Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Mapping Out a CSM Candidacy:

Mapping Out a CSM Candidacy:
Step 1: Develop Platform
Improving Customer Relations:
Improving Nullsec
New Player Experience
Saving High sec
Dust 514
Rebalancing Risk Vs. Reward
Step 2: Meta-gaming/prep
Step 3: Announcement
Step 4: Campaigning, Forum Maintenance and communication
Step 5: Celebrate Victory or continue to work for the community in defeat

Step 1: Platform
Improving Customer Relations:
 I choose to discuss this issue because I feel that many players are dissatisfied with their experiences with EVE-Online Customer Service, also known as the petition process.  I believe that many of the complaints arise from a lack of understanding of, and a lack of clarity of the petition process.  Most players seem to feel that their experiences are largely decided by which GM they deal with and less about which solution is correct.
Improving Nullsec
Many residents of Nullsec desire change in the mechanics of sovereignty.  Several main factors effect sovereign alliances financially, ore/ice Mining, PVE, Moon Harvesting, PVP, Sovereignty bills, system maintenance.    Many solutions to fix the “Problems” of nullsec focus on the idea that large alliances and coalitions are currently able to hold “too much space”, and that mechanics should be altered so that there are areas of “no-mans-land” where new groups can come and test their metal without instantly being stomped or assimilated into an existing alliance/coalition. 
I agree with this viewpoint and believe that larger numbers of smaller populations dotting the landscape of eve would increase PVP opportunity and  grow the “isk sink” that is PVP warfare.  My solution would increase the opportunity for both PVE and PVP activity, bring income into the pockets of the line members and limit the size of space a single entity could claim, or would need to claim.
New Player Experience
After beginning my youtube series on tutorials for the new player experience I ran into two main problems.  First, I had a lack of RL financial funds to keep the project going, although, I do plan to return to the project shortly.  And secondly, and more importantly, boredom and the feeling that the tutorials are misleading in regards to what players can hope to experience in Mining/PVE/PVP/Scanning/Marketing/Fitting and other aspects of the game.  I propose that as a CSM I would work closely with CCP and the eve community to find improvements to the system, which would include, but not be limited to, the addition of podding and clone maintenance to the tutorial system.
Saving High sec
Many of those who run as candidates for CSM who decide to label themselves for a part of the game such as Nullsec, wormholes, lowsec, or faction warfare representatives tend to talk of high-sec as a bad place for simple people to live.  I believe that those who live in high sec do so for many reasons, other than as a place to hide from PVP-ers or to bot.  Some of the issues that face high sec are the war-dec mechanics,  mercenary work, and cash in-flows.  Simply put, the old war mechanics were broken, the new ones were broken in a different way, and CCP needs CSM members who can help field viable options from the populous as well as provide their own suggestions.  Mercenary work goes hand-in-hand with the concept of war decs.   As a CSM member I would work with leaders in the mercenary business, those few that are left or would like to return, as well as “victims” of mercenaries, to change the existing mechanics so that mercenary work was a viable option once again without it feeling like the victim is being griefed.
As a producer  and frequent contributor on the Podside Podcast I have had the fortunate to hear a lot about the upcoming release of Dust514.  I am excited about the addition of the game and hope it is successful.  I hope to work closely with the Dust community to  ensure that CCP hears their desires as well as working with eve players to make sure everything is balanced and fair, but most importantly fun.  The last thing I want is for eve players to feel that playing dust is a burden they must endure, or that it’s a financial burden they must pay to keep control over their experience if Eve.
Rebalancing Risk Vs. Reward
                I believe that pilots who put the most at risk should reap the most reward.  I do not, however, necessarily think that High-sec activities should be nerferd,.  Quite the opposite, I think null-sec activities should be more rewarding and exclusive. It is possible to use a faction battleship, a carrier, or a super-carrier in the same types of sites and make equal amounts of isk/salavage/loot in the same amount of time.  This is should not be the case.  There are many instances where in high, low, and null where activities are not properly balanced within their respective  security levels not to mention when compared to different security ranges (ie high vs low, low vs null).  This is not only the case for PVE activities such as ratting, but true for ore/ice/moon mining and exploration.

Step 2: Meta-gaming and Prep
You can find me in eve as Daehan Minhyok,
 facebook as Daehan Minhyok,
twitter as @Daehan_minhyok
youtube as Minhyok1

Step 3:Announcment
You’re reading it!

Step 4: Campaign, forum Maintenance and communication
You have been experiencing it covertly whilst reading this J

Step 5: Celebrate Victory or continue to work for the community in defeat
Stay Tuned!!!

I’m a man with a plan and I want you to vote for me in the CSM 8elections.

Fixing Null-Sec

The following is my opinion on a possible solution to Nullsec, I am in no way so dedicated to this idea that I perceive it as the only solution,and believe that it should be subjected to the critical eye of the community before being presented to CCP.

Beginning with the premise that Nullsec entities control too much space and that null-sec is essentially, 3-4 major coalitions despite an apparently changing sov map.  Also, there is too much isk in the game, and that isk is held by said coalition primarily, but the average line pilot in hghsec, lowsec and nullsec is not by any means “space-rich”.

I propose that to prevent large coalitions from holding space that is unused, but still have soverig rights over, a mechanic of npc intervention be introduced.

Stay with me, its not that bad.

I suggest, doing this in one of two ways, either through station agents, or in-space events.

In the case of station agents being used.  The “missions” would require that the closest npc station, or a station owned by the “defending alliance”  host an npc agent that would give out missions specific to each and every system in nullsec.  These missions would consist of an attacking body of the local priate entity, whith sleeper-drone like AI, whose size and make-up would vary with the security level of the target system, and that these rats would shoot sovereignty structures.  By completing these missions, pilots would earn bounties and the sovereignty holder of the system would receive credit in that system which would go along with their sovereignty bill in maintaining sov.  Thus, active policing of your own systems would be required to maintain sovereignty, regardless of isk in the alliance wallet.  Likewise, it would help attackers who camp a system to reduce the “grind” of sov, and encourage pvp opportunities.  
            In terms of flexibility, it could be possible that the rats would spawn at beacons in space that are generated when the mission is accepted, and that a time limit be placed on killing the rats.  

The other idea, is similar, and indeed came to me before the previous one.  This idea is that rats should spawn at random intervals, 1-3hrs maybe, and begin shooting sov sturcturews, (ihub tcu, station/station upgrades) and again, these rats would have advanced AI, making the task one for multiple pilots even for low security nullsec systems.  These rats would have bounties and if left unattended could result in the destruction of sov structures.  The idea is that without going to defend your structures and repair them, an alliance could lose sovereignty and station functions to npc rats (the egg on the face of anyone this occurs to would be great).  By making spawns random and attack random structures, it is hoped that this would be more difficult to bot.  It is possible that these rats could assist the attacker as well, not that they wouldn’t shoot attackers of the system, but that they would put more pressure on the  defender.

The hope with both systems is that enough player activity would be necessary to maintain sov that large fleets would be required frequently to the point where alliances wouldn’t hold sov in a system unless it was very beneficial.
Both of ideas are solutions to the problem that some groups hold far more space than they should and that nullsec seems too difficult to break into without getting smashed to pieces or entering the behest of an overlord.

Along with these mechanics, I would suggest that if a system had sovereignty level 5, which takes 100 days of uninterrupted sov control, as well as one of the other two indices at 5, they could chose to destroy their iHub upgrades and return to sovereignty level 0, and that in return after the next downtime their system would decrease by 0.1 for as long as they held sov of that system.  This may also require the injection of one or more PLEX into the iHub.  This would allow a group to potentially take a -0.1 system to a -1.0 system, at increments of about 3 month, and again, with the expenditure of isk, and risk associated with moving iHub upgrades around nullsec.

Maybe rats can fix nullsec.