Rots Mijnwerker for CSM 18

Hello! What are your plans around incentivising smaller groups? Does this come in the form of isk making, or something else?

Also Rots is a fantastic person and pilot, yall should vote for him

I donate

to the campaign


Hey Kontan,

Thank you for your reply and some time to get coffee and RL work.
The header image was created by a friend of mine Gyn Steel - i think its rad too.

  • I believe that bills around standings are a phenomenal opportunity for an isk sink for larger coalitions.

Can you elaborate on how you see this working, the potential issues that would need to be worked out, and whether or not you feel like this would lead to perverse incentives?

Absolutely, firstly to preamble believe that the role of a CSM member is to work with and dialogue with CCP in achieving CCP’s goals for what their road map is. However I believe it is CCP’s role to present solutions alongside members of the CSM and have a great collective decorum on these sorts of things. I may not be right and my solution may not be entirely all mine but I am passionate about speaking on these sorts of topics with others looking to bring solutions and ideas to the table.

To get into it I believe that a concise evaluation around the mechanics of standings and diplomacy in the game will likely lead to discoveries on how to better balance the large BLOC expansion we see in the game.

I could see a system where friendly standings are established with a monthly “Diplomatic Upkeep Cost” this cost could be scaled based on member count of the alliances being blued on a monthly recurring schedule charged at the time of establishing positive standings. Traditionally coalitions and blocs send out a “standings sheet” for entities to blue - that effortless diplomatic establishment is currently all benefit and no repercussion or cost. So why should anyone NOT go bluing as many alliances as possible? (rhetorical) This would mean that all alliances in this bloc model would share a cost burden of having a large blue list. However DWH mercing around and setting their target alliances red would not be charged for this standings change. -in theory-

Now to attend to the final part of that question - do I see perverse incentives to this?
Absolutely, and this is where CCP and fellow CSM members as well as our community play a large part in its success.

I have a few adverse outcomes that come to mind, namely:

  • This could incentivized blocs to just merge into large mega alliances.
  • This could (if enacted in a weird cost model) promote more alt alliances for various toons.
  • This could adversely effect the natural formation of small alliances in the form of people building up into one alliance in order to counteract another larger alliance.
  • This could adversely effect the smallest of inter alliance relationships regionally, making small pocket coalitions which often form to fight an existential threat harder to do.

However, I believe this change is perhaps one facet of a multi facetted solution across alliance standings, upkeep costs and alliance management as a whole.


Thank you, clearly we need funding in the Rots campaign - currently trying to find out how to pad the toilet tissue fund.

1 Like

Hello! What are your plans around incentivizing smaller groups? Does this come in the form of isk making, or something else?

Also Rots is a fantastic person and pilot, yall should vote for him

Hey Bandht,

Thank your for your question and kind words.

This question could be answered in a loaded way and get bulky quick. Ill touch on some ideas that i feel have tried to be addressed in the past and I don’t entirely know all the data around (I concede that.) I look to your feedback and continued dialogue though.

To be blunt - I believe the best incentives for small groups in this game with be the incentives that large entities do not get to reap the benefits of at least mechanically. Any time we put limiters and costs for expansion we in theory promote small groups therefore meaning they are not as financially burdened. To be clear i do not support direct ISK making subsidies for small alliances. I believe in developing smart mechanics to help solve the problem.

  • I believe sov upkeep costs could be evaluated as to if costs could be scaled based on size and number of systems a particular alliance holds. I believe upgrades for those systems are STAGNANT costs however.
  • I believe higher exponential costs could be evaluated in a mechanic change where higher costs are incurred for systems further away from your assigned capital system.
  • I believe the capital distancing approach could be used to establish a ADM generation scale for systems an alliance holds, for instance systems closer to the capital are easier to increase ADM’s for, and systems further from this capital are harder to increase ADM’s for etc. In this model a small alliance in theory is the most easy to establish from the perspective of ADM generation.

Keep chatting with me, i appreciated the question.


Rots #1

Ship Balancing and Meta

Ship balancing - we should continue build upon the steps already made this past cycle.
Capitals and Super Capitals - the mechanics around these should be reviewed.
Unused Hulls - I am supportive of new or reworked hull bonuses on lesser performing hulls.

Hey Rots, how do you think we can improve the use of capitals, for small scale fights?
(Especially dreads.?

And how we can limit the bigger BLOC’s numerical advantage in Capitals?

1 Like

Rots has some great ideas but beyond that I wanted to share a little story about him from my early Eve career. Back in 2013 I had a small corp going. I had grown busy with IRL and some of the individuals there started in fighting and most of the corp fell apart aside from a handful of people. While people who were happy to see that came to try to finish us off, Rots extended a hand to us and gave us a place to crash and catch our breath. He had nothing to gain from it but even today he has my gratitude for that kind act. Genuinely quality individual.


Hey Elinore,

I have taken some time to look at these ideas and comment on what I would or wouldn’t back, sorry to leave you hanging for a bit. Excuse my brevity on some of these though its late and its the wife and I’s anniversary.

  1. Insane idea - pay with PLEX in NES for extra dev time

I would not support this on the basis of - CCP should not be paid to do the basic functions of a game company looking to commune and receive feedback from its players. It is already in CCP’s best interests to receive critique and make good impressions with its subscribers.

  1. Quafe+ is from “biomass” (…or corpse reprocessing)

I would be in the middle on or support this - I am supportive of anyone wanting to revaluate PI and the mechanics around it although this could probably be prettied up. The end goal is however noble.

  1. Little things / Small QoL suggestions - Better Visibility Of Other Players’ PI Networks

I can get behind this - I am however skeptical of the implications of this and would like to see more data from others around this.

  1. Little things / Small QoL suggestions - 8 requests for Stack Split enhancement since Jun’18

I agree with most of these on basic premise, I would look forward to feedback from CCP

  1. Little things / Small QoL suggestions - PI KB-shortcuts for toggling between groups of structures

I agree with this completely and tried this on the live server to understand a bit better.


Hey Gun,

I believe caps for small scale fights (solo etc.) ae relatively balanced, some dreads are monsters - however
there can be some discussion around things that make these sorts of fights which are smaller escalations happening with more plentiful occurrence.

I think this is a touchy subject.

Hey Patr,

Thank you for your patience while I’ve been working through the various comments and RL.
I think your question is merited however i will start with the bluntest of answers; Its not all up to me but I want to be apart of the discussions around these things.

I’ll give you some expansion on my thoughts though.

  • Large BLOCS should cost exponentially more to maintain.

This statement is a lofty goal - however it should cost a lot more than it does to maintain the large swaths of space, toons and structures that are attributing to the large BLOC scaling. I’m really interested in talking about mechanics around this.

  • I strongly believe the diplomacy tab can be revisited and could be utilized as a tool for BLOC breaking

I answered this in another post here. Rots Mijnwerker for CSM 18 - #7 by Rots_Mijnwerker

  • Unused Hulls - I am supportive of new or reworked hull bonuses on lesser performing hulls.

Whenever CCP says they are evaluating hulls that are underutilized i am a big fan. Every ship variant that goes underused is an example of a missed opportunity - a great example is the Exequrer Navy Issue which was recently rebalanced and its fun and well rounded but far from game breaking. This is the kind of outcomes i support.

  • Upwell structures – These must be revisited continually and often to support healthy content.

Upwell structures however unintended are somewhat restrictive of certain game play. I was a product of the before times and have a fondness for some aspects of the old system. Namely - interactable structure services (Shootable, Repairable) , non tethering (although I don’t believe it needs to be removed but perhaps distances reduced) , Sovereignty Blockade Units. I believe however that these structure’s should always be revisited as the difference between this era of eve vs. the last in terms of structures is that we don’t just set and forget. Its important to revisit and revaluate in the grand scope of the changes and balances we introduce.

  • Sov Mechanics – A scaling back or expansion of mechanics on a case-by-case basis.

Same as above, I believe continual revisiting balance passes are crucial to ensuring we do not balance ourselves out of balance. I look forward to being apart of any discussion around nullsec sov mechanics that promote smaller groups specifically, and a big part of that is how the costs of space are scaled to promote smaller groups and restrict larger groups in the biggest circumstances.

  • I would love to be apart of expanding and supporting additional steps and initiatives that promote new player influx and support in game.

This is a huge campaign hope of mine is to be apart of what we do to continue bring new players into the game. This could be an expansion of current CCP strategy or new items. I will heavily support anything that is centered around bringing new players into the game without establishing a pay to win model.

1 Like

In rots we trust. Love you rots!


  1. What do CCP do correctly?
  2. What do CCP do incorrectly?
  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?
1 Like

No support. :-1: No mention of highsec issues. In my opinion, Purely a Nullblock supporter (or pawn).

  • What do CCP do correctly?

Its a great question - we often drone on about the negatives with CCP.

I think CCP does do well with rolling out relatively consistent content albeit not everyone’s flavor from patch to patch etc.

  • What do CCP do incorrectly?

CCP doesn’t inherently do anything incorrectly, its their title you know?
What i think CCP should consider is how they justify their increased subscriptions on a decades old game. I think i would love to see a clear and concise roadmap from CCP which includes new and old mechanics expanded and well thought out and solid content.

  • What do you wish existed in-game that doesn’t?

This is a tough one for me - i think i would love to see faction warfare enrollment into the pirate factions i truly do enjoy the lore and could see myself getting into it. I’d love the idea of pirate factions capturing and repurposing empire ships and having ship hulls like this. Like a Providence freighter being stolen and refit by the blood raiders with turret hardpoints? Why not?

  • What exists in-game that you wish didn’t?

Ansiblex Jump Bridges - bar stop

  • What exists in-game that you think ought to continue to exist?

This one is loaded for me - if i had to pick one, i would really like to know that mechanics that help our community building continue to exist a lot of the reason i play is the people i play with.

  • What doesn’t exist in-game that you hope never comes into existence?

Any AOE type weapons etc. - expansions on jump ranges or bridge ranges.

  • How would you improve PI?

Some ideas, not total fixes.

  1. I would love to have ship tree style menu for PI - implement a chart for each T1 you can double click to see T2 etc. the UI around it would be excellent.

  2. PI missions - there are no missions for new players that really introduces them to the mechanic in my opinion, we need to lean into the mechanic to have it anyway. Right now its another part of indy that in most cases is considered monotonous.

  3. Players should be able to see PI command center numbers from other players on each planet via pull up from the customs office or in the planet window.

  • How would you improve the entire corporation UI?

Entire is huge but ill knock out the things about corporate UI that i have always wondered “why?”

  1. Corporate Logos and Insignias - I think we need to be able to make corporate logos like we do alliance logos hands down.
  2. Projects - a new mechanic which i hope dearly we expand upon- being able to make isk awards or awards with other items drug and dropped into a hangar would be excellent. Making this truly something that acts like your corporation is an agent much like highsec and lowsec agents. I see alt of promise with this but currently think it is clunky.
  3. Titles - I believe we need to be able to make more titles (you can make 16) which lets a CEO or director make presets for various roles or needs (this is how i run my corporation currently) I would love to be able to color code these outside of typing in color numerics. An example of one of my title names in order to to do this is ‘<.b><color=#ffffb482>USTZ</b.>’ this is ridiculous.
  4. Corporation asset safety should’nt be a mechanic. - Aternatively a Corp project could be a courier type project/mission.
  5. Corporation Decorations should be easier to create - and be able to have an isk award attached to them. Here’s an example of my corps decoration setup (this is page 1) it took one of our directors two months to create this… that’s absurd.

1 Like


Ask me what i would do for HIGHSEC you may be pleasantly surprised.
However much of what i support as main campaign goals can directly or indirectly effect highsec friends!

There is something fun about this.

Yeah me too, thus my question about the Corporation UI, to me that’s sort of where it all starts. I think that the projects stuff is a good addition but that the feature needs more work and I think that the Homefront sites are a helpful addition for corporations to introduce their newer members to combat scenarios. Some great suggestions have been made by @Kshal_Aideron regarding fleet planning that really speak to building and supporting community play.

Do you not consider bombs, smart bombs, the arcing vorton projector to be AOE type weapons?

Yes, I’d love to see this for structures as well.
I’d almost put it behind a skill wall, call it the schematics skill and as you level into it you gain access to or knowledge of more comprehensive, ship, structure, module, resource etc, tech trees. Players will argue against putting it behind a skill wall but I like the idea that it becomes a commitment that not everybody is willing to make. besides that it’s knowledge more attuned to industry players than PVP’s etc and that makes skilling into that choice more thematic. I also like that there might exist these really useful elements in the game that you don’t necessarily have access to because they’re associated with a career choice that you haven’t made. And I also like that if or when you do decide to skill into that, there’s something new there (in EVE) that you haven’t personally experienced yet.

great idea, @Grima_The_Mad mentioned exploration missions. There’s definitely opportunities here to further develop players introduction to potential career choices.

I really enjoyed reading your answers to this question. As I mentioned above I believe that the corporation is the nexus of the eve experience and that being a member of a corporation should feel like an interactive experience at every level of responsibility. Your suggestions are for me, just the tip of the ice-berg, but they definitely lean in the direction that I would like to see the game develop toward.

Yes, just like in real life.

Thanks for your answers they have been great to read.

1 Like

@Rots_Mijnwerker Your answers have been added to the thread

@Rots_Mijnwerker Love your idea. In addition to this, pirates (like diamond rats) could raid systems and attack structures frequently. Distance from the capital and lower ADMs equal more organized raids with pirate logi, capitals, entosis pirates, etc (and almost no loot or maybe only get evermarks/skins/skillpoints from the experience). Alliances controlling only one constellation will experience raids only once per week during the vulnerability time of their structure setting. Raids will progressively increase in frequency, strength, and tactics for alliances holding more than one constellation. Imagine a Pirate Titan with substantial subcap support dropping on your outskirts or low ADM system and you have to counter it with a large fleet or a few capitals (pvp opportunity for enemy blops/bridges if they are aware). For Alliances owning SOV of more than one region, pirate raids will also occur outside the vulnerability window, and pirates may resort to raiding while large capsuleer fleets have left the region for pvp. Hope this helps someday.

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.