endeavor, and it is there where we encounter our catch 22 as subsequently when you do eventually reach that level of experience and understanding, this platform right here? Will be something you will then cringe at along with most of us right now.

10 Likes
17

I think you don’t want to play EVE Online. From what you are saying, you want to play WoW or other MMOs. Perhaps you should play those games with instanced PvP. EVE is fundamentally different, and that’s what makes it great. If you want to create a safe space in highsec, go play another game.

Your entire argument seems to revolve around ending ganking in highsec. Perhaps you should try ganking yourself to understand how everything you’re proposing is ridiculous and will worsen the game.

4 Likes
18

These suggestions are really reasonable. Making high sec a little safer really doesn’t effect anyone who enjoys pvp. Better new player retention in hi sec means more prey elsewhere later.

For comparison, Albion Online is a LOT safer in it’s “safe” areas than EVE Online or Echoes, and it’s still doing pretty well.
I don’t THINK seal clubbing in high sec is actually required for the game’s core identity.

2 Likes
19

I cannot agree enough. Ever since I kicked him from my corp for prioritizing shooting gankers over not shooting blues he’s been hell-bent on bringing down my poor little mining cartel on the grounds that “ganking r bad”, completely ignoring the fact that it’s just another form of player engagement.

6 Likes
20

Snip Link removed. Poster contacted snip ~Buldath

1 Like
22

The majority responding to this are all actually known gankers lol. How amusing. Is your only source of entertainment in Eve Online, that is to gank in highsec, under threat? Haha.

Non-gankers, you know what to do.

2 Likes
24

The majority striking due to residual payments are all actually known actors lol. How amusing. Is your only reliable source of income in life, that is your residual payments, under threat? Haha.

Non-actors, you know what to do.

2 Likes
30

You clearly don’t have a clue what you are talking about.

At least try to have a conversation with a ganker, before you try to change game mechanics which you don’t understand. However, thanks for being so concerned with my income, that you want to push me to be wealthier.

:roll_eyes:

New players join, get pushed out of the game by trolls and thugs who operate in HS because they dont have the drive or the skills to go into low/nul.

More nonsense.

First of all, new players routinely go into low/nul often as 1 day olds. They get recruited directly into alliances like Goonswarm and Pandemic Horde. Absolutely absurd for you to be pretending like new players don’t have the skills to go to null. Furthermore, aside from your emotional claims, is there any real evidence that new players are forced out by “trolls and thugs”? Maybe, there’s another variable at work? For example, what if new players want a challenging PvP game, and are bored out of their mind by Highsec mining? I mean, there MUST be at least one new player who quit from boredom… Right?

4 Likes
34

You know, I see a lot of familiar names here, most of which are gankers. But, I actually find myself questioning my anti-ganker standpoint. Because, as much as I hate gankers, I am not willing to vote for someone who is going to change the game this much, especially when it’s this divisive among the community. I think something like this needs to be a player vote, not like ten or so guys decided what to do for 20,000 people. As much as I hate gankers, I am not willing to affect the game this much if there is so much pushback, even if it’s just my vote.

3 Likes
35

There’s only like a dozen gankers left in the game.

How disruptive can they be? Watch local, change systems.

Not hard to avoid them…

6 Likes
36

Finally a candidate who isn’t afraid to speak out about removing PvP from high-sec. I will be voting for you with all 43 of my accounts! I urge everyone else to do the same! The griefing has to stop!

3 Likes