YOU have my vote!
1 Like
Switch 4! My Man! Glad to see you offering yourself for this leadership post and fully support your candidacy! Quick question. Do you think there should be changes to the gate gun mechanics when a high sec system goes lawless at corruption 5? Seems like the guns should go silent since the system is lawless territory until the empire takes control again.
And I fully agree with your stance on AWOXing. There needs to be a stiffer penalty for players engaging in shooting their own faction - something like making them perma flashy to the pirate faction until they fix their faction standing with said pirate faction. Any thoughts on what a harsher penalty would look like or could look like?
Oh and can you advocate for more faction clothing as well as find out what the deal is with pirate faction titles? Seems like its stuck or something.
not convinced
@Switch_4 Do you support hiring (EVE Vanguard) Warclone Mercenaries as an attack/defense vector in Capsuleer conflicts? Like attacking/defending Planetary Infrastructure, Skyhooks/POCOs and Upwell Structures?
As a CSM would you try and pitch for CCP to make stack multi-split (splitting a stack of items into multiple stacks of same size in one go instead of just one split at a time) happen?
O7 Switch 4,
Last year I asked eight questions and then compiled the answers into a huge mega-thread. It was massive. With the exception of MILINT_ARC_Trooper, no one had a thread bigger than mine, to be fair MILINT_ARC_Troopers’ thread was so weighty and knowledgable it teetered on the edge of collapsing into its’ own core.
That catalogue of replies is now a time-capsule and encapsulated within are the hopes and disappointments that CSM 18 candidates considered worth speaking about during the year of EVE’s 20th anniversary.
The responses gave voters en masse an opportunity to test and compare each hopeful CSM 18 candidates commitment to their claims of being community oriented, knowledgable, responsive and representative of player values. Given that the CSM does not directly control any aspect of EVE’s development and that the successful candidates are those that can identify existing and future consequences, co-operate with other CSM members, and communicate issues -from a player perspective- to CCP staff one-to-one, I’ve formulated a set of questions designed to seperate the compressed ORE from the Long-Limb Roes in this years election race.
Year-on-year the Independent Representatives, Solo players with single accounts, Worm Holers, Triangle People, Semi-nomadic Role-Playing Sandbox Explorers, and Salvagers, have been organising and gaining traction against the self-secure Null-Bloc Empire Candidates and their vast hordes of leather-skinned, evil, flying-monkeys. More-and-more players are choosing to vote in members they believe can positively impact CCP’s approach to the game regardless of their in-game affiliations.
Exposure matters, who are you, what is your clue?
As was the process last year I will post each candidates reply in a super thread, first-in first-served.
This years questions:
-
What ONE identifiable consequence requires CCP’s attention?
-
What PROVABLE evidence can you supply to support your belief in this situation?
-
What practical, and balanced change can be made to support a solution if any?
-
What support do your observations have from other CSM candidates?
-
How will you present your findings to CCP?
If you have already identified and spoken about a problem in your CSM candidacy bio at the top of this thread feel free to copy pasta that response where applicable. I’ll copy paste directly from your response to this post. Choose your goblet…. wisely.
Let the games begin, and may the odds ever be in your favour.
What can I do to convince you, friend!?
Love to have your support! While PERSONALLY I would love for some type of aggression change with gate guns in high sec, I don’t think that would be necessarily good for the game with overpowering our insurgency projection. Right now its an easily dealt with system, but is difficult, as it should be.
Also I did go in depth about some AWOXing changes I think could potentially fix things in my Reddit thread. Ill touch on them here with a little copy paste reworking…
The strongest idea I feel is having an NPC response similar to faction police or concord. We already have those, diamond rats, and faction mining defense response fleets. There’s also minor responses within plexes themselves for friendly npc aggression, or logistics repping. Why not have a response based on faction standing loss due to aggression? The threat of being “concorded” should deter a large majority of AWOX actions.
Another option would be to institute a “time out” mechanism. 1st hostile act results in a warning flag, anything additional and you’re removed from said faction for whatever set amount (say 1 week). Although this isn’t a fantastic idea, it does help lead to more conversation on the matter.
There additionally needs to be a harsher standing loss for AWOX aggressions.
There should still be an exception to standings loss such as kill rights activated, limited engagement, duels, member of fleet, or inter faction war decs between corps and alliances. Obviously there also has to be some type of protections from accidental acts such as friendly caught in a smart bomb, we don’t want to nuke people out of faction war due to a mistake. That’s where I think the “concord” response potentially makes the most sense.
An option that could protect those accidental aggressions is the implementation of an additional “safety” option. We currently have red, yellow and green, but the implementation of an option that warns for impending faction standings loss seems very feasible.
I also have some options that would affect using “neutral” alts. One of those is changing plex mechanics so opens/mining ops ALSO give a suspect timer, as all the other plexes do with gate activation. A warning message prior to warping to an open seems doable. Another fix would be the use of any support modules on a neutral alt, such as logi reps, also give suspect timers that would allow militia members to engage freely. That would prevent “friendly” logi pilots from hiding behind a standings loss wall.
That vanguard idea actually seems like it would have a lot of potential if done correctly. I think it would certainly be something I would support looking into.
As far as stack splitting, there are actually a lot of UI changes and little fixes I’d love to see. That is one I would add to the list.
I like this game. I guess we’ll see if the odds are indeed for or against me. I have had a lot to say on the topics, but I’ll try to condense it down to respond to you in your given format.
-
CCPs release of Havoc and pirate FW created a potential for a huge content builder in low sec that largely failed.
-
The evidence I can show to support it is the massive influx of active pilots in the first several weeks, and its rapid downfall to mostly null “bot” accounts. Also the laundry list of repeating complaints involving the “rinse and repeat” 2 week cycle of insurgencies and issues of AWOXing.
-
A practical and balanced change that can help this is harsher penalties involving AWOXing, as well as longer lasting effects of insurgencies on an area. If you see my response to @Joilove_Sunrunner I do go into those changes, and in this reddit post Reddit - Dive into anything
-
I honestly, and it may be due to me missing it in the wall of information, have not seen many candidates that have supported this directly, as most of it has been an “FW as a whole” response. But there are several that have the experience in faction warfare that could provide valuable feedback such as Twan and Frozen.
-
I would present my findings at the appropriate time, and in an organized format (YAY SPREADSHEETS & GRAPHS.) As I understand my role as a CSM member would not be just ramming my, and my constituents ideas, of low sec and FW at CCP every single day, but having a voice in the Eve community and its growth as a whole.
2 Likes
So one of the big perks of zarzakh was it was supposed to be this pirate haven. While the look and lore are there, the mechanics behind zarzakh and its tie to the fob and influenced areas do not make sense for people to live there. The gate lock also ruined what little good there was about zarzakh. Most people that have stuck it out have chosen one of the low sec systems to live out of.
With an added change like a pilots items asset safety to zarzakh instead of the random system, that may create a huge perk and a reason to live there. This mechanic can also be tweaked to only work for a pirate win vs a loss.
Something else to truly look into is also the ability to return to zarzakh from the fob directly. Create more of a gate than a ship caster. An added feature of that could be a “vulnerable” period outside the fob where you can’t tether within range of this gate.
Another problem from the empire faction side of things is it seems it’s overly difficult to kill the fob and win an insurgency vs the pirates that’s just have to corrupt x number of systems. This could also be due to the big “who cares” attitude towards the mechanics and the insurgencies as a whole.
2 Likes
Hello Switch!
I almost rage when I check the minmil store, we could have boosters (interdiction range boosters, alpha strike boosters, etc), useful implants (not Jackal implants LOL), etc.
Special wardec policies:
- New Wardec Policies: I believe that dedicated Factional Warfare corps and alliances should have the flexibility to wardec any corp that has members enlisted in any of the militias (both sides of the warzone), regardless the eligibility status of the attacker and defender. This would allow for more direct conflict resolution and reduce the impact of standings hits.
- Corps enlisted in FW should also be able to aid in wars without having to be elligible
- Addressing Overfarming and Alt Corps: Such a policy could also help to discourage overfarming and the use of alt corps that we know that belong to individuals from the enemy militia.
So, overall my idea about FW and wardecs is having something closer to the old wardec system, but it should be for the FW public only… I mean we already live in eternal war, please remove the hurdles in our way.
What’s your thoughts on these two subjects I brought here: better LP store (boosters, implants, consumables of any kind, etc) and special wardec policies.
For last, how about being able to convert LP into tokens just like the ESS tokens and then simply selling the tokens in the market and through contracts?
Thank you!
I do share your frustrations with the LP stores. I too wish there was more options such as boosters and better implants that people actually use. It is something I would advocate for, but I do know there may be limitations with other mechanics in the game that drop those types of items.
I can’t say I agree with inter militia war decs though, as that takes away from the point of the militias. Some infighting is inevitable, but to make it a free for all such as that could prove disastrous. I think fixing awoxing for starters would help curb a lot of the animosity that can cause the need to war dec in that manner.
I did actually have a conversation the other night that it would be really nice to have an avenue where players can convert LP directly to isk per se. Maybe at much lower rates than player to player. Opening up the ability to just trade/sell LP directly, instead of the unsecure round about way we do it now, would also be amazing, and is something I’m absolutely for.
1 Like
You got this boi!!!
2 Likes
Thank you @Switch_4 ! I appreciate your thoughtful answers and approach to low sec and FW. This is a PERFECT example of a CSM candidate actually listening to a player concern and responding. I hope you win a spot on the council and are able to advocate for us to CCP. Thanks for stepping up!!!
1 Like
Sometimes I feel like hat too, but its a bit scary doing this while having rampant bot farming, seagulling, etc
Still, the “new old” wardec system would be like this “if your corp/alliance has any ember in the militias/pirates relative to your warzone, then you can wardec them”, the legit corps and alliances for sure would wardec together certain groups like Frat in Angels who are ALREADY awoxing everybody else i angels… the free-for-all is already here and we have no system today
So, we could wardec Frat if they had at least one member enlited in our warzone and we could kill them without the standings hits, concord on highsec, etc
The legit corps and alliances who are already flying together for years stick together and just kill who are messing around
1 Like
Thank you so much for your support!
That’s definitely another option that I feel would be worth looking into! Although I love PvP content, my only concern would be a drastic amount of infighting, aside from that which is necessary, that takes away from the factions purpose.