Yondu Quill for CSM 19 - Industry, Sovereignty, Dynamicity, Galactic events

Council Of Stellar Management CSM Campaigns
, ,
1

.
…
…contact established…

Following material was used in my CSM18 run and mostly got filled even without me being voted in. This campaign sets of where the last one ended.

My EVE journey started in 2017 in the Amarr highsec mining veldspar, then buying a maller that was blown to pieces few hours after.

Shortly after I joined Brave Collective and immersed myself into industry and iskmaking activities as newbro and few month later ended up building titans in our small capital indy corp.

„This is Eve“ moment for me was solo build of 3 keepstars, one of which was the first enemy keepstar to succesfuly online in Delve, the WWBee2 YZ9-F6 Bubblestar

What changed over the last year is that i am now fully responsible for industry, infrastructure and sov of Brave collective as a director of infra team and director of industry with many new buttons that i did not know last year and much more responsibility seeing the big picture i did not see in CSM18. Also the aliance is now part of Imperium, compared to last year when we were in Pure Blind.

I believe that having the access to this knowledge can push forward suggestions to gameplay which only few people can really see or yet alone actualy do, however these will influence broad scale of players of null-sec aliances.

I described my last year campaign as bold, crazy and full of big ideas, which were suggested way before the 2023 Havoc expansion and this year Equinox. Funnily enough what was done by me not being CSM18?

  1. Angel caps – Azariel introduced in game now

  2. XXL citadels – Fulcrum in game now

  3. Wage war on them – Zarzakh in game introduced, Fulcrum wars

  4. NPC Threat comes in, realisticaly and dynamicaly affect the Eden – Deathless pirate incursions now in game

  5. Adjacency based sov – Equinox sov now in game, based on skyhooks, system energy and workforce

  6. Players building npc citadels – build of Fulcrum by players

  7. Change to the PI – skyhooks, PI haulers – Upwell now in game

  8. T2 carriers – changes to carrier mechanics and adding of new navy fighters

  9. Aliance passive income – passive moon mining now ingame

  10. Good old Rorq krabbing – new ore anoms now ingame with increased ore yields

  11. Planetary bases and landable planets – EVE Vanguard

Things to work on this year
While we have seen many changes to the sov mechanics as the Equinox is behind the door, with most of them changed at the last minute, it is quite difficult to make some promises on this field as it will still be changing for the next few months.

Many of these decisions started as nerfs for the big blocks limiting the capabilities of systems, constelations and projection. As these aliances are a majority of playerbase, the changes were tweaked to be just some minor inconvenience and lot more space work. The general concept was not properly tested before launching or implemented on ideas without asking further.

Having worked in this environment since the start of Equinox as aliance leadership i can help with tweaking the general idea of what can perhaps work better. Many of the buttons are for aliance level eyes only, but they impact so many players at the end of the line.

The big ideas that i would love to keep pushing into are new citadel classes. There is a space for defense/offense citadels that can be introduced between forts and keepstars, new types of weapons for citadels for different types of use, adding functional modularity to existing citadels apart from standard fit, rigs and color, new class of XXL citadels that would serve as boosts/nerfs for the constelation depenting on offence/defense deployment.

Where the gameplay will likely take us next year if i am not voted in for CSM19 :smiley:

The NPC threat that came in the last year could lead to having new faction of pilotable ships – drifters. Also the threat of pirate incursions with the Zarzakh invasion pushed could spawn new pirate carrier class. Having the Triglavians on sort of stand-by mode the potential is there for seeing new Trig ships – haulers, Trig bombers, t3 Triglavians, Trig carriers and titan.

While this NPC threat rises to affect the NPC space of the Amarr, Caldari, Minmatar and Galente there would be developments into new ship classes such as heavy bombers, t4 class of ships, t2 carriers and t2 titan.

The conflict would escalate to a new larger scale of factional warfare where players would help via new types of missions – citadel builds for NPC stagings or work towards sabotaging them.

Vanguard could be upgraded towards earning LP points via FPS game towards aliance EVE online wallet.

If you have questions, lets get in touch in EVE and lets build something nice

Yours Yondu QUILL (the Brave one)

discord yonduquill

8 Likes
2

Any idea to improve capital escalation? They give around 200M isk in rewards with bounties, drops and salvage, while you have to use a 6B ship to run them. I know they are fast to complete but they are not worth the risk today. Maybe if the drop include some faction drops (can be supcapital modules too) or maybe officer one it can worth the time to run them. And maybe put a restriction to spawn them at max 7 ly from the system you get it?

3

I´d like things to be valued by sov they are in, specialy with Equinox, you will get systems that now could spawn Havens / Sanctums to not be able to sustain these, so there will be lesser chance of the spawn by default of not having that many sites to run.

To balance this my idea is to work with Sov ADM - you have ratting, mining and holding sov. If you maintain your level 6 ihub you should be entitled to higher rewards. If you are maintaining your level 2 ihub, the reward should be lower per sites as so. E.g. LvL 6 ihub has more ore yield, by shorter anom cycles, more spawns or higher level loot. It also atracts more enemies to expect these to be killed.

4

With the current system of power, workforce, ecc to upgrade and maintain a system there is the risk that a lots of systems will be empty because their resources will be redirected to another ones. So sone system will have low ADM while others pretty high. Cannot the ADM become a constellation attribute rather then a system one?
For ratting we will risk to have system overloaded with ratters because low truesec system will not spawn havens and sanctums anymore. Maybe is time for new combat sites with difficulty snd rewards between hubs and havens? Or have special combat sites that spawn only in low ADM or truesrc systems

5

Sorry for late answer, IRL was busy

The idea of adjacency i would like to work with is basicaly if you have L6 sov hub, then there should be positive ADM overflow to adjacent systems, while having low ADM would cause negative overflow and decrease the adjacent system. More than that having indy ADM now based on mining, which is not really all possible would be suggested to be based on real build industry and research value of those systems.

6

@Yondu_Quill 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 on split at a time) happen?

7

EVE Vanguard is interesting project but it should not too much overflow into mainline EVE Online. With mechanics of current game you can either play one or other and having flux of players leaving EVE Online towards Vanguard is probably not what aliances want.

There is more fun with Vanguard to connect to EVE Online universe via rewards of LP, faction warfare, triglavian / deathless invasion counters or supports and generaly influencing the NPC part of gameplay rather than player owned.

As CSM id like to work on improving the Vanguard to be more rewarding towards general EVE as it is a side project. General tweaks quality of life changes surely can be adressed.

1 Like
8

O7 Yondu Quill,

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:

  1. What ONE identifiable consequence requires CCP’s attention?

  2. What PROVABLE evidence can you supply to support your belief in this situation?

  3. What practical, and balanced change can be made to support a solution if any?

  4. What support do your observations have from other CSM candidates?

  5. 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.