Thanks for your kind words.
Maybe that’s what Steve meant when he wrote anyone promising to get X from CCP doesn’t know how CSM works or is lying to his voters? More or less?
Here is a direct C/P from my CSM bid:
“I also recognize the fact that CSM is ultimately a focus group. People seldom get their own specific ideas inside the game. But voters still deserve to know what I think the ways to fix Eve’s main problems are. And CSM candidates should be elected with their ideas showcased.”
I understand that CCP sees through people pushing their own agenda. But in many ways, I don’t see my proposals as “my agenda”. Most changes I advocate would nerf my main activity, Excavator booshing. We have 300 accounts between 2 friends, yet I advocate for a 1-person-1-vote rule. Yes, some of the things I will argue will include buffs to my own playstyle of hunting in nullsec.
But those proposals come from a place which I really think the game ecosystem would truly be more balanced and sustainable. Some of them are long overdue due to the underrepresentation of people in my playstyle. And if I get elected, then I would do so by arguing for these ideas, campaigning with these ideas. I didn’t have bloc votes or purchased votes. And I hope that will bring more legitimacy to things I argue in the eyes of CCP. I don’t think they’ll be blind to all these either.
At the end of the day I am aware that the influence of CSM is limited with CCP’s agenda for the year, and things they want to work on. I think Steve Ronuken is right. That’s why I say I’d be lucky if one of these ideas go into the game. But people should campaign with ideas anyway, because that’s the best way to choose someone who’ll relay the right feedback to CSM.
Do you see a threat of all this together being a major overkill
Unlike any other candidate, I also actually do my own research into risk/reward statistics. I don’t base my claims like “null is too safe” only to personal experience, nor I would be blind if/when CCP does overkill changes to the riskier side. Here you can see conversion of mining farm to killmails in space (I also have ratting data but less reliable, so I use mining as a toy example). Currently, the top 20 mining regions in nullsec lose less than 4% of all mining revenue in the form of lost mining ships. I see this as a simple taxation problem. The more you “tax” these miners, the more content people of Eve will have. But if you tax them too much, then they will stop mining. So I argue for a more healthy ratio about 15% in safest null, and 25% in the least organized null space. The moment it is higher, then you’ll see me arguing that it was overkill and should be balanced back a little.
Also remember; I don’t expect much of my ideas to go into the game. Best case scenario would be a combination of a few of them, which wouldn’t be overkill.
