Wednesday, February 6, 2013

My CSM Platform


I've written about the way I'm going to campaign for CSM; I promised to offer specifics about how I will change EVE if I'm elected. I always keep my promises, and today I deliver. The title of this post is a little misleading, since my CSM candidacy goes beyond merely offering suggestions for changes to the game. Nevertheless, when people think of CSM platforms, they usually think game mechanics, and that's what today's post is about.

Fixing EVE is a big job. You all know that I am not one to shy away from a challenge. Let's dive right in and talk turkey.

THE BIG PICTURE

My overall objective is to get people out of highsec and into low/null by fixing the current risk/reward imbalance. The overpopulation of highsec stifles gameplay across the board, and it threatens to send EVE further along the theme park trajectory. By giving PvE'ers ample incentive to leave highsec, and by buffing low/null, we can breathe life into lowsec and encourage more small/medium-scale PvP in nullsec.

My platform is like emergency surgery for the game: It corrects serious problems that need fixing right now, and it focuses on changes that can be made with minimal effort on the part of CCP (i.e. not adding big new features that require lots of elaborate coding).

NERF HIGHSEC PVE INTO OBLIVION

The first step is making highsec PvE much more unattractive. Ideally, no one who wants to make any money should remain in highsec very long, unless they're doing trading. Highsec is useful for new players learning how to maneuver their ship, and to create a space for trade hubs, but that's it.

Mining, ratting, missioning, etc. in highsec shouldn't be something that people do over a long period. I don't buy into the idea that it's necessary. I was ninja-mining and ninja-ratting in lowsec in my first week. The crutch of highsec has gotten completely out of control, and I intend to get rid of it.

- Highsec mining will be nerfed into oblivion. We'll have one or possibly two different types of ore available, just so new players can learn how to distinguish between them on the overview.

- Highsec missioning will be nerfed into oblivion. Nothing higher than Level 2 missions will be available. All the rest goes into lowsec.

- Highsec incursions and the like will be scrapped completely. I will eliminate all highsec PvE aside from the (virtually useless) mining and missioning. People say it's to help people learn how to PvE in groups, but that's not true--it's simply become a risk-free money-machine. No more.

Even though this will minimize the reward of highsec, I'd also like to increase the risk of highsec a bit, just in case some players don't get the message.

- Concord and faction police will take twice as long to respond, effectively making it twice as easy to be ganked.

- The firepower of sentry guns in highsec will be cut in half. I think it's excessive at the moment.

- The "boomerang" will be brought back. Concord will still kill you, but you can warp away as before. Boomerang ganking required sufficient skill, effort, and luck that I consider it a fair, legitimate tactic.

- Security status losses will be greatly diminished. I don't have an exact figure, but I don't like the idea that people who commit "crimes" in highsec should need to spend a long time grinding to make up for it. That imposes boredom on the very people who obviously like it least.

BUFF LOWSEC AND NULLSEC PVE

People need to be rewarded for their risks. Highsec carries little risk, while low/null carry great risk. That means lowsec and nullsec PvE should be much more rewarding.

- Low/null mining and ratting will be buffed. Wonks can work out the details, but mining and ratting should be boosted enough to become worth it. It should be valuable enough that people will ninja-mine and ninja-rat in what is essentially hostile territory. Corps should have incentive to have defense ships/scouts to protect their ops.

- Increase entry points? I'm toying with the idea of changing some highsec systems into lowsec, and some lowsec systems into nullsec, to increase the number of entry points. If we're going to encourage everyone to go to low/null, we can't have a handful of gatecamps seal them off. I would still keep highsec contiguous, though.

INCREASE NULLSEC SELF-SUFFICIENCY

I don't like the idea that nullsec empires import most of their stuff from highsec trade hubs. Taking and defending nullsec space requires effort. It should be the most valuable, productive territory in the game--and therefore self-sufficient.

- Nullsec mining will be buffed to the point where it's not only possible to produce nearly everything for an alliance--it should be economically desirable to do so.

- Nullsec infrastructure will be buffed. You'll often hear about major problems with the lack of production slots or whatever. I don't claim to be an expert on research, manufacturing, etc., but my goal is clear enough. We'll buff player-owned stations or do whatever is necessary so that nullsec empires can produce their own stuff.

- Ratting is automatically taxed, but mining isn't. We'll add some way to enable corps/alliances to tax mining without relying on spreadsheets. For example, we might have the refining system in player-owned stations automatically send a percentage of the refined materials into a corp/alliance "taxes" hangar. You get the idea.

ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF PVP

Buffing low/null PvE goes a long way toward enhancing PvP in those areas. Remember the "food chain" theory of PvP: Miners/industrials provide targets for small-scale pirates, who provide targets for roaming gangs, who provide targets for defense fleets, who provide targets for big blobs. It all begins with making the mining/ratting desirable enough so that money-gatherers present themselves as targets. Effectively, we're replenishing the base of the food chain.

- Not only will mining/ratting be buffed in low/null, it will be varied. Particularly valuable rats and asteroids will appear at random. They'll be rare enough to provide rewards without skewing the system, but they won't be so rare that people feel searching is a waste. This may add a "hunter" element to what is essentially a "farming" activity, and may provide more incentive for people to roam outside their comfort zone.

- We'll shift the focus back to belts. I don't like anomalies, grav-sites, or whatever it is that people scan for. I'd prefer to have PvE done in belts. Probing is an activity few normal people enjoy, so it adds nothing to the game, and it makes things more difficult for predators. Pirates should be able to find their prey by D-scanning the asteroid belts. Remember, no pirates, no food chain.

- Rather than appearing in local when you jump the gate, you'll appear when you drop your gate-cloak. This offers a better balance. Alert, paranoid miners/ratters can escape when they see you enter local, while semi-AFK or lazy PvE'ers can be caught by a skilled/lucky pirate.

Now let's briefly talk about moongoo. Holding sov is difficult and takes effort, so nullsec powers should be rewarded with passive income from moongoo. However, buffing "active" income sources (nullsec ratting and mining--while also enabling the taxation of mining) should create more balance.

It's not so much that you get sov through occupation, but that you make the most of your space through occupation. And by making active income sources more valuable, there will be incentive for others to invade your space for reasons other than sov-grinding. This provides for smaller-scale PvP across space. If you choose not to occupy your space, someone else will. And if you choose to occupy your space without defending it, someone will kill your PvE'ers.

Finally, I'd like to provide for some way of tying moongoo to medium-size PvP. You can only take systems through sov-grinding, but I'd like people to be able to interfere with the flow of moongoo by using formidable, medium-sized subcap gangs. For example, they hit a system's "moon-mining coordination array", and once a timer runs (to prevent time zone chicanery), the array becomes vulnerable. If the attackers take the field and hit it when vulnerable, moongoo stops flowing in that system for 48 hours or something.

Alternatively, for 48 hours the moongoo flows into an unsecure container next to the array, so anyone can start taking from it. This idea isn't polished, but I think it would be hilarious if defenders and vultures attracted from afar started fighting around an out-of-control moongoo spigot.

Of course, attackers may not want to risk losing a medium-sized subcap fleet for the purpose of only temporarily disrupting moongoo--but they might. I imagine this would be more of a harassing tactic, a check against overstretch, and something that roaming gangs can do for fun instead of gatecamping.

Alright, that's enough for one day. I hope this post has given you a sense of what I stand for, and what I'll advocate for if and when I take a seat on the CSM. In future posts, I will go into detail about my philosophy for how the CSM should function.

151 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. he should be slaughtered.

      Delete
  2. Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

    This is the point we will later look back upon as the moment that the New Order - which I have had an absolute blast being part of - went into terminal decline. james, it has been great fun, and you've really brought a lot of excitement and energy and drama into hisec.

    Your outline proposals, however, contain nothing that looks at all interesting or fun except perhaps to the zerg alliances.



    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. So, you're leaving the New Order over this--but you're posting as anonymous? Troll attempt detected.

      It seems like you have a reading comprehension problem as well, you saw "plan for saving highsec" and thought you were reading "plan for affixing pure fun onto a long wooden stick". If you have a plan that will accomplish both, I'm all ears--otherwise, the whole 'fixing highsec' thing seems like a much better platform for a CSM candidate. You know, the whole, 'being a definable real platform' thing. Feel free to cast your own votes for the 'nonspecific FUN!" candidate...I'm pretty sure that's DariusIII? The rest of us will be over here voting for real platforms.

      Delete
  3. As an industrialist, I find a lot of the time I spend plying my trade can be a bit boring. Production runs here, mining for materials there, deploy drones against rats here, etc. I think it'd be interesting if I had to defend my mining a little bit more actively than deploying a few hobgoblins. If I had to, say, offline miners so I could online some pew pew and make an active stand for myself. Not having anything to really defend with makes someone who is mining want the safest hole they can crawl into, so I can see how the anti-pvp mindset comes into play. If there were an option to remove or disable miners to add or enable pew pew, this might also make it more desirable to delve into LowSec, because a group of miners could take their ships down there with a little bit of pew pew and not feel as entirely naked as they do right now.

    That said, a mining ship with two turrets of pew pew isn't exactly going to be all that powerful, but at least feeling like you have the option to defend your mining position can go a long ways.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And lest I forget...

      315 4 CSM 8!

      Delete
  4. I read your platform very carefully and i will resub again just to give you my vote.

    GL

    ReplyDelete
  5. A question, then-

    You clearly are anti 'risk-free income'. However, as your own movement has shown, there is really no such thing in Eve, even in hi-sec. HOWEVER, currently, there are few who would argue that some of the most lucrative 'risk-free' (by Eve standards) income comes from some of the very same null-sec sources that you yourself feel should be buffed. Further to that, under your proposed changes, the blob only becomes more dominant, as you yourself have outlined in your 'food chain'- it is the apex predator.

    My question, then, is this- is your goal in your version of Eve to turn TQ into a copy of Serenity, the Chinese Eve Server, where large mega-blocs in null exist side by side with legions of miners/ratters churning out massive quantities of 'risk-free' ISK in what is arguably 'safer' space than currently exists in hi-sec? How does this do anything to 'fix' Eve save to shift the population of people who prefer to grind away day after day from hi-sec to null sec?

    Because your proposed changes sound like a botters/afk-ers paradise- give large blocs a reason to do nothing more than sit on massive swathes of space and allow as many ratters/miners as possible in. The blocs on Serenity don't even need the moongoo from null to fund their coffers- they get by strictly on taxes from the ratting that occurs in their space. And from what you're proposing, not only should they, but they should make even more ISK, because doing it in hi-sec is 'bad'.

    Doesn't sound like a particularly good way to 'fix' Eve to me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I dont get your point, really. I dont know how chinese people like to play their Eve but in our TQ lots of miners in null or low sec will translate into lots of pirates trying to get them which will force the miners to try and defend themselves with defensive squads which is exactly how Eve should be. Just my two cents..

      Delete
    2. You sure are a cheeky fellow arnt u. I will vote for u just so when u get elected ccp can bitch slap u back to reality

      Delete
  6. Get over yourself and stop being so whiney. I'm not leaving the New Order, I'm pointing out that I believe this to be the point at which it starts to decline. And I'm posting as anonymous because I can do as I damn well please, thanks very much. Who the frakk, after all, knows who 'Audrik Villalona' is? Or indeed if you even are 'Audrik Villalona'? So ram your troll accusations where the sun doesn't shine.

    As for the rest of your comment, I saw "plan for saving highsec" and assumed "plan for keeping sandbox" - not James' outline of 4 starter systems containing only tutorial content and then lo/null everywhere else.

    You say, "otherwise, the whole 'fixing highsec' thing seems like a much better platform for a CSM candidate. You know, the whole, 'being a definable real platform' thing." That isn't what James proposes at all, so I fear it is you who has the comprehension issue. James proposes basically removing highsec completely except for some tutorial stuff. You know, "noob island". That isn't "fixing" something, that is excising it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "And I'm posting as anonymous because I can do as I damn well please, thanks very much. "

      Translating your whiney troll rant into normal English: "I'm posting as anonymous because I was lying about being part of the New Order". Now we know.

      "James proposes basically removing highsec completely except for some tutorial stuff"

      Before, highsec had: overly rewarding missions for the amount of risk, overly rewarding mining compared to nullsec mining, overly rewarding incursions compared to just handing highseccers huge piles of cash for no reason, trade hubs, and people chain running highsec pirate anoms/sigs in optimized Tengus. James has proposed toning down missioning and mining to be less rewarding, removing the grossly overpowered incursions, run most by nullsec alts in the first place, and left trading and sig/anoms alone. This does indeed qualify as an excision, not a removal; the fact that you think otherwise shows that you are blinded by your personal bias as either a lvl 4 mission chain-runner, or a highsec incursioner. In either case: get thee to low/null, Mr. Anonymous.

      (If you want to verify that I am the Audrik Villalona in game, there's a magical way to reach me in game that I just invented 5 minutes ago. I will call it, Audrik Villalona-mail....no, that's too egotistical, I'll just call it EVEmail. Easy.)

      Delete
    2. James, you are focusing on k-space, will your platform cover w-space as well?

      Best regards.

      Delete
    3. I don't see why w-space should continue to exist, it offers nothing at all but another botter heaven and bot-aspirant training ground. I don't know what James thinks about it, but i think that with the proposed changes taking effect w-space will become redundant, and will distract people from playing EVE the way it's supposed to.

      Delete
    4. @Audrik Villalona

      "people chain running highsec pirate anoms/sigs in optimized Tengus"
      What?

      "overly rewarding mining compared to nullsec mining"
      What?

      Translating your whiney [sic] troll rant into normal English: "I'm Audrik Villalona and I know nothing at all about EvE Online."

      If you can't mine more in napfest null than high, you're shit. To chain run anything requires a massive abundance of the thing you are chain running. This abundance does not exist, and neither does your knowledge of EvE Online.

      Delete
    5. Ooh, personal attacks, nice surprise Mr. Anon. The average ore value/m3 mined from nullsec gravi sites is lower than highsec belts, when it should be 2-3x higher. Napfests don't change math. Neither do insults. Grow up, son.

      Delete
    6. Can truth be insulting? If you're insulted by your lack of knowledge of EvE, do something about it!

      Delete
    7. Second grade is that way. Your "I know you are but what am I" retorts will fit right in there. Now run along and leave the adults alone.

      Delete
    8. Awww never mind Audrik. I understand that highsec ganking attracts the more, how shall we say, intellectually challenged among us. We all know that you can't handle real PvP against ships that shoot back, and that's OK - you clearly know your limits with PvP. However, if you could just recognize your limits with your knowledge of the game too, you'll save yourself and others from your laborious replies. Oh yes, calm down with the personal attacks too, OK!

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. That's amusing, as I never see you in lo/null Tubrug. You're always too busy wardeccing little mining clubs.

      Delete
    2. Oh I do that too, but rest assured I have been in low/null.

      Delete
  8. Hi James, Spionkop here.

    Your blog is as bad as your code. Nuff said.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I disagree with the whole Order thing, but i honestly expected you to have done a half decent attempt at a platform and was interested to read your views, but this is just drivel...

    ReplyDelete
  10. lowsecpirate / highsecminerFebruary 6, 2013 at 10:08 PM

    Very nice ideas, can't find anything to complain about really.

    You will most likely have my two votes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ban hisec!

    That's been our (Khoda and I's) motto even as players who spend a predominantly amount of time in hisec. I've never seriously proposed removing hisec entirely, which is what most people think I mean by my ban reference. No, ban hisec as a productive region of space for players beyond the first few months.

    I've long been a fan of moving Level 3's and 4's out of hisec, though I think that by itself, to be done effectively, will require a ton of work on CCP's part. Currently, mission locations are based on the constellation the agent is located in. I'd like to see this changed to a simple number of direct jumps within a certain range, say 0 (in system with agent) to three, or six jumps away, crossing constellation borders. This would allow the placement of 3's in losec but near hisec. Missions *could* still be run in hisec from time to time (roll of the mission generation dice, so to speak) but would require navigating the choke points in/out of hi/losec. Level 4's would be located in losec as well, but near nullsec, with the possibility of mission locations being generated in nullsec, requiring the same chokepoint navigation. More routes would need to be created, I believe, to prevent the complete camping of chokepoints as is done now.

    It would also require the complete overhaul of the current missions, something else I've long been in favor of. The current missions are not friendly to PVP fit ships. I'd like to see this changed, where the missions themselves require pvp mids to successfully complete the mission (primary targets will warp off, failing the mission, for example), and where the focus is more PVP-like (fewer targets but more dangerous targets) with gank preferred over tank. Missions should be a good place for new players to learn how to properly fit a ship to handle another player that jumps them in mid-losec mission.

    Move ice belts out of hisec entirely. Current hisec belts should go to low, and null should keep their enhanced ices. I don't have an issue with the current variety of ores in hisec, though the ore bay on all barges/exhumers should be nerfed back to the hellhole that spawned them. The only reason that I'm not all that worried about removing the profitability of ore belts from hisec is because asteroids deplete and pop, requiring a human operator to actually be at the computer (if not botting) to be profitable, unlike ice mining where you just activate your harvesters and go AFK for the next hour or so.

    In my opinion, hisec incursions never should have been introduced in the first place, so it's probably no surprise I'd be first on the cheering bandwagon if they were to disappear tomorrow.

    I honestly can't say I see the need for any changes to sec status penalties, CONCORD response times, sentry gun damage, etc. Admittedly, I prefered the CONCORD repsonse times before they were "enhanced", but even at their current levels it doesn't prevent ganking by a dedicated ganking outfit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There has to be ice in highsec, to allow new corps to get fuel for cap ships/pos'es. Fix the ice by making it deplet, and possible nerf it, do not get rid of it.

      Delete
  12. Very interesting. If this will become reality, i'm off to Star Citizen. And no, my stuff is always sold...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gotta love Tubrug's optimism. James's ideas becoming reality is as likely as James becoming a CSM representative. i.e. non-existent. Still, keep dreaming Tubrug, it's just about all you have left.

      Delete
    2. I can haz your stuff anyways?

      Delete
  13. James, your proposals to "nerf highsec into oblivion" are fairly well adapted to doing what you want, namely, "to get people out of highsec and into low/null". And I grasp that you want this to address the "current risk/reward imbalance". I agree with you that risk/reward is screwed up.

    One criticism I have is that you should specify how you plan to nerf highsec exploration. One assumes that you also mean to remove all the sites that pay anything significant. However you also need to keep exploration of some kind in highsec, as a training ground.

    More generally, I find your approach much too scorched-earth, and too boolean. You would make highsec a desert; I would prefer it be made a well-populated battleground. What I would like to see is higher risk in highsec, not less money. To this end I would counterpropose as follows:

    (0) all money-making activities in highsec are kept as is.

    (1) encourage mission ninjas by allowing all players to tractor all cans and wrecks.

    (2) increase risk for missioners and explorers by removing Concord protection from all deadspace pockets. Players can't warp in there, and neither should they. Attacking anyone in deadspace would still impose the normal security hit and Criminal flag. Note that a successful attack means you are stuck in deadspace for the balance of the 15 minutes, fully attackable by anyone who comes in, including the original victim coming back in his PVP ship.

    (3) for mining: implement corporate asteroid belt ownership, of individual belts, or all belts in a system. Ownership is determined weekly or monthly via an auctioned contract. Corp owners decide who is allowed to mine in their belts; others may ninja mine or pay tax. Ninja miners get the Suspect flag. Note that if no corp buys ownership a belt would be unowned, in which case it is considered a commons and can be mined freely, just like now.

    (4) there is one exception to the above changes: special newb systems. These are the three training systems per empire. Gates to these disallow entrance for any character older than 60 days. Full Concord coverage even in deadspace, no belt ownership, etc.

    One other thing: I do not know what the "boomerang" is or was, and would appreciate some older player explaining it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By 'boomerang', he's referring to a suicide ganking tactic developed by Herr Wilkus - it allowed him to destroy multiple targets in different locations before losing his own ship to CONCORD.

      Forum thread is here:
      https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=89242

      Delete
    2. Actually, the above thread isn't the one I meant. Try this one instead:
      https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=83644

      Delete
    3. "(3) for mining: implement corporate asteroid belt ownership, of individual belts, or all belts in a system. Ownership is determined weekly or monthly via an auctioned contract. Corp owners decide who is allowed to mine in their belts; others may ninja mine or pay tax. Ninja miners get the Suspect flag. Note that if no corp buys ownership a belt would be unowned, in which case it is considered a commons and can be mined freely, just like now."

      I kind of like this idea, but instead of auctions (which implies the belts are already owned by somebody) corps should be able to stake a belt with a beacon at each end. As long as the beacons are up, its your belt. If someone blows up your beacons, its unowned again. A Corp would only be able to claim as many belts as it could defend and beacons it can afford.

      Such a system would lead to more than a few wardecs, I'm guessing.

      Just a thought.

      Delete
    4. I kind of like that idea, it would definitely make highsec worth defending for corps that are there, and null corps with interests there. But then comes the question of ninja miners.

      And this comes from someone who has only been in eve for little more than three months.

      Delete
    5. "...three training systems per empire. Gates to these disallow entrance for any character older than 60 days..."

      The markets in those systems will be pretty dismal if they are stocked only by the newbies!

      Delete
    6. Markets adjacent to the barred gates would be just fine for those wanting to sell the mods that newbies need.

      Delete
  14. I can't help it. This is somewhat uninspiring stuff. Across all security zones.

    The New Order is begginning to influence the attitudes of highsec players. The platform above has the potential to destroy whatever they have achieved until now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I read once in awhile, and I agree with some and disagree with others of your plans. Some are terrible ideas, such as the creation of a refinery tax hangar for corps since there is already the ability to tax refining in player owner stations in null sec. It just seems no one does, from what Ive seen.

    The minerals, I believe, go into the deliveries box for corp hangars; if there is a tax set. I know this because I set my station to 10% for awhile til people noticed and said fuck you and went 5 systems over to refine. Bastards.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It just seems no one does, from what Ive seen."

      If you don't the reasons behind what you're posting, why even bother posting as if you know what you're talking about?

      why does no one set a tax to refine at POS in null-sec? Because POS refining is capped at 75%, and even at 75% you're hugely better off compressing with a rorqual and shipping up to highsec in a jump freighter, rather than devoting 4k cpu of a large pos which is expensive to run just to lose 25% of your yield--add to this that there aren't enough manufacturing slots in nullsec anyway, so you'd rather the minerals went up there in the first place. Adding in a tax onto this already untenable situation only makes it more so. Fix POS refining, fix null-sec manufacturing, and then you can tax refining in null. Also, adding costs onto highsec refining would improve the nullsec/highsec cost balance of industry even further. As the starting zone, highsec should either be unable to refine most ores, or cost more to do so, or have a daily limit, etc. As usual, James315's suggestions are right on the money, with a bit more information as provided above, I'm sure you'l agree.

      Delete
  16. Why is EVE famous? Is it because you can mine in relative safety and pile up money? Or maybe it's because you can make money shooting NPC ships just by effortlessly clicking your mouse?

    No. It's because is a player driven sandbox. "Sandbox" does not mean "play as you want". It means that players are free to use the tools given by the game with no or minimal interference from NPC or developers. It means that you can build sand castles you have to defend from players who want to destroy them. It means that you can join other players to build, defend or destroy bigger castles. Stuff is done with, to and against players alone.

    This is why EVE is unique. James 315's vision is the vision that inspired the idea behind EVE. It is what EVE should be. A wild world where people can not rely on artificial made civilization: they have to create and defend one on their own. In a world where you can lie, scam and betray, the words "trust" and "friendship" acquire real meaning. In a world where anyone can destroy anyone else's ship the concept of "team" acquire real meaning. Without those, you only have boringly enforced "teams" and "friends". You can't really create anything if no one can destroy it.

    Low and especially Null sec should be the focus of EVE. It's there that EVE is what it has been created for. Safety should come from the company of your loyal friends, not from artificial defense from NPCs and game mechanics.

    There are plenty of games for people who does not like the sandbox concept. We have only EVE. Let us have it the way its creators envisioned.

    James 315 for CSM.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Finally, sensible policies for a happier highsec.

    Gets my votes.

    Dr Tyler

    ReplyDelete
  18. @James 315
    From a highsec missioner/occasional non-compliant miner/enthusiastic explorer:

    I actually find your proposals intriguing and to an extent support them. I think what you have to realise though what you are proposing is a whole new game - EVE II. I can tell you right now under the system you are describing it will cause a lot of people to leave the game and stop subscribing. You have to understand there is a massive imbalance between the haves and the have-nots in EVE. Not only in terms of ISK but also in terms of skill points. The highsec buffer is the only thing allowing many players to continue to enjoy EVE without suffering a complete stomping from the zerg corps.

    Low sec/null sec are ruled by zerg corporations. To force people out into the wilderness - whilst exciting - would make it very brutal. People would be forced to join mega-corps with people they won't necessarily enjoy playing with just to survive in EVE. The only way I can see your proposal working well is if CCP forced a once a year skill point reset. This would level the playing field and allow new players to be viable in sharing space with the 50 million+ skill point players.

    Overall though great ideas but they do not align well with CCP's goals to encourage new subscriptions and actually make money. It would in effect devolve the game into an FPS. I don't think this is what most EVE players would want. Keep in mind with the release of Retribution we have seen record numbers of new players. CCP is looking at a bumper 2013 with subscriptions expected to reach 500,000. Anything that upsets the fine balance of the EVE sandbox will severely impact player counts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "yearly skill reset for fairness"..and yet his suggestions are bad because it'd make EVE too much like an FPS? Wow.

      Delete
    2. And what do you propose Ross?

      Delete
    3. > Low sec/null sec are ruled by zerg corporations.

      I think you will find that they are not ruled by "zerg corporations" (at which point does a corporation become "zerg" anyway?), and skill points do not indicate player skill. These are both popular misconceptions from people who have not spent significant time in lowsec or nullsec interacting with other people.

      Delete
  19. \o/ Restore balance to the ratio!
    Nerf highsec good!

    THREE ONE FIVE! THREE ONE FIVE! THREE ONE FIVE!


    -Galaxy Pig

    ReplyDelete
  20. As a hisec member of the New Order, I agree with some parts of James'platform, but disagree with others.

    He's right about lowsec needing a buff though, personally I believe that moving 3's and 4's to lowsec will only result in them not being run, as happened with 5's. I'd keep some in hisec but scale the rewards with the security status of whichever system the mission actually takes place in, I believe Incursions already work that way with LP, maybe use the same system to scale the LP part of mission rewards.

    In reference to mining, I'd keep the current ores, but move all the +10% and possibly +5% variants to 0.5 and below systems, want the good stuff? take the risk to get at it.

    I don't have a problem with the proposed changes to gate guns and Concord, it's about time the safety blanket was lifted a bit. Less reliance on Concord is good, people will have to pay attention, actually fit a tank etc.

    I've never been to null, so I shall refrain from commenting on those parts as I'm not qualified to do so.

    Casa

    ReplyDelete
  21. One additional piece I'd suggest for your platform might be fixing the bounty system. Right now bounties are a joke: everybody has one and it's basically just a way of registering your displeasure with another player. I haven't been able to think up a non-exploitable mechanic (as in just having a friend kill you and splitting the money) for making it actually work, but there are a couple of benefits that'd fit the theme of your plan.

    1. It'd establish an actual "food chain" in the current lowsec. Right now the only real profitable PvP that's practiced in any great amount is hunting/camping for unarmed targets of opportunity. Very few people achieve the PvP efficiency against something that shoots back that'd be necessary to make a living off drops and the low bounty payout percentage. Make the next few levels up the food chain worthwhile.

    2. Done right it might also work to buff lowsec mining/PvE. If miners could strike back at their enemies with part of their additional profits from choosing lowsec it'd be that much more worthwhile to move.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >I haven't been able to think up a non-exploitable mechanic (as in just having a friend kill you and splitting the money) for making it actually work...

      you do realize the current system works fine seeing as the reward is a percentage of what is destroyed. So if you did have said friend shoot you the only thing you are accomplishing is wasting money because you aren't rewarded anything NEAR what is destroyed.

      Delete
    2. Yes, that did successfully prevent that exploit. However, the payout % is so low it completely over-nerfed the bounty mechanic. It should be increased from 20% to at least 80%. The weakness of the current system is not that the expoit I mentioned, the weakness is that you have to consistently kill 5 times the value you lose to be a successful bounty hunter. Someone who can achieve that kind of PvP kill efficiency has better things to do than hunt down small-fry lowsec pirates.

      Delete
  22. ...as if millions of carebears suddenly cried out in terror, and were suddenly silenced.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Remember, just because someone has a point of view that does not mean all of their ideas will happen. What it -really- means is that the voice will be heard at the table and the feedback will still be processed by CCP.

    A voice like this is extremely beneficial for EVE's on-going development. We need different voices in the CSM to represent different points of view.

    There are some things with what James 315 is writing that I don't agree with (I happen to find probing and exploration to be really fun) and I would like to see sovereignty mechanisms expanded but that's a post unto itself.

    But, overall, I think having a voice like James 315 at the table is vital for a sanity check on the feedback loop that CCP has with its iteration process.

    As such, I support James 315!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think this is a wise position Agent Eunoli, and I tend to agree with it. While some of James' platform is a bit too severe for my tastes, I think that it needs to be argued in antithesis to the "perfectly safe" Hi-Sec the carebears promote. At the end of the day, his position is no more severe than the bubble wrap brigade who would have us ask permission to shoot spaceships and who wish to be immune from any form of player interaction.
      Really though, the only thing I would argue is to leave a place in Eve for the solo pilot. Even if the rewards arent great, I firmly believe a lone wolf should be able to hang out in Eve and be useful. I'm all for getting rid of High-Sec but let's flesh out more content in NPC Null. Revamp missions to be fast, dangerous and profitable. Not only does this give casual solo players like myself something fun to do, it also gives the pirates and small gangs more targets. Same with exploration and probing. I think this kind of stuff is fun for a lot of people, and again more people out doing this sort of thing offers more targets for small gang and solo pvp.
      I think James' position is extreme. Maybe too extreme, but at the same time I think it is a very important voice to be heard on the CSM. To send you to the CSM on this platform sends a VERY clear message to CCP as to what kind of game we want to play. Overall, James' version of New Eden sounds a hell of a lot more entertaining than the perfectly safe theme-park mining simulator some others advocate.

      I remain firmly in the 315 camp and wholeheartedly support James' bid for CSM.

      HTFU Hi-Sec it's going to be a bumpy fucking ride!

      Winchester Steele

      Delete
  24. Why should nullsec be self sufficient? You hear this argument all the time, but never with much to back it up besides "taking sov is difficult and boring." And sov is rewarding; it's not as if the CFC and HBC are poor. Nullsec requiring outside input creates trade, and that's good for everybody. If sov null becomes completely self sufficient you've eliminated the need for Jita as a neutral trading ground, and all of a sudden the only place to get tech 2 goods is VFK. Have fun with that. Neutral trading posts aren't only important for highsec, but they're completely vital for lowsec, wormholers, and nullsec regions that aren't overflowing with moon goo. Disconnecting null economically from the rest of the game would be a huge blow to the games of people who aren't interested in sov warfare, and "join a sov holding coalition or GTFO" doesn't sound like much of a sandbox to me.

    ReplyDelete
  25. I really disagree with your opinion on scanning and exploration sites, especially "because you don't like anomalies, grav-sites, or whatever it is that people scan for." I think you underestimate the number of people who enjoy exploration (and scanning!). You have lost my vote because of this and I'm a shareholder. I still support your cause against the bot aspirant but I'm afraid you need to research your "platform" some more.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I agree with many of the principles and some of the specific proposals of the CSM candidate, but I don't believe he has a realistic grasp of the function of the CSM itself. I'd advise him to look at some of CCP's statements on the purpose and role of the CSM and to realize that it isn't like being a member of the U.S. Senate where legislation can be introduced and voted on, but rather mainly (and merely) a vehicle for player input and suggestions on CCP's goals and proposals.


    Some interesting comments here:


    Von Keigai said: "increase risk for missioners and explorers by removing Concord protection from all deadspace pockets. Players can't warp in there, and neither should they. Attacking anyone in deadspace would still impose the normal security hit and Criminal flag. Note that a successful attack means you are stuck in deadspace for the balance of the 15 minutes, fully attackable by anyone who comes in, including the original victim coming back in his PVP ship."

    That's pretty damned interesting. Even if Concord had to warp to and then through the gate it would open up a world of possibilities.


    Anonymous (not me) said: "The highsec buffer is the only thing allowing many players to continue to enjoy EVE without suffering a complete stomping from the zerg corps. Low sec/null sec are ruled by zerg corporations."

    Disagree. There are many ways for small corps and even solo pilots to survive and thrive in low/null/wh space. I may be less risk averse than many, as a former flashy red pirate, but I am doing fine flying solo and I don't think I am alone nor do I think that small corps have no place in "dangerous" space. Flash back to 2009 and I was living alone IRL, joined a pirate corp after 2 months in game, yukked it up on comms with everyone, called for help when needed, and had a generally social and positive experience as a new player with a small group of associates for support. Sure we had to run away on a hot drop or from huge blobs, but that was part of the fun of Eve. Flash forward to now, and my RL situation doesn't allow me to be on comms so I have gone solo. I still live in lowsec, rat in null if I need to do so for sec status, and spend a good portion of time hunting in wormholes. I undock, drop probes, and see what is out there. If I see a juicy PVE site and the coast is clear, I run it. If I find a WH, I dive in and look for targets to gank. If I see someone has beat me to a juicy site, or is mining a grav or ladar, I try to kill him.

    Being solo or a part of a small group doesn't mean you can't play Eve, it just means you play Eve differently than those "zerg corps". That's part of the sandbox.

    ReplyDelete
  27. The people in hisec and the people in nullsec want to play a different game. Often, this difference is misdiagnosed as PvP vs PvE; leet nullsec toons vs carebears. But this isn't the correct distinction. Without proper diagnosis, simply nerfing hisec won't fix anything, it'll just kill subs.

    The issue is that nullsec is a place where you must play with other people to succeed, while hisec rewards solo or near-solo play (yes yes, before the 20 "I ninja rat/mine/whatever in null all the time all by my awesome self"... you are elite and we all bow before your superiority and excellence... you are the tiny minority that proves the rule).

    I get that this is a contentious issue, but people can enjoy the emergent/social aspect of an MMO; even enjoy interacting with other plays purely through direct gameplay mechanics; all without wanting to commit to large groups, having to deal with meta-game issues, or having to be part of some larger social structure. In short, it's perfectly acceptable to want to be a passive solo consumer of the player driven content in an MMO without wanting to be an active contributor beyond anything more complex than simply being a potential target. This is the very foodchain James describes.

    Revamping risk/reward and nerfing hisec will never change this reality. It manifests as a PvP/PvE issue now because nullsec is a place where everyone is trying to kill you unless you play the meta-game of politics, diplomacy, standings, etc. No changes to risk/reward are going to lure significant numbers of hisec carebears into null if they still have to deal with that social/meta aspect to avoid NBSI instadeath.

    So, how do you fix null? By letting hisec players play the solo game in null the same way they play in hisec. NBSI is a symptom of diseased null mechanics. The mechanics need to change so that NRDS is the only economically rational choice. If neutrals feel that going to null, solo, is not NBSI certain-death but instead NRDS basic risk/reward, they will come in DROVES. Ironically, doing this liberates nullsec dwellers to play the pvp game they've been desperate for. Why?

    Do you see Gallente police chasing miners out of their asteroid belts? Do you see the Caldari navy shooting at neutrals who rat in their space? No. So, the real question to ask is...

    Why in the world do nullsec mechanics encourage nullsec dwellers to jealously protect those PvE things they LEAST WANT TO DO from the hordes of hisec players who would MOST WANT TO DO THOSE THINGS FOR THEM if only the game mechanics promoted this instead of throwing up massive barriers to entry at every turn?

    See how insane the current setup sounds when framed properly?

    The fix is simple. Overhaul nullsec mechanics so that sov alliances benefit from neutral carebears using their space. And don't bring up rental agreements, pets, etc. Meta-game rental agreements, politics, and standings maintenance are EXACTLY the social game hisec carebears DON'T WANT TO PLAY and WILL NEVER PLAY, no matter how appealing you make the risk/reward.

    Remove the barrier to solo play by fixing mechanics so that NRDS is the only rational choice, stop alliance income from being threatened by neutral carebears using their territory, THEN fix the spectrum of risk/reward, and null will be the most popular place in space. Passive taxation of neutral activity in sov space should be THE DOMINANT form of alliance income, far outstripping anything they could earn trying to keep all the mining/ratting/moongoo to themselves. New mechanics for null must make NRDS the only rational policy (and it isn't hard to think up simple, exciting mechanics that enable this which also serve as inter-alliance conflict drivers and pvp flash points).

    Let the carebears play the solo game they want because not acknowledging this reality is a fatal error. Turn that perceived deficiency into the supporting pillar of nullsec by making neutral PLAYERS the fundamental resource at the bottom of the nullsec foodchain.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent suggestions and more in line with what I would expect a prospective CSM to present. A far more reasonable solution than the scorched earth policy James 315 is presenting.

      And before the New Order fellows jump on this be aware there are many of us who enjoy the New Order mechanic. It makes highsec exciting and has also caused different corps to become involved and talking to each other in systems where normally no one says boo to each other. Yes for the some it results in miner tears but for the majority we have a good laugh at the results.

      Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater.

      Delete
    2. This is right on the money, and perfectly captures the mindset and needs of the solo player. An MMO has to have space for introverts as well. As a high sec mission pilot whose only regular PVP is RvB and only exposure to low and null is public roams, I'd love to spend more time in the rest of Eve. I don't mind risk. What I don't want is a lot of conversation and navigating primate social hierarchies. If it became easier for me to PVE solo in sov space, I wouldn't care what you did to high sec after that, because I'd be in null.

      James, your distaste for politics as usual has apparently prevented you from learning the maxim that politics is the art of the possible. Could you give some indication of what your platform will be when CCP refuses every one of your demands? When you're like "Hey, let's persuade people to stop playing Eve in droves" and they're like "No", what then?

      Delete
    3. thumbs up for a great post.

      Delete
    4. This is actually exactly how I feel.

      CVA-held Providence was a fantastic case-study of how Nullsec ought to be, even though in my opinion CVA did not profit nearly enough from sheltering all the carebears as evidenced by the fact that it was roleplay reasons and not profit that motivated their gameplay.

      Oh sure, I got myself permanently redlisted by blowing up someone's failfit Apocalypse... But that's the food chain concept in action.

      Really though my reasons for voting for James 315 is based on a Left vs Right dichotomy concerning the current status quo. Left would be fewer rules and a trend toward PvP warlands and right would be preservation of the game's current trajectory towards carebear themepark. James is firmly in the Left, and the game has been drifting right for too long.

      I highly doubt James will achieve anything on his agenda fully, but he will do his best to nudge devs toward a more left-drifting mindset.

      Delete
    5. This, this, a thousand times THIS

      Delete
    6. Hear, hear. Get a nym, nony, so we can look for you in future.

      Delete
    7. "
      Do you see Gallente police chasing miners out of their asteroid belts? Do you see the Caldari navy shooting at neutrals who rat in their space? No. So, the real question to ask is...

      Why in the world do nullsec mechanics encourage nullsec dwellers to jealously protect those PvE things they LEAST WANT TO DO from the hordes of hisec players who would MOST WANT TO DO THOSE THINGS FOR THEM if only the game mechanics promoted this instead of throwing up massive barriers to entry at every turn?

      See how insane the current setup sounds when framed properly?
      "

      This is a false comparison. Is it possible for those highsec miners and missioners to actually be spies, and at a prearranged signal they turn around and blow the gallente or caldari faction navies to smithereens? No, that's impossible, game mechanics don't allow it. Would that be possible in nullsec? Yes, game mechanics would allow it. Are you proposing some change to that, where you enter sov space but give up the ability to shoot the sovholders ships? Will the sovholders ships share this limitation in reverse? you talk about fundamental game mechanics changes, implying ones this incredibly fundamental, but give zero specifics. I really have no concrete idea what you're suggesting unfortunately.

      Without such draconian and unspecified changes, the renter/guest agreements you disparage will be necessary to prevent such false flag operations, in areas of sov where the sovholding inhabitants have sufficient enemies to warrant such caution, at least. Adding further incentives to have guests/renters who are focused on more solo-type play is certainly possible, and possibly worthwhile, but the exact picture you've drawn up is a fantasy, a fantasy which you've disguised by not providing specific details.

      Delete
    8. Audrik, of course trojan horsing should be possible. This is EVE. There does not need to be exact symmetry between highsec and nullsec. But that said, nullsec should be given tools similar to those in highsec if it would promote the economic viability of null.

      It is not hard to think of mechanics to allow Null sovereigns to create security and benefit from economic activity in their domain. Highsec has such tools. We should use many of the same tools as are used in highsec.

      Extend the use of the criminal flag, so that it is applied in null sov according to rules that the sovereign can specify. This allows the locals to determine who is ninjaing and who is paying taxes. And also who, for that matter, just attacked another neutral (if that is considered unlawful by the sovereign). Or took from a can (if that considered unlawful).

      Also extend the use of the safety, so that you can set it to green/yellow/red according to your intent to break rules or not. If yellow, you get warning dialogs. If green, you autopay taxes. If red, you never pay taxes.

      So, for ratting. Each time you get a ratting payout from Concord, you get a dialog box. "Pay local ratting tax of N%" If you pay, you lose N% of the ratting payment. If you do not pay, you lose 0% and get a criminal flag for 15 minutes, so long as you are in the sov space of the current sovereign. Either way, maybe your decision is logged somewhere, and the sovereign can review it to decide whether to make you non grata in his space. Maybe not.

      For mining: create Player Owned Taxation Hubs, an anchorable object. No more than one can be anchored per grid. POTHs have configurable rules about who is allowed to occupy its grid, analogous to how POCOs are controlled. When you are on grid with one for more than 2 minutes, it demands tax (a flat fee for 15 minutes occupancy of the grid). You can pay or not as you like, with non-payment again getting you a criminal flag in that sov space and maybe logged somewhere. You should also have the option to shoot the POTH, of course, though this is likely to be frowned upon locally. Farms and fields.

      (POTHs should also be allowed in highsec. Mwahaha, miners, pay your taxes! Note that POTHs allow miners to exclude bumpers -- there you go, carebears, something for you. Of course POTHs are corp-owned structures. Wardecs. Mmmm, war. Unlike James, I want to bring more war to highsec, not drive people out.)

      This leaves exploration complexes. These are harder to figure a way to tax, but I can do it. There are several kinds of ships and cargo not allowed in highsec. Well then: allow null sovereigns to define contraband, on a per-item basis, all ships and modules found in the game. Heck, and all cargo too; why not?

      To tax explorers, null sovs can scan incomers and tax probe launchers. (Or just ban them.) If you want to carry a basic probe launcher into my nullsec home, the price is 100m isk. Or a billion. Combat probe launcher? Not allowed.

      To make it easier on null sovholders, who do not want to be low-level customs agents, create automatic customs agents: anchorable objects which scan all ships in range (100 km) to check for contraband, flagging as criminal anyone who leaves grid with contraband in cargo or on ship.

      Delete
    9. Let me analyze your proposal here, Von Keigai: In essence, you want to deal with the problematic situation of certain activities being so boring and simple that people bot them, the proceeds from these bots then being collected later by humans, by creating another large set of rules and mechanics to govern the first set of activities, which set of rules and mechanics is even more simple and boring than the first set, but it's ok because CCP will create ingame bots that do those activities for us with funny names like POTHs and ACAs. In this system, humans will conduct the operations that used to be conducted by bots, like mine and rat, but the bots will perform the operations that used to be conducted by humans, i.e. collect and organize the products of mining and ratting. With these changes you hope to put all humans on an equal footing and distribution through space, which, while below bots, will at least not be below other humans. In addition, these overlord bots will function as new conflict points in space, like the beloved buttons in FW, and the beloved sov structures of universally-enjoyed sov-grinding in null.

      ...

      Well done satire, very Swiftian, but I think we're beyond satire and to the point of proposing real solutions, here.

      Delete
    10. There are no humans currently taxing the products of solo miner and ratters. (The NO does apply a very mild tax -- but look at how hard it is.) That is the problem I seek to address.

      The intention is to make it easy for organized players to benefit from their ability to dominate solo players. Currently the group can systematically dominate the individual (and that is how it should be). But it is very hard for the group to systematically exploit the individual, and that is the problem my proposals address. The problem is particularly acute in null, where there are no solo operators. But it is also a problem in highsec, in that the average carebear can easily and cheaply avoid all conflict.

      It is because the group cannot easily exploit the individual that null is a wasteland. Right now, could a sov null corp open up their space to all comers and attempt to collect taxes? Well... theoretically they could. But it would be taxation on the honor system, or else every member of the corp would have to spend large amounts of time policing every belt, anomaly, and complex. No wonder that nobody does.

      And yes, the new structures would serve as "new conflict points in space". You have that right. That's a feature, not a bug. It fits my desired idea of EVE, namely: more conflict, more fighting, and more war. But they need not be hard to destroy nor expensive to serve their function, so killing them need not be a grind.

      Delete
    11. So we started with : "The issue is that nullsec is a place where you must play with other people to succeed, while hisec rewards solo or near-solo play (yes yes, before the 20 "I ninja rat/mine/whatever in null all the time all by my awesome self"... you are elite and we all bow before your superiority and excellence... you are the tiny minority that proves the rule)."

      But now the only problem has morphed into "It is because the group cannot easily exploit the individual that null is a wasteland. "

      No. Null is a wasteland because hisec incursions and level 4's make similar money with less danger. Adding in more ways for the group to exploit the individual only makes nullsec LESS attractive in comparison. The original poster was deceptively trying to say that we could fix highsec by replicating the problems of highsec in nullsec, as if that was a step forward instead of a giant step backwards. So I was approaching him in a roundabout way to pin him down with specifics. But you, Von Keigai, are just spewing nonsense. Adding taxation to nullsec will not make it more attractive when compared to overrewarded highsec. That is the most ridiculous idea I've heard all year. Where do you live, that you think increased taxation is a reward? Mars?

      Delete
  28. "You can play the game however you want, as long as it's how I want you to." No thanks.

    ReplyDelete
  29. zzzzzzzzzz....

    Please get back to the RP-ing and emergent gameplay as soon as possible and end this boring tangent from the great content you usually give us. Stop wasting your time with this, no one takes you seriously. And anyways, why would anyone want to support the kind of changes that would kill off the new order?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The point of the new order is to drive PVE people out of high sec, so they can finally start to have fun instead of mindlessly grind ISK.

      Delete
    2. Sounds like you've not been reading minerbumping.com much. The point of the new order is to elicit interesting and fun reactions from the players whose world they're rocking nothing more and nothing less. Right now new order does well in moving and following the fishing grounds as they react to the ebb and flow of the new order's harvesting. To drive away your food via game wide changes is to starve yourself.

      If James is really being serious about trying to make those said changes, a vote for him is a vote to end the interesting content that is the new order. If its really his desire to change the eve world into a no risk, easy to find prey whenever you want universe for the bottom rung feeders then its a sad day that james has fallen victim to the delusions of his own in game character.

      In any case I have a higher faith in james that the above post is just more in-character blabbering of a religious mad man and we'll get back to great content that the new order has been creating in eve.

      Delete
  30. So James, your idea to improve the overall game is to get rid of the vast majority of paying subscribers.

    ReplyDelete
  31. James,

    Please tell me how you will recompense for the loss of CCPs income when a majority of the casual players unsubscribe.

    Please tell me how you will attract and retain new subscribers in a high sec that has been "nerfed into oblivion". Especially important given it is where EVERYONE starts off.

    Please tell me how you will retain those players whose high sec activities fund their preferred play styles in low or null sec.

    Please tell me who is going to mine all of the low end minerals and build the ships you fly.

    Please tell me who is going to grind for sufficient sec status for the research agents to gain the datacores and invent (and build) the T2 items.

    Go for it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. James is not an idiot. He surely knows that a lot of what he's suggesting will never come to pass. Someone needs to sit on that side of the fence though. How is his position any more ridiculous that the morons who suggest that they should be completely immune from non-consensual interaction while they make their risk-free spacebucks? Their lunacy has ruined several vital and fun professions in the game, and has given us the terrible afk barge buff of 2012. His position offers some downward pressure on this rising swell of carebear entitlement and is a viewpoint that I think is important to be heard.

      Delete
    2. If " He surely knows that a lot of what he's suggesting will never come to pass" is his overall contribution to the CSM, I instead suggest we send a Poo-Flinging Monkey.

      Same thing really....

      Delete
    3. "James is not an idiot."

      A fool with a messiah complex perhaps?

      "He surely knows that a lot of what he's suggesting will never come to pass. Someone needs to sit on that side of the fence though."

      "How is his position any more ridiculous that the morons who suggest that they should be completely immune from non-consensual interaction while they make their risk-free spacebucks?"

      Are any of them running for CSM?

      "Their lunacy has ruined several vital and fun professions in the game, and has given us the terrible afk barge buff of 2012."

      You assume that all barge owners are AFK'ers? Generalisations submitted without evidence can easily be dismissed as such. :P

      I'm primarily a combat pilot, but it's (barge buff) been a boon to me as I can head out in a Procurer, grab enough ore to refine the minerals I need for ammo production (for example) and get on with other activities in half the mining time I would have previously.

      "His position offers some downward pressure on this rising swell of carebear entitlement and is a viewpoint that I think is important to be heard."

      His actual position is ill-considered, untenable and only takes into account playstyles her personally approves of. It will have absolutely no effect on "carebear entitlement" (which is really only of concern to lazy PvP'ers wanting easy kills to pad out their kb's, let's be frank) and I'll wager he'll be largely ignored if he does get elected.

      The would be Emperor of Highsec is pasty, saggy and stark naked. This absurd article shows it in all it's absurd glory.

      Delete
  32. James is an idiot. You will not get a high number of votes.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Is your plan an outline on how to make EVE Online collapse and die?

    ReplyDelete
  34. The real cancer of EVE is that a lot of players think that losing their pixels is a tragedy. You don't really have fun in EVE until you get to the point where losing some ships is not a problem.

    You would be surprised how many people stayed for years in high sec for fear of losing stuff, and then finally tried to go to low and fight just to finally get how much fun they can truly have when they play the game instead of farming for no real reason to pile up stuff they will never really use and lose.

    James' ideas will result in a lot more entertained players; entertained players keep their subscriptions active and bring friends. James 315 for CSM 8.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If a game gives me reasonable tools to replace my "space pixels", of course it's fun, but if the only way to get the isk to get more ships means that I am limited to one or two styles of play, that's not much of a sandbox, and a lot of Corps just gives orders, not encourage, and a lot of others just have "you need this many SP or GTFO".

      I'd rather have much cheaper ships, but mechanics that punish too many losses, like insurance going up, or having insured ships take X amount of game time to get manufactured before being delivered, after all you can just buy 2 or more, but then have to keep up multiple insurance payments ... see the scaling there?

      Right now space pixels can be frigging expensive, ESPECIALLY in a universe with people that just show up and suicide gank you in ships that cost 1/50th of yours.

      I am all for hisec being a less profitable part of the universe, purely because in real life, higher population = lower profit margins, and more of a dog-eat-dog mentality, but some ideas here go overboard.

      Delete
  35. I'm going to vote for James still. Not because I agree with everything he says, I find a lot of it on the ridiculous side of things, but because CCP needs a voice like this to be heard.

    Nerf highsec. Don't burn highsec. Hopefully if James is elected him and CCP can find some middle ground.

    ReplyDelete
  36. And here is where I leave you as well, James. You were a man of great ideals, but your ideas fall flat on the side of chaotic and unbalanced. However, I'd like to make a few points.

    -Nerf highsec mining
    This is true, according to current calculations, highsec mining is more profitable than lowsec mining. To balance this is difficult due to the flaw that your primary minerals, Tritanium, Pyrite, Mexallion.. etc, are most used and most mined. You would need to change all the bp costs to adjust for this. Might be a better way.

    -Nerf highsec missions
    There should be less in 0.6+ and better, yes. The rewards of a highsec Level 4, however, is greatly better in lowsec and not needed to be fixed. If the missions, however, were more pvp-orientated (such that a pvp ship could do a level 4 decently well), then this would not be neeed, as missioners would naturally go to lowsec to capitalize.

    -Nerf Highsec incursion
    See above.

    -Concord reaction
    Boomerangs could come back, but everything else is pretty good as is. You rarely see a pilot willingly lower sec to return to highsec. You take less sec damage the lower sec you're in, works just fine.

    -Buff Lowsec
    Lowsec rats have increased rate of better drops. It does not need buffing. However, I do agree with more access points.

    -Nullsec Belts
    Grav sites offer better rewards and better challenges, and require a good team and smart scanners. Belts should not be congested from a design point. (If you want to kill someone, fucking earn it, baby)

    -Local appearance
    No. No. No. Although a scant 15s or so between gatedrop and actually entrance into the system is enough time to fuck up a lot of metrics, and do nothing but hurt the balance of the game. A paranoid miner would leave regardless of when the name happens into a local, so adding ~5s to the pirate's time is just stupid. The time a miner upon instantly seeing a name pop up in local, is LESS (on most cases), than the time for the pirate to choose the field he's in. You can't 'align' during mining either, so it's 100% unfair to the victim in a field.

    -Moongoo.
    This is a little tricky because PVP in Nullsec is more.. complicated than area domination. On the basic level, I can see where this makes sense... but on an upper level of political nonsense, it's unnecessarily complicated. I lack experience in this area, so I can not argue on the grounds of this matter, but I feel like it's a bit 'much'.

    You have good IDEAS, but you take them too far. You want all of space to run like lowsec, which is valid, but not good for development standpoint. You want to lure players into lowsec by offering better rewards, and it's not CLEAR to the players that there is better money. You DO NOT want to force them to adopt lowsec policy off the bat... it's just not for everyone. It works for you, yes, but not everyone.

    "Oh well they should just learn how to play and stop qq" is not a valid argument either. A player needs to be made aware of better profit in the lower space in order to move into it. An ice miner makes decent money just sitting in the field, so why would they move? Gankers and warcorps, and show off on how shiny things are in lowsec (Metaphorically), and they'll naturally want to migrate there. New Order is doing that very well.

    You want to lure the player with candy, not beat them with a stick (or at least limit the beatings). It's a psychological ploy that other MMORPGs have pulled and have GREAT success, and it can also apply here.

    -Oey

    ReplyDelete
  37. OMFG! James has even surprised me! I thought he might, just maybe, have a bit of a clue about EvE. But no, James315 has just proven to every eve player that he doesn't have the faintest idea about what makes this game so good (hint: sandbox).

    TL;DR for his campaign that has undoubtedly originated from his dreams:

    James315 pictures himself reclining on a chaise lounge dreaming about his grandeur..."I am the one who decides who can do what and where. I am ruler of EvE. A sandbox means nothing to me. NOTHING!!! Muuuhahahaha."
    He slips deeper into his dream...
    "Hey you, you over there. Hey peasant, bring me a beer and suck me dry this instant! Maybe I'll let you back into highsec to grind some standings, but only if you're a good boy and kiss me on the lips afterwards..." as James315 slowly wanks himself into a coma, never to be heard from again...

    ReplyDelete
  38. >> Probing is an activity few normal people enjoy, so it adds nothing to the game, and it makes things more difficult for predators.

    Thats me !

    Dear James, what is your problem with anormal people in Eve ? - Normal people will play WoW. I realy enjoy probe scanning for explorations and i like this cool interface, how can you dare not to do ? - I'm sorry you dislike this trigonometrical survey stuff, it's maybe the most nerdish tool in Eve. I will forgive you this ignorance, none is perfect but J.R. 'Bob' Dobbs.
    Explorations are the soldier of fortune style to make PvE income, probing is my preferred way to enable PvE content and it's happend in space not on stations with a boring table app style interface... take this evil produktion or science for example and i don't want to talk about mining.
    Better idea is removing Combat Scanner Probes & buffing the D-Scan by enabling a warp in point to player ships & structures on 5° D-Scan.

    Explorers are in the foot chain too. They have to change frequently the system until searching the side. You can ambush explorers on this hidden places and with the d-Scan buff i suggested a dirty pirat can follow the brave explorer by warping on his d-Scan Signature. (This will work with pilots in mission sides too)
    There is an other aspect i like on explorations.. it is the native direct competion. The Explorers greatest foe this days are other explorers. Ninja looting is already happend, shooting each other for a >100 mio shining loot absolut warrantable and sane.

    In the name of the "Sisters of Eve explorer society" i praise the probe scanning and demand James 315 should stopping his scurrilous fight against the cryptic tools of my brotherhood, insiders of the lost ancient knowledge, the last anormal people & mutants in New Eden.


    Ohh and the rest ? - absolut reasonable ideas.

    Hoax Theokratis



    ReplyDelete
  39. I was in it for the lulz. I believe most of us were. This is taking it all to a point where nobody in his right mind can follow. I am actually stunned by the sheer amount of stupidity i had to read here. Whoever will continue to support this kind of policy is undoubtedly carrying a big "I just dont get it" sign around.

    see you on the other side.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm loving this post. Honestly I really am. I've e done a bit of ganking in my time. It's not very stimulating to me as I prefer a challenge that involves some skill. I don't mind if those who don't have PvP skills go ganking and pretend they are somehow awesome. It's all a part of the great game we play.

    Reading this blog for a few weeks though, I started to become concerned that I'd missed something. There were lots of people saying how great they are and how ganking is just pure awesomeness and that they are far superior to miners and that they brilliant for creating "new" (dont make me laugh) content. I cam to a conclusion that I've either completely missed the enjoyment / skill / awesomeness side of ganking OR those on this blog are, well, a bit on the special side and went to special schools.

    So why do I love this blog post? It's shown me that the latter case is true and that I haven't missed out on anything. Phew.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Reading this I really hope you DON'T get into the CSM as you clearly have no intention of improving EVE as a while but merely your own preferred play style.

    Your manifesto reads like a single minded child: "I don't like x therefore x should be removed" or "I want more tears because I love yummy tears":

    "We'll shift the focus back to belts. I don't like anomalies, grav-sites, or whatever it is that people scan for. I'd prefer to have PvE done in belts. Probing is an activity few normal people enjoy, so it adds nothing to the game, and it makes things more difficult for predators"

    Read: I don't like exploration therefore it should be removed. I want my pray on a silver platter - if they are forced onto belts you wouldn't even have to DScan then, you could just pick a belt, warp to it and chow down on an miner. Mmm yummy tears and an easy target that couldn't possibly fight back - I'm such a big strong man!

    "Highsec missioning will be nerfed into oblivion. Nothing higher than Level 2 missions will be available. All the rest goes into lowsec."

    Read: I think mission running sucks and therefore should be removed. I also want some nice tasty mission running ships to kill.

    Mmm yummy tears and an easy target that couldn't possibly fight back - I'm such a big strong man!

    Missions are well known for requiring a different fit than PvP so essentially all your doing by moving L3s and L4s into low sec is setting up easier and bigger targets to take out because they have poor fits for PvP, often bigger slower ships easier to gate camp and scan down.

    A real CSM would find a way to make missions work with an PvP fit so that if the mission runner was attacked they'd have a decent chance of fighting back or running away.

    L5s died a death because they went into low sec and if you do the same for L3s and L4s players will simply grind L2s endlessly or get bored and quit.

    "-Concord and faction police will take twice as long to respond, effectively making it twice as easy to be ganked.

    - The firepower of sentry guns in highsec will be cut in half. I think it's excessive at the moment.

    - The "boomerang" will be brought back. Concord will still kill you, but you can warp away as before. Boomerang ganking required sufficient skill, effort, and luck that I consider it a fair, legitimate tactic.

    - Security status losses will be greatly diminished. I don't have an exact figure, but I don't like the idea that people who commit "crimes" in highsec should need to spend a long time grinding to make up for it. That imposes boredom on the very people who obviously like it least."

    Read: I want it to be MUCH easier and cheaper for me to gank you - even in the far less valuable and interesting high sec I want to be able to gank you and be able to avoid loss myself by avoiding concord or gate guns while still being able to access station facilities by keeping my security status.

    EVE is a sandbox game and therefore multiple play styles should be encouraged and made to feel important parts of the game. If you nerf high sec you'll force probably about 80 - 90% of the games subscribers to quit - simple as that.

    Once they've quit EVE will die because you've forced out everyone who doesn't play like you and then CCP will struggle to develop new content without the income from all the bears you've just forced to quit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Once they've quit EVE will die because you've forced out everyone who doesn't play like you and then CCP will struggle to develop new content without the income from all the bears you've just forced to quit."
      Funny.. There are a lot of posting here and on eve online forum from players accuse cearbears weeping to CPP for gank nerfs & security buffs.

      At all James post a direct mirror of the usual sandbox to cement mixer demants.

      James is a real disciple of Eris Discordia

      Hail Eris !


      Delete
    2. Personally I think that High sec is just fine at it is - the barge changes has made things much better and now I think both miner and ganker are on a level playing field.

      If miners want to be safe they can either add a tank or use an less efficient barge. If a ganker wants to still gank they know what ships are weak and can carry on as before - at least now the miner has an option of a far better tank that could withstand a lot of punishment and the ganker can select the required target.

      Any nerfs to highsec would also kill PvP because of the economic affect - just look at the after effects of hulkagedden that we're still living through. A 5 mil cruiser is now 12 mil, a 80mil battleship is now 150mil and so on across the board.

      Less miners means less ore, less ore means higher material prices, higher material prices means higher ship prices, higher ship prices means higher loss in PvP and therefore less PvP activity due to the increased cost of failure.

      PvPers would either stop completely due to the restrictive costs or be forced into the new low sec L4s, but due to the risk of running them solo would be forced into groups for protection and the individual ISK production would be vastly reduced meaning that a 20mil L4 mission becomes a 5mil share. Players who want to PvP would be stuck with slow grindy missions to pay for it and eventually get pissed off and quit.

      Its ironic really as the real solution to get more people into low / null / PvP is to REDUCE cost of failure, which means MORE miners.

      More miners means lower cost of ore, lower material costs and therefore lower ship & equipment costs. Lower ships & modules means a lower cost of entry and lower cost of failure which means more people are encouraged into more lucrative low / null sec activities due to a better reward and an acceptable risk & cost of failure.

      If people don't want to leave high sec then fine, let them play around with the low end ores and slave away for little profit or boring missions - if they enjoy it then why deprive them of that pleasure to give you more targets to shoot at?

      Delete
    3. Anomalies have ruined small roaming gangs in nullsec.

      Once upon a time you could jump in a small gang with your corp and head out to null on a bit of a roam. By having a scout who was extremely good at d-scanning, or bomb-bursting the belts of the next system, during a typical roam, you would probably get the jump on a couple of careless ratters sitting in belts in some big alliances space.

      Often this would mean a defensive force was quickly formed by the alliance in question and oodles of fun was had by all, chasing around nullsec inflicting damage on each other.

      Sometimes traps would be laid for the roaming gangs, or jump bridges utilized to set up gate camps to catch them as the left an alliance's area, sometimes the roaming gangs would dominate the nullsec patch they chose to patrol and literally break the alliances will to live there.

      All these activities stemmed from the fact that there were targets out there in the first place; the players ratting in the belts. As soon as anomalies were added, everyone started using them instead; now a roaming gang had to spend relatively large amounts of time scanning the anomalies down and then trying to find out which ones were occupied, all whilst the ratting targets safed up and cloaked.

      Suddenly no targets, which meant no roams, no chases, no combat, no traps, no FC's trying to out-guess each other. No fun

      Nullsec turned into blobs and AFK cloakers

      Anomalies need to go and the rewards moved back to the belts, where there will be associated risk

      Delete
  42. Well, I read all of that and I disagree with most of it, which shouldn't surprise anyone who's read anything else I've ever written. I can't say the ideas are wrong - I'm just a guy who plays EVE and has opinions about it, James 315 is also a guy who plays EVE and has opinions about it. I don't think either of us has access to any special information that makes either of our opinions more valid.

    What I do want to bring up is that obviously James' platform is going to be very contentious with CCP and probably with other CSM members if he gets elected; there flat out will not be a full CSM of people sharing his views on how the game should be. Given that, how will James 315 handle the CSM role if none of the things on his platform even come up? Or if CCP ask the CSM for information on a change that runs counter to James’ sandbox/food chain ideology? Imagine if CCP ask the CSM for changes they could make to implement some increased level of safety for new players, to try and improve retention rates, for example. “I disagree with this idea” frankly isn’t a helpful response in that situation - CCP will make changes anyway. Could James 315 work with CCP on something like that, and with the rest of the CSM?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm not voting for someone who will smile and nod and help CCP make ruinous changes that will make EVE no longer EVE. The reason I'm voting for CSM members isn't to provide CCP with devs who will work for free...it's to be a representative for me. By voting for James315, I send a message that his platform resonates with me. Why have so many people been successfully brainwashed by CSM7 that if you don't vote for an "intern dev" who will work for free for CCP, no matter what CCP asks them to do, that your vote has been wasted? The exact opposite is true. If you vote for such a spineless person, who prioritizes helping CCP over representing those who voted for him, then your vote has been wasted. CCP could hire free interns without us.

      Delete
    2. That's a lovely sentiment, but what use is electing someone who is just going to say "No, that's a bad idea, don't do it, do what I think" over and over instead? CCP is under no obligation to act on anything a CSM says and if that's all the input he provides he'll get shut out of the process pretty fast. That's why I'm curious whether James would compromise or not.

      Incidentally you can actually blame CSM 6 for the idea that CSMs have input into/responsibility for game design - they started it and the whole "platforms" concept when the nullsec blocs started electing their guys to CSM seats (originally because the mostly-non-null CSM 5 were asked about changes to jumpbridges and basically shrugged and said "sure, nerf 'em" - Null residents were not happy) specifically as "Nullsec candidates", then it was cemented when Mittens claimed most of the credit for resolving the Jita riots and the CCP refocus that lead to Inferno. He then built on that with the CSM 7 elections when he talked about needing the chair as a "mandate" from the players, but the other candidates jumped on the same bandwagon at the time too.

      Personally, my votes will go out to people I think can provide CCP an informed and relatively unbiased view across the widest possible gameplay areas, and who are likely to work with the communities involved in any changes. I'm not really interested in their list of "How I would fix EVE" bullet points except in so far as it provides info about their more general stance and opinion.

      Delete
    3. "That's a lovely sentiment, but what use is electing someone who is just going to say "No, that's a bad idea, don't do it, do what I think" over and over instead?"

      Nice little strawman you got there. What do you call him?

      " they started it and the whole "platforms" concept when the nullsec blocs started electing their guys to CSM seats (originally because the mostly-non-null CSM 5 were asked about changes to jumpbridges and basically shrugged and said "sure, nerf 'em" - Null residents were not happy)"

      This actually follows the model I laid out, not the one you laid out--CSM as representatives of player interests, not as workerbees working for CCP for free. Not sure why this basic point eludes you.

      "Personally, my votes will go out to people I think can provide CCP an informed and relatively unbiased view across the widest possible gameplay areas"

      Let me guess, IRL you don't vote for left politicians, or right, or environmentalists, or pro-business politicians. you vote for people who promise to represent all people equally, citizens and those abroad, and be all things to all people? here's a hint: those politicians are liars, and what they promise to do is fundamentally impossible. You can't represent both sides in some of these debates, it's meaningless to even say you tried. Being fair and open is a good thing, but eventually you have to make decisions and take positions, or you might as well not exist. At least your incoherent position fits with your name.

      Delete
    4. Wow, someone's not a happy bunny.

      I'm not really sure where the strawman is here - you're the one who said you wanted James 315 on the CSM to send a message that you support his platform.

      Let's say James 315 gets elected; as I see it, here are the possible outcomes:
      - He presents his ideas to CCP, presumably not directly (as you continually point out, he is not being elected as an intern dev) but through suggestions, they are supported by other CSMs and the CCP devs involved and in more or less the published form make it into the game. To me this seems very unlikely; at the very least we know that many popular CSM 8 candidates have different views and based on the CSM summit minutes it seems CCP do as well.
      - He presents his ideas to CCP as above but they do not find favour with the other CSM candidates or CCP devs. James 315 refuses to compromise on his points, all his feedback is based on the ideas of increasing risk for PvE players and targets for PvP players; he sends the message you want CCP to get. He cites his vote count and the number of supporters for the New Order as evidence players want these changes but the other CSMs can cite their combined vote count and the vocal opposition to the New Order as evidence that many more do not. James 315 provides little actual input into EVE design during the CSM term as his insistence on an all-or-nothing approach is consistently rejected.
      - He presents his ideas as originally stated, they do not find favour as above, but James 315 is willing to compromise and accept input and feedback from other viewpoints and provides useful input on eventual changes; the end result looks nothing at all like the proposal outlined above but has had some ganker/predator-focused input.

      The difference between the last 2 options there is why I am interested in knowing if James 315 will compromise, and if so where and how far. Unless the CSM and CCP are completely stacked with other people who think like James, which seems impossible, the alternative really is sitting in the CSM skype channel and in summits etc saying repeatedly "This is wrong".

      I actually agree that CSM are representatives for player interests (note, "are" not "should be" - popular opinion views them as junior devs but CCP never have). I was just pointing out that it was CSM 6 rather than 7 that are responsible for fostering the impression that they are more than that. Not sure why that basic point eluded you.

      As for IRL, no - I vote for politicians based on their manifestos, for the ones whose ideas most strongly agree with my own. The key difference there is that the politicians at least potentially have the power to enact those changes, which CSM does not. All CSM can do is offer advice, which is why I vote for them based on the quality of the advice I expect them to be able to offer.

      Delete
    5. "I'm not really sure where the strawman is here"

      Well, I've already quoted it for you, perhaps you might try visiting your local optometrist?

      "Unless the CSM and CCP are completely stacked with other people who think like James, which seems impossible, the alternative really is sitting in the CSM skype channel and in summits etc saying repeatedly "This is wrong"."

      No, it's really not. You keep claiming that it's necessary to "compromise" to have a meaningful discussion. This is simply nonsense. We, you and I, could have a meaningful discussion without compromising, if you'd stop making factually incorrect statements.

      "I was just pointing out that it was CSM 6 rather than 7 that are responsible for fostering the impression that they are more than that. Not sure why that basic point eluded you."

      Because it was incorrect. I'm not talking about being "more than that", I'm talking about being "less than that". Not sure why that basic point eluded you.

      "All CSM can do is offer advice, which is why I vote for them based on the quality of the advice I expect them to be able to offer."

      So the less likely someone will be called upon to dealmake and compromise, the more likely you'll vote on someone based upon their skills at doing so. Quite incoherent.

      Won't respond to you again unless you say something different. We're not going to get anywhere if you keep maintaining that fundamental compromise is a necessary precondition for basic discussion. It's a bit of a paradox, the way you put it. How could people work out what that compromise was without the ability to hold a meaningful discussion about that first? If someone truly believed your odd set of ideals fully, they would believe that communication was always and forever impossible, because under your ideals communication requires compromise, but the details of said compromise require communication to implement. A sad paradox for a sad little man.

      Delete
  43. James,

    I hope you take me up on the offer to an interview as laid out here: http://crossingzebras.com/post/40699271518/electioninterviews

    All the main candidates already have interviews booked starting with Mynnna tomorrow evening and I'd love to add you to the list.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also would like to see James participate in this.

      Delete
  44. man sollte den sicherheitsstatus noch mehr senken im high sec wenn man ungefragt angreift und nicht anders rum. ins low oder 0.0 alles zu legen wird nih gehn da es zu viel gelegenheits spieler gibt, mit deinen wünschen würde ccp noch mehr eve spieler verlieren und nicht gewinnen!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1 sehe ich ebenfalls so. Zumal die Leute nicht begreifen wollen, dass dank der Miner, die Marktpreise niedrig sind. Mag sein das viele nur Minern wegen den ISK, das ändert aber nichts an der Tatsache das dadurch Preise niedrig bleiben.

      Neueinsteiger werden noch schneller verschreckt.. naja, hoffen wir einfach das der Typ keinen Erfolg haben wird.

      Delete
  45. So your plan is, "I don't have enough safe targets too shoot at without repercussions because of game mechanics... So lets get rid of said mechanics and implement a WoW PVP server mechanic of lowbie gankability. " its good too see not everyone in Eve hates WoW

    ReplyDelete
  46. I was a member of Goonfleet and did the null blob SoV warfare.
    I was a member of CVA, fighting an uphill battle for Providence.
    I prefer being a research scientist and trader in high sec.

    Introducing new players to a wider ranger of activities that they may enjoy is a good thing, but it should not be done at the expense of others' experiences.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Replies
    1. It never left, but it was rendered obsolete by barge/exhumer buffs. Mining Rokh was a beast, wasn't it?

      Delete
  48. "I would still keep highsec contiguous, though."

    Does that mean elimination of high sec islands (see: Solitude)?

    ReplyDelete
  49. High sec is the most populated zone in EVE because everyone has at least an alt there, even people who dwell in low and null sec. High Sec has too much rewards and convenience. That's why EVE is very stale at the moment...for the good of what makes EVE the special game it is (or should be), we need to shift the game balance from high sec to low and null sec, where players have to fight for what they want and defend what they have. EVE is emergent gameplay, the rest is just unnecessary ISK leeches that contrubute nothing to the game. Fight for it, James. For CSM 8.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the players pay for a sandbox game, and they want to play it the like! get this in your brain.

      if the players must go to lowsec, than they quit the game and ccp has no more payment, no aur income, and you have no stuff, because of the miners you have minerals to produce and sell items.

      Delete
    2. Get this in your brain: a game where you can play as you want without risk or interference from other players is not a sandbox, it's a collection of minigames. In a sandbox there are no limits to interactions, positive and negative.

      Also this: in no shape or form high sec miners are necessary for economy. They are ISK leeches. I don't know where high sec miners get the idea that they are "necessary". The only thing they do is lowering ore prices, nothing more.

      Delete
    3. and with low ore prices you get low stuff!! ban all the miners and a hurrican (as example) will no longer cost 40mio, but 100mio... you must longer to get this ship... without that money

      Delete
    4. "ban all the miners"

      Which CSM8 candidate has that in their platform? That's a platform I'd like to read. Not sure how it's relevant here, though.

      Delete
    5. You realize you can mine in low and null sec too right? We're talking about HIGH SEC miners. What would be good for eve would be miners exposed to risks, that need defense from pvp ships. We'd get the ore we need with a nice topping of small scale pvp. We'd get a meaningful and engaging way of playing the miner role. Today we have miners who go AFK because mining is too safe and boring.

      HIGH SEC miners are NOT necessary. Miners are. It's not the same thing.

      Delete
  50. Das Bild sagt schon alles, reinste Selbstdarstellung der Typ, völlig Fernab der Realität.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. du wirst gerettet werden und loben die Retter

      Delete
  51. You have my 2 votes, sir

    ReplyDelete
  52. First of all, thank you James for posting this, it really saves me the time of working up the nerve to ask you your platform in-game.

    Second, I agree that you have some good ideas, but maybe they are a little over-the-top. And how would this help the New Order and Highsec?

    ReplyDelete
  53. James, I really hope you get to be on the CSM and I can meet you in Iceland.

    ReplyDelete
  54. I think a couple of things here show a large amount of oversimplification and a couple of things look great.

    New players are the lifeblood of eve. Eve will end if new players drop out too frequently/quickly. Are you sure this extreme hisec nerf won't do that? We have seen changes so much smaller have such big and unpredicted effects in this complex environment, how sure are you that this won't kill new player subs and kill eve?

    Honestly I like the changes making Null more profitable indy-wise (because I live there). Belt-ratting, alliance level taxes and mining taxes would make being a smaller null alliance without moons better.

    I won't really mine in most of lowsec anyway. Profit/hr is cut into shittyness by warping out at the presence of neutrals. I'm definitely not mining at all if your changes occur.

    TL;DR Your changes are so extreme that the effects are unpredictable at best. I agree with most of the ideas, but please implement carefully and moderately if you are able.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's what I was thinking to say, maybe a "happy medium" can be reached. But then again "A good compromise leaves everyone unhappy" is a saying for a reason.

      Delete
  55. I wanted to write longer comment to this, but I will make it short.
    I am new player, but I have following New Order growth in popularity and I am frankly really afraid. If the changes comes to live, I would likely quit this game. This game is not for me anymore after that. I am sure some of New Order would reply to me like: "This is not game for you, then go away." But I just had to write my thought about this, I have been hiding these feelings for sometime now. Thanks anymore for reading this.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More power to you for writing what you feel, and there are plenty of player corps out there that train new players or have training corps to do that.

      Delete
    2. I wholeheartedly encourage you to come bump with us! Try waking in our shoes for a bit, and you'll truly see what makes EVE great - the freedom to make your fun.

      Feel free to shoot me an EVEMail in game or start a convo if I'm online. I adore new players, and I'll gladly take you under my wing until you have your EVE legs.

      Delete
    3. I also have a corp that has a training corp for pvp if you want to get into that, I could recommend you to the ceo of the full corp, just send an EVEMail to Alistair Drake and we can talk things over, or a convo works if I'm online

      Delete
    4. You are right EVE doesn't need new players like you especially if you are carebear against the code. We have plenty of subscriber to keep game running anyway.

      James for Csm 8

      Delete
  56. Its amusing to see the reaction to this announcement finally starting to take root in the "reality" of the game. I think, however, people are taking things a little too seriously. As another poster already stated, the whole "minerbumping" thing was amusing to people in its inception, but when players start talking about electing legitimate, admitted trolls into positions of -actual power- over their game... Well... This is what you see. People dont -want- to be screwed over. People are amused to see others screwed over. And lets be honest for a millisecond here. The minerbumping guild was formed in its very inception, with the goal of pissing people off.
    This lofty crap about Hi-Sec and the longevity and *ahem* "quality" of the game experience is nothing more than frosting applied to a bowl of smegma. People laugh, but... No one is going to seriously eat that. People laugh when miners get crazy, and to give the boy his due, this is in fact the most elaborate, and frankly well written, troll I have ever seen in all my years of gaming... But, that IS what it is. It's a troll. Its an entire elaborate scheme designed to annoy and irritate players. Now the people who think it funny are starting to understand that this might actually be -your- life. All of a sudden, rationality sets back in.

    In any case, I do not play in Hi-Sec. So the boys plans to make alterations to its existing playstyles are more and less irrelevant to me. What I think it funniest of all is the concept that anyone truly believes CCP would push this list through. The young man is not 'the' CCM... He would be elected to a COUNCIL of CCM's, that are not, in fact, developers of the game. As another poster stated, he will have to show good reason why his ideas would be worth doing. Id pay good, good money, to see James 315's younger real life persona sit there and state his code to the CCP developers, as justification.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see people disagreeing and people agreeing. Sounds pretty normal. You talk like everyone is against the James 315 for CSM idea...but really, I see a lot of support for him, in this comments and in the forum threads as well.

      James 315 4 CSM <---

      Delete
    2. No my young friend. I "talk as though" there are many opposed to him. Not all. As there are many who agree with him.

      Delete
    3. Your words: "As another poster already stated, the whole "minerbumping" thing was amusing to people in its inception, but when players start talking about electing legitimate, admitted trolls into positions of -actual power- over their game... Well... This is what you see. People dont -want- to be screwed over."

      Sounds like the people who liked miner bumping are now rejecting the idea of James 315 in the CSM but that's not true at all. A few disagree with him but that's perfectly normal, no one can achieve 100% agreement from people. You "talk as though" his people are abandoning him, I just pointed out that you're wrong.

      Delete
  57. Less bot-like carebears, more content makers. I like it.

    James 315 4 CSM 8

    ReplyDelete
  58. Eigentlich müsste es ein jump verbot in den high sec geben wenn der sicherheitsstatus zu niedrig ist und die capseln sollten auch gleich zerstört werden und als strafe nicht auf die heimat station sondern ins low sec

    ReplyDelete
  59. For the most part, it sounds good. there are three points that I am agianst:

    * Reducing sec status loss for suicide ganking. If your going to commit crimes in highsec, you should be ready to face the consequences.

    * Nerfing highsec pve into oblivion. Highsec pve needs nerfing, and should have risks, but it should still be there as an option for those who like it.

    * Getting rid of probing. I like probing and exploration, and I think many people would aggre with me.

    Othere then that, your proposed changes sound pretty awsome to me. I live in highsec, but spend most of my logged in time in low, so this would greatly benifit me.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like exploration too...I think James is referring mainly to the sites provided by nullsec sov upgrades. I'm not sure those qualify as 'exploration', as you don't explore to find them, but instead upgrade your system and then know they will be there. Requiring probing them down does nothing but make nullsec safer for PVE. Perhaps I am wrong and he is also referring to all sites which need to be scanned down, whether in hi/low/null/wh, which are real exploration and which I think should be left as is.

      Delete
  60. From the point in the game where I am at this moment, James' program doesn't seem like the right way.

    I'm a new casual player who manages to squeeze in a few hours of game time every week, and after two months of playing I feel I've barely scratched the surface. I've found a home in a backwater 0.9 system where I'm currently taking baby steps up the learning curve, and so far I'm having a really good time.

    In a regular week, I'm doing a little bit of everything, just to get the hang of it. Running a few missions, a bit of hauling and station trading to get a feel for the economy, some probing and manufacturing for the fun of it... and solo mining. Plenty of solo mining, in fact. I'm still at my keyboard, looking through the market or my assets, reading info texts, trying to decide in which direction I want my game to go next. I have never been to low-sec, and I don't expect to go there in a long time. I've also never been in a PvP battle, and I don't want to be in a long time.

    Don't get me wrong here, I'm looking forward to the day I can confidently go into low-sec space and say "ok, I'm ready now, bring it on", it's just that I want it when I'm feeling ready for it. I don't want the game to eat me alive and spit me out just because I didn't learn it fast enough.

    In my eyes, James' proposals seem to encourage exactly that.

    Coming from many years of WoW PvE, low/null-sec is like the end-game for me. Hi-sec is the long road to get there. (I'm going to continue with the WoW analogies here, just because that's the world I know.) To me, hi-sec is like leveling. Learning the mechanics of the game, getting to know the universe, familiarizing myself with the social structures. I'm fine with this not being very lucrative. It's not at all supposed to be.

    However, I want it to be secure. Not so secure that I can leave my ship in the middle of nowhere for an hour without risk (it is a pvp game after all), but so secure that I can focus on learning the game (and there's a lot to learn) and finding my place in the world.

    My impression is that you can currently make hi-sec PvE "the end-game". I can see the problem with that. James' response to this is, if I understand things correctly: a) Eliminate hi-sec PvE, and b) Bring low-sec PvP to hi-sec.

    It's this that just doesn't make sense to me. It just makes the learning curve steeper. You learn less before being thrown out in to the world. This doesn't make better players in my book, if anything it makes fewer players.

    A more reasonable approach would be to make hi-sec not a viable end-game. That's not the same as scaling it down to a place where you spend your time doing tutorial missions for a day or two before moving on. Don't make hi-sec life more harsh or more boring. Just make it transition more naturally into low-sec. EVE should make better players by encouraging the bold ones who wants to live on that edge where you have to be the best you can be. Not by making life miserable for the guy playing the village farmer. Don't say to him "get better or get out". I'd rather be told "Look here, this is what you can be, when you're ready for it".

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "
      A more reasonable approach would be to make hi-sec not a viable end-game. "

      That's exactly what has been proposed. You talk in broad generalities, and what you say sounds to me like exactly what James315's proposal actually is. You never raise anything specific that you're against in the proposal. Do you have any specific issues with specific details of the proposal, or are you just buying into hysterical opponents' overdramatization of the effects?

      Delete
    2. Not "buying into" anything, just reading the post and thinking "this might affect me greatly, and probably not in a way I'm happy with".
      I can try picking out a few points that got me worried. (This might get a bit long, which is why I deliberately kept things broad in the above comment.)
      This is ofc assuming James is actually serious about every point in his platform.

      "
      - Highsec mining will be nerfed into oblivion. We'll have one or possibly two different types of ore available, just so new players can learn how to distinguish between them on the overview."

      Learning the difference between different ore types in the overview doesn't take long. Learning how they fit into the bigger picture does, for a lot of people. Experimenting with refining different ore types and finding out their uses was very enjoying to me during my first days of playing, and provided a natural way into industry and manufacturing. My point is that hi-sec should PULL the player along by being fun, eventually moving into low-sec. Not PUSH the player by being dull.

      "
      - Highsec incursions and the like will be scrapped completely."

      Why? If it's "to help people learn how to PvE in groups" and not meant to be true endgame, just set the rewards accordingly. People will eventually go where the shinies are.

      "
      - Concord and faction police will take twice as long to respond"
      "- The firepower of sentry guns in highsec will be cut in half."
      etc

      I don't want to be ganked while I'm learning the game. It's like taking cookies from a kid. When I'm done with hi-sec and know how to fight (or avoid a fight) properly I'll happily be ganked. You don't teach someone to swim by throwing him into the ocean.

      "BUFF LOWSEC AND NULLSEC PVE"
      This is fine, but it feels like it should be possible to play the lone ranger to some extent. Not everyone wants to be in a player corp.

      "INCREASE NULLSEC SELF-SUFFICIENCY"
      "ENCOURAGE A VARIETY OF PVP"
      I assume this is reasonable. Nullsec should be the endgame imo, but I don't know enough about nullsec life to have an opinion about the specifics here.

      Do you see where I'm going here? Adding more PvP to and removing PvE-content from high-sec isn't the right way to do it IMO. I wouldn't say no to having even MORE high-sec PvE content, as long as it TRANSITIONS INTO low-sec endgame, not being the endgame in itself.

      Delete
    3. Audrik VillalonaMarch 6, 2013 at 7:16 AM

      "Why? If it's "to help people learn how to PvE in groups" and not meant to be true endgame, just set the rewards accordingly. People will eventually go where the shinies are."

      This is pretty reasonable--the simple answer is that CCP has done multiple balancing passes on incursions already. If they could set the rewards accordingly, then they would have already done so. It's the same thing with ice mining. Bots, afkers, people mining with literally 100+ accounts at once. CCP has had years to deal with highsec ice mining, and it's still a cesspool. At some point, an alcoholic either gets honest about his drinking and goes cold turkey instead of trying to limit the drinking, or his liver goes on a permanent vacation. It's time for CCP to get honest about incursions and ice mining in highsec, because cirrhosis is setting in.

      Delete
  61. You cannot 'do' anything unless CCP does it for you. Thinking you can makes you obtuse. Thinking CCP will do it for you makes you delusional.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please donate to James315 via Paypal, as all the ISK in New Eden is not going to get him laid in real life. I am afraid that I will be stuck with him until he gives up the ludicrous practice of bumping, and graduates from his Hello Kitty playset into the sandbox that is EVE.

      Please hurry. He's now promising to rewrite the game rules, and it's killing me to watch him break yet another promise.

      Delete
  62. Should your changes be implemented the vast majority of players who enjoy high sec and PVE play will simply leave the game. In the end you will decrease the amount of PVP, decrease the subscription numbers, and the game will become untenable.

    There are ways to encourage people to try out PVP, to expand into Null, and still have a thriving high sec environment. The trick is you have to first accept the fact that Eve is big enough to encourage all kinds of play styles, not just the ones to which you approve.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Voting for James 315 because if I don't, My bomb collar will explode


    Please help

    ReplyDelete
  64. I am a player who spent 2 years in 0.0 (alliance killed by HBC) and over the last few weeks has come up to make isk running Incursions. When I make enough to be comfortable that I can go back and not rat for awhile and get blown up as I like, I will again return to 0.0. Please keep in mind while I run incursions I talk to alts from many current 0.0 alliances. This idea of nerfing highsec to 0 makes no sense. There is a group of people that ARE ALREADY IN 0.0 or TAKING A BREAK.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oxymoronic posterMarch 6, 2013 at 7:05 AM

      Your post is word for word a perfect support for James's argument. You perfectly refute many of his critics who claim it is not necessary to nerf highsec to keep nullsec as a viable ecosystem. Amusingly, you are unaware of this. Well done anyway! I salute you.

      Delete
  65. Okay, that's enough of the crazy. If anyone here is actually serious about fixing high-sec in a sensible way, I suggest they go take a look at Psychotic Monk and his platform for CSM.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. oxymoronic posterMarch 6, 2013 at 7:00 AM

      "Okay, that's enough of the crazy. If anyone here is actually serious about fixing high-sec in a sensible way, I suggest they go take a look at Psychotic Monk"

      "Okay, that's enough of the crazy. If anyone here is serious, I suggest they take a look at Psychotic Monk"

      "Okay, that's enough crazy. I suggest Psychotic Monk"

      "O crazy, I Psychotic "

      I c wut u did thar.

      Delete
  66. I just hope that James does not become CSM, or if this happens, the plans to nerf Hisec won´t be appreciated by CCP. I dislike the idea to be forced to move to lowsec or nullsec to be able to run some missions, and I won´t ever consider to play further if this happens. It is already worse enough that other player may Gank and get a profit out of this, I´m not happy other people can force me to play pvp at very uneven odds.
    If such change will happen, complete classes of ships are loosing the right to exist. A retriver, covetor or even the much more expensive mack or hulk won´t be of any use to mine more than the cheapest ores, as it is suicide to fly such ships in low or null sec.
    The biggest question: What is wrong to improve low a bit and let hi unharmed? There are still players out there with no fun in being killed, so let us play the way we want!

    ReplyDelete
  67. I will vote for you, man. Highsec and wormholes must be destroyed

    ReplyDelete

Note: If you are unable to post a comment, try enabling the "allow third-party cookies" option on your browser.