Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Well, i wish you luck. Here are the things why i will not vote you, just to help you in a long run.

1. Anyone with numbers in their name is a BIG no no.
2. Your suggestions lag imagination and i don't find them special or much needed.
3. I think you lack the experience.

I wish you luck

---

Originally by: Helicity Boson

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Well, i wish you luck. Here are the things why i will not vote you, just to help you in a long run.

1. Anyone with numbers in their name is a BIG no no.
2. Your suggestions lag imagination and i don't find them special or much needed.
3. I think you lack the experience.

I wish you luck

---

1: anyone with lord in their name is more of a douche
2: his suggestions represent something a large number of us have an interest in
3: I think you dont know spectre, what he does in real life, or what kind of experience he may or may not have.

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

I don't know spectre, if i would i probably would vote for him. I just still see no new or imaginative ideas here. Also, name does not make a person, unless it has numbers in it. You don't see a person with name like "John 230982", but you might run into a lord from time to time. This **** breaks immersion.

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

I don't know spectre, if i would i probably would vote for him. I just still see no new or imaginative ideas here. Also, name does not make a person, unless it has numbers in it. You don't see a person with name like "John 230982", but you might run into a lord from time to time.

---

Originally by: Helicity Boson

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

I don't know spectre, if i would i probably would vote for him. I just still see no new or imaginative ideas here. Also, name does not make a person, unless it has numbers in it. You don't see a person with name like "John 230982", but you might run into a lord from time to time. This **** breaks immersion.

---

No one lorded you buddy. YOU ARE BREAKING MY IMMERSION!

Thus, confirming you're full of it \o/

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Quote:

---

1. Anyone with numbers in their name is a BIG no no.

---

Quote:

---

2. Your suggestions lag imagination and i don't find them special or much needed.

---

Quote:

---

3. I think you lack the experience.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Hello everyone and thanks for your interest and responses! I would please ask you that you do not let this devolve into a flamewar/trollfest until at least the second page!

Lord,

Quote:

---

1. Anyone with numbers in their name is a BIG no no.

---

While I respect your opinion I do not see how numbers attached to my name indicate anything about my capability to be an effective member of the CSM.

Quote:

---

2. Your suggestions lag imagination and i don't find them special or much needed.

---

I am only interested in being imaginative if it is beneficial to the game and its players. I am proposing and advocating these changes because I feel they are necessary, not because I am trying to impress or wow anyone with my whiz bang revolutionary ideas.

Quote:

---

3. I think you lack the experience.

---

In Eve alone I have been playing for well over a year and a half (but I have a huge amount of experience with MMO's and gaming in general). I have spent a majority of my time PvP'ing in lowsec but I also have experience to varying degrees with missioning in highsec up to Level 4's, mining, exploration, PvP in nullsec and trading. As of this moment I have approximately 2300+ kills and 250 deaths according to BattleClinic that show I fly a large myriad of ships as well as engage in many different types of combat against a variety of targets. I have CEO'd a successful corp that is still running strong. I write a blog that has been active for almost the entire time I have been playing and am very involved in the Eve blogging community.

In other words, I am not sure why you would claim that I am not experienced enough. I would be more than happy to hear more specific thoughts on what I am lacking in terms of being able to represent lowsec and the pilots of New Eden on a more broad scale. Thanks!

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Good reply,

It seems that your answer have changed my mind. You'll get my vote, but i still hate that name.

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Good reply,

It seems that your answer have changed my mind. You'll get my vote, but i still hate that name.

---

Originally by: Yristor

---

You've "generated dozens of blog posts"...?

Humans don't "generate" blog posts, they write them. I suspect that this so-called candidate is actually... A SPAM BOT!!!

---

Originally by: Nihiliax

---

I see you are proposing to make Frigates more viable in small gang and solo encounters which is, to my mind, a truly noble cause so I will probably chuck you a vote (assuming I remember). I was recently involved in a thread on here somewhere where some numbskull was ranting about Stasis Webifiers. It was a ****-poor post but it got me thinking and I do actually reckon the removal of this "magic space-treacle" module would make Frigates less vulnerable against larger ships. Where would you stand on an issue like that?

---

Originally by: MirrorGod

---

Half of my votes as well. Good intents, some of your implementations and fix-it ideas are too far-fetched (systems that +5's can't enter, for example.) Conversely, the pirate community would love a real buff besides "lolFW" or "HURR u can has Battleship rats )))"

Tune up some of your solutions and you've got a solid platform

---

Originally by: Yristor

---

I suspect that this so-called candidate is actually... A SPAM BOT!!!

---

Originally by: Roastedpot

---

why can't i meet girls that can be swayed so easily :-\

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Am I Dead Sexy?

Yes. Yes I am.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

World of Warcraft

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

1. Pirate CSM candidates have (by past experience) been failures (i.e lark).

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

2. Python/Spec, from my personal knowledge, are a pretty ****ty example of pirates. They are a nice group of people (mostly), and def. know how to have a good time - but if we look at what defines most successful pirates in eve, Python/Spec will be lacking.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

3. Spec are a good political, granted - but some of his advocated changes/improvements reek of either hypocrisy/bull**** fillers. "* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping" is a nice saying, but when Spec/Python spend 90% of you time ingame either engaging at uneven odds (you being favorites) or camping the Jel gate, I worry that you'll be unable to offer any new insight/ideas regarding other tactics - especially since you seem to rather stay docked than undock and try other methods (that ARE possible in this iteration of the game) of gameplay except blobing/gatecamping.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Also, although its not a "proper" reason - from my "interactions" with spec in game, I find him to be not just a whinny little *****, but also a sad example of a guy that would resort to looking up what his opponents do in RL for the purpose of having ammo in a local smack war. And honestly, as much as I like metagaming/spying/corpthieves/etc - attacking someone by using his RL in a game is kinda poor taste to say the least - and Id rather not have someone like that represent my needs/wants (especially if said person actually has to work with CCP).

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Be it as it may, even if my personal reasons to dislike Spec are irrelevant to most of you - unless he can prove he's serious about improving the game and not just ****ing around like lark did - Id place my vote with someone else, and I'd suggest other people do the same.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?

* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

1. Pirate CSM candidates have (by past experience) been failures (i.e lark).

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

2. Python/Spec, from my personal knowledge, are a pretty ****ty example of pirates. They are a nice group of people (mostly), and def. know how to have a good time - but if we look at what defines most successful pirates in eve, Python/Spec will be lacking.

---

Originally by: Logit Probit

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?

* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping

---

Spectre, I am interested on hearing your ideas regarding this. I am skeptical, to say the least, that anything could change the predominance of these two tactics. Please elaborate on how you think alternative tactics could be made viable in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

You would have my vote, had not for the following reasons:

1. Pirate CSM candidates have (by past experience) been failures (i.e lark).
2. Python/Spec, from my personal knowledge, are a pretty ****ty example of pirates. They are a nice group of people (mostly), and def. know how to have a good time - but if we look at what defines most successful pirates in eve, Python/Spec will be lacking.
3. Spec are a good political, granted - but some of his advocated changes/improvements reek of either hypocrisy/bull**** fillers. "* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping" is a nice saying, but when Spec/Python spend 90% of you time ingame either engaging at uneven odds (you being favorites) or camping the Jel gate, I worry that you'll be unable to offer any new insight/ideas regarding other tactics - especially since you seem to rather stay docked than undock and try other methods (that ARE possible in this iteration of the game) of gameplay except blobing/gatecamping.

Also, although its not a "proper" reason - from my "interactions" with spec in game, I find him to be not just a whinny little *****, but also a sad example of a guy that would resort to looking up what his opponents do in RL for the purpose of having ammo in a local smack war. And honestly, as much as I like metagaming/spying/corpthieves/etc - attacking someone by using his RL in a game is kinda poor taste to say the least - and Id rather not have someone like that represent my needs/wants (especially if said person actually has to work with CCP).

Be it as it may, even if my personal reasons to dislike Spec are irrelevant to most of you - unless he can prove he's serious about improving the game and not just ****ing around like lark did - Id place my vote with someone else, and I'd suggest other people do the same.

---

Originally by: Logit Probit

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?

* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping

---

Spectre, I am interested on hearing your ideas regarding this. I am skeptical, to say the least, that anything could change the predominance of these two tactics. Please elaborate on how you think alternative tactics could be made viable in lowsec.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

You would have my vote, had not for the following reasons:

2. Python/Spec, from my personal knowledge, are a pretty ****ty example of pirates. They are a nice group of people (mostly), and def. know how to have a good time - but if we look at what defines most successful pirates in eve, Python/Spec will be lacking.
3. Spec are a good political, granted - but some of his advocated changes/improvements reek of either hypocrisy/bull**** fillers. "* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping" is a nice saying, but when Spec/Python spend 90% of you time ingame either engaging at uneven odds (you being favorites) or camping the Jel gate, I worry that you'll be unable to offer any new insight/ideas regarding other tactics - especially since you seem to rather stay docked than undock and try other methods (that ARE possible in this iteration of the game) of gameplay except blobing/gatecamping.

---

Originally by: Lars Lodar

---

What exactly defines most 'successful' pirates in eve?

We have a lot of fun first and foremost, and applications to our corp have never been so high. Now everyone in Python greatly respects the skill and efficiency of EP but we have different play styles. Our primary focus is having FUN and being casual opposed to obsessing over killboard stats and denigrating others. Maybe that's why we have so many active players, friends, and constant applications whereas EP has like what, 4 active members?

Before we even moved in we offered our friendship and was met with Ken's elitist attitude saying he didn't want to train us for free.

You mock us for engaging at uneven odds or camping gates which last I recall was a 'safe' and viable way to make isk and common practice for most pirate corps. I think it's ironic compared when your illustrious CEO has to use a carrier alt, a damnation alt, and fully faction fitted ship before he does anything because if you don't, you're not flying a "REAL SHIP". And last I check your corp spent way more time docked than ours.

Most of our time recently has been spent probing mission runners and nabbing people in wormholes. I feel that your engagements with us has tainted your perception on what we do.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Subspace

---

Originally by: Skarned

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Subspace

---

As CSM, what is your position on how the the shrapnel changes (randomization, increased size, lower count) have affected base defense on the traditional Warzone West map? Has this been a positive change? If not, what would you do to correct it?

Also, negging is for lamers, c/d?

---

Originally by: Andrea Griffin

---

Do you support the re-stickying of Skira Ranos' Nubbin Pirate Guide?

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

especially since you seem to rather stay docked than undock and try other methods (that ARE possible in this iteration of the game) of gameplay except blobing/gatecamping.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

You would have my vote, had not for the following reasons:

1. Pirate CSM candidates have (by past experience) been failures (i.e lark).


Be it as it may, even if my personal reasons to dislike Spec are irrelevant to most of you - unless he can prove he's serious about improving the game and not just ****ing around like lark did - Id place my vote with someone else, and I'd suggest other people do the same.

---

Originally by: Dr Cron

---

Spec... can you define exactly what you mean by a blob? And also please explain how tweaking things to be more friendly for smaller ships would help counter 'blobbing'?

Is there a certain threshold where a gang becomes a blob or is it simply a gang that you cant take on at the time with your own forces or what.

---

Originally by: Mickey Simon

---

You have my tentative support.
Haven't seen any other candidates worth my vote, and although I strongly dislike your corps playstyle of blobbing the **** out of anything moving, your points seem like you've thought about them for at least a minute and are working towards making EVE better for everyone.

---

Originally by: Larkonis TrassIer

---

Edited by: Larkonis TrassIer on 08/10/2009 11:23:35

Originally by: Mashashige

---

You would have my vote, had not for the following reasons:

1. Pirate CSM candidates have (by past experience) been failures (i.e lark).


Be it as it may, even if my personal reasons to dislike Spec are irrelevant to most of you - unless he can prove he's serious about improving the game and not just ****ing around like lark did - Id place my vote with someone else, and I'd suggest other people do the same.

---

Wait wat? I was actually doing a pretty good job of it all until I fouled up. In fact you should be thankful. I got all the major issues raised and discussed in Iceland, got caught out, had my ticket to fanfest cancelled. Thus I did my job and saved CCP some money by not having to fly me out to Iceland again. Everyone's a winner.

Anyway, Spec seems to be a pretty good guy who doesn't afraid of anything. I wish him the best of luck.

---

Originally by: Janie Suspect

---

You're making some of the same points most pirate always complain about. Miners make too much isk. Pirates don't have enough free kills. Why should I be punished in 'lowsec' for doing bad things (GCC garbage)?

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Originally by: Janie Suspect

---

You're making some of the same points most pirate always complain about. Miners make too much isk. Pirates don't have enough free kills. Why should I be punished in 'lowsec' for doing bad things (GCC garbage)?

---

Hey Janie, thanks for the response but I have to wonder if you actually read anything I wrote? I didn't really make any of the points that you just claimed. The things that I do actually believe:

- I feel that Mining needs a buff and needs to be made more interesting of a profession.

- I feel that pirates already have a TON of free kills. What I would rather see is interesting and fun fights for everyone PvP'ing in lowsec, not just "pirates".

- I feel that you should be punished to an extent for initiating combat in lowsec (as this is part of what makes it unique from nullsec) but the current mechanics for doing so are outdated and could definitely use an overhaul.

---

Originally by: Janie Suspect

---

One thing I think needs addressing is smart bombs in low sec, If bombs (stealth bomer, bombs) are not allowed in low sec why are smarties allowed? Allowing bombs in low sec would allow for a smaller force to break a gate camp of a larger force. Or buff the gate guns to address this.

---

Originally by: Janie Suspect

---

As for the GCC, I think the time could be adjusted, but I'd like to see a lock out on docking privileges while under the GCC. I mean you just committed a crime, why would a station in good standing with whoever controls the region allow you to dock?

---

Originally by: Janie Suspect

---

I'd like to see NPC pirate corps make their presence known in low sec. What I mean by this is, if you read the lore (lol lore I know) some of these pirate corps have a legitimate front facing corp. So why not have these available to players in low sec. And they should allow criminals to dock.

Low sec needs to be changed from what it is to more of a frontier. CONCORD should not be involved, but the faction navies should be on patrol and they should be tough!

---

Originally by: Bourreau

---

Edited by: Bourreau on 09/10/2009 10:44:29
I agree low sec really needs more lovin'. The thought of pirate stations/hideouts is awesome and should be pursued; I believe its been mentioned in the past, specifically the possibility of working for pirates (rats) rather than just blowing them up in belts.

Outlaws need some solid representation in ze game: I will definitely vote for you.



p.s. I like your blog. Even though "its crap", its really funny crap. Can I say crap?

---

Originally by: Bhaumut

---

i mean really they are defensless for the most part, and you want them to "man up and take it".

---

Originally by: TokimoYsera

---

A while ago someone suggested that drones get balanced out (read buff to everything but hobs/hammerheads) to make it compelling to use other kinds of drones besides Gallente built ones. The idea being that the other drones would become more like sentry drones where the racial choice affects damage type but not actual damage dealt. Do you have any thoughts on this?

---

Originally by: Rudgier Thorrin

---

I like your plan, but please elaborate on mining changes and UI changes you're proposing.

How exactly do you want to make mining more interesting? You speak about new mining ships, but how exactly are they going to make it more exciting? You would still get a ship, fit miners and watch the green circle fill up, or do you maby have an idea about altering the mining mechanics altogether (hopefully not by adding some mini-games)?

---

Originally by: Rudgier Thorrin

---

Another thing - the UI. You say, that it's complicated and confusing. True, but this it is also very powerful and highly customizable, allowing you a lot of control over what you see in the overview, who has access to corp assets etc. I for one wouldn't like to see the UI dumbed down, because it stands for what I think is one of EVEs greatest virtues - forcing people to actually think about what they're doing.

---

Originally by: Bourreau

---

p.s. I like your blog. Even though "its crap", its really funny crap. Can I say crap?

---

Originally by: Bhaumut

---

Asfar as a CSM for C&P.. im holding my vote but watching Spec closely (Like Egor from a Frankenstein movie.. classic ones)... Bringing the idea of Carebears from highsec to lowsec needs to be more, intresting for both parties.. not just a "HAI BOYZ, YOU AIN'T FROM AROUND HERA.. SQUEEL PIGGY!" style approach the moment a single miner leaves high sec.
Otherwise you just look like a horny prison dude named Chuck, looking for the next ***** off the bus.. and it never comes.. because the ***** won't get off the bus.

Yeah i know.. a little off the deep end. But considering all the gank a bear threads, and how the carebears should leave high sec and just dive in makes me think of crap like that.. i mean really they are defensless for the most part, and you want them to "man up and take it". No one is gona log on just to get ganked when all they want to do is mine... am i one of the very few who can see that..

But then for the gankers and the griefers who want easy kills i suppose they feel ppl should pay a subscription to do exactly this.

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Do you believe that high sec needs nerfed or low sec needs buffed?

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Do you feel that having sec status hits in low sec, but not null sec is a problem for pvp in low sec?

(I'm at work and bored, so I think I need to barrage you with questions)

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Do you have any thoughts on increasing traffic in the low-sec space that aren't ISK related?

One thing I was thinking about was a sov type reward for corps. A "vanity" reward, you could name the system, or you could impose a docking fee for other corps to use the stations in your space. I feel this would bring smaller corps to fight over low sec systems as a way of income and also for rewards that don't provide ISK.

Did you have any ideas like this?

And no flaming for even mentioning SOV in low-sec, like I said, just bouncing ideas around.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Why Am I Running?

Over the past couple of years, many of CSM delegates have come and gone. Most have been representatives of large 0.0 corporations or highsec industrial groups. Very few have stood up for the improvement, refactoring or rethinking of the abandoned regions in between that we call lowsec. I am running for CSM in an effort to bring attention to low security space and mechanics related to it (which in many cases affects players of all play styles in all locations) so that all geographical regions and types of space can provide something unique, profitable and most importantly fun to the game.

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?

* New Mining Mechanics and Capabilities

* Improving Fun and Profit in Lowsec For All Players Of All Career Paths (Without Having To Rely On Alts)

* Re-examining The Outdated/Simplistic Implementation of GCC, Timers and Sentries

* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping

* User Interface Improvements

* More...

Why Am I Qualified?

I have been gaming for nearly as long as I can remember and have been playing online and MMO games since the days of BBS's. Tradewars 2002, Subspace, Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft and many others but none captured my imagination and interest the way that Eve-Online has. I have been playing Eve consistently since March 2008 with a focus towards low security space PvP and "piracy". I have some basic experience with PvP in 0.0, mission running and even mining. In my time playing Eve-Online, I have helped grow and run a successful pirate corporation, generated dozens of blog posts about Eve, made many friends (and a few enemies), made lots of ISK and caused many things to blow up (including my own ships). I am very passionate about my gaming and especially Eve. I am opinionated and have the ability to voice my opinions in a clear and concise manner. Electing me will give the CSM a well spoken individual with good ideas and the drive to communicate and see them through to implementation. I am (and always have been) easily accessible to those around me and I feel that I would give excellent representation to the population of lowsec and all of New Eden.

Am I Dead Sexy?

Yes. Yes I am.

In Conclusion:

If you want a candidate who is intent on improving the experience for all players of all career paths with a specific focus on the improvement of the lost and abandoned child named "lowsec", I am it. Please feel free to check my blog for more specific information about the improvements I am advocating above.

---

Originally by: Barb Wyre

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Why Am I Running?

Over the past couple of years, many of CSM delegates have come and gone. Most have been representatives of large 0.0 corporations or highsec industrial groups. Very few have stood up for the improvement, refactoring or rethinking of the abandoned regions in between that we call lowsec. I am running for CSM in an effort to bring attention to low security space and mechanics related to it (which in many cases affects players of all play styles in all locations) so that all geographical regions and types of space can provide something unique, profitable and most importantly fun to the game.

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?

* New Mining Mechanics and Capabilities

* Improving Fun and Profit in Lowsec For All Players Of All Career Paths (Without Having To Rely On Alts)

* Re-examining The Outdated/Simplistic Implementation of GCC, Timers and Sentries

* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping

* User Interface Improvements

* More...

Why Am I Qualified?

I have been gaming for nearly as long as I can remember and have been playing online and MMO games since the days of BBS's. Tradewars 2002, Subspace, Star Wars Galaxies, World of Warcraft and many others but none captured my imagination and interest the way that Eve-Online has. I have been playing Eve consistently since March 2008 with a focus towards low security space PvP and "piracy". I have some basic experience with PvP in 0.0, mission running and even mining. In my time playing Eve-Online, I have helped grow and run a successful pirate corporation, generated dozens of blog posts about Eve, made many friends (and a few enemies), made lots of ISK and caused many things to blow up (including my own ships). I am very passionate about my gaming and especially Eve. I am opinionated and have the ability to voice my opinions in a clear and concise manner. Electing me will give the CSM a well spoken individual with good ideas and the drive to communicate and see them through to implementation. I am (and always have been) easily accessible to those around me and I feel that I would give excellent representation to the population of lowsec and all of New Eden.

Am I Dead Sexy?

Yes. Yes I am.

In Conclusion:

If you want a candidate who is intent on improving the experience for all players of all career paths with a specific focus on the improvement of the lost and abandoned child named "lowsec", I am it. Please feel free to check my blog for more specific information about the improvements I am advocating above.

---

Dunno why you wrote all of this, You should have simply put " I am running for CSM to make my epeen bigger", that would have sufficed.

I have been in this game a very long time, back when 5k online concurrent broke records. They didnt really listen to players then, they dont listen now, and they never will. CSM's are merely PR tools of CCP's smoke and mirror customer relations policy's. The bigger this game has become, the less they have listened over the years. The CSM program is a total joke.

It doesnt take a genius to figure out whats wrong with low sec, it's been that way forever. It's obvious they dont care, but if you want to be used as their tool, go right ahead.

Good luck wid dat.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

I agree completely. My goal is not to try and lure or force more targets to lowsec to be ganked. My goal is to change the balance in lowsec to make it viable, profitable and fun to live in for players of all professions including PvE, Industrial and PvP/Pirating. Give the players the incentive to risk their time and money in a less safe environment.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Edited by: Spectre3353 on 09/10/2009 15:01:42

Originally by: Dawts

---

Do you believe that high sec needs nerfed or low sec needs buffed?

---

Obviously some nerfs are unavoidable but in general I always try to stress that buffing is way more desirable way to balance and encouraging (but not forcing) players into new more balanced play patterns is going to give you the best response.

Most people are comfortable and used to how they play. If you force changes on them, they will be angry (and usually with good reason). If you give them incentives and encouragement to try something different, some might do it and some might not but that way it winds up being their own choice to try it. This is a game that people pay for so it only makes sense to allow them to decide how they are going to play as opposed to telling them how they are going to play.

So, long winded response aside, I feel that lowsec needs buffs to make it balanced and desirable for all players of all professions. There is nothing about high security space that I feel needs to be nerfed although I know the profitability of level 4 missions, wardec mechanics, suicide ganking and ninja-salvaging in highsec are all hot topics that may come up.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

So my blog is crap but you like it and it's funny? Are you implying that my blog is like a really good B-move or TV show like Army of Darkness or Firefly? Because if that's what you're saying, I appreciate the compliment :)

---

Originally by: Barb Wyre

---

Dunno why you wrote all of this, You should have simply put " I am running for CSM to make my epeen bigger", that would have sufficed.

---

Originally by: Bhaumut

---

Also you need to beable to sing the Pirate sing along, as a cherry on top.

---

Originally by: kessah

---

How do you apply to be a CSM candidate?

Id be interested in running for it actually.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Imo, you are much like Lark (and many other pirates ceo's for that matter) - you have charisma, leadership, good ideas, etc - but lack any sense of coherent organization.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Having said that, to be fair and let you prove Im wrong (which I hope, I'd like to see a real pirate supporter on CSM) - if you would please adress the following questions/points, both from a broad viewpoint, and from a more direct view point (i.e you will work to allow for a broader use of tactics (great) - but how? buffing small fleets? something else? ect.).

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

* The issue with lowsec not being appealing enough to sustain a population that pirates can exploit.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

* GCC mechanics.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

* The imbalance between difficulty/work to reward in being a pirate (i.e scanning people in missions takes much longer than it takes for anybody with a brain to see hes being scanned and get out).

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

* Moving through highsec with -5.0<standing, especially in "concord" systems.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

* Usage of caps in lowsec (both lag, and station camping).

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

* Lack of traffic through lowsec (i.e people going through gates), which makes very few gates worthy of gatecamps.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Ill think of more later if they pop up, but Id appreciate it if you would deal the the above ones.-Mash

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

I was always a bigger fan of this one.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Living near Egghelende, I ran into Spec yesterday for a brief chat. He convinced me that he is absolutely not the person for CSM.

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

the use of digging RL info to smack talk someone in local is total lack of tact imo, and if you dared do it to a "real" person, you'd prob end up in a hospital.

-mash

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

Thank you for answering my questions.

As far as talking about the "coherent organization" part, I was referring to something Dabljuh pointed out as well - although you have many "strategic" goals (fix lowsec, buff mining, encouraging tactics beyond blobbing and camping, etc), you have almost no "tactical" goals (i.e docking time being related to ship class, adding more gas clouds, adding ABC ore to lowsec, adding more level 5 hubs, buffing mining ships with more tank/drones/whatever, etc). You have the will to change things for the best, but you dont have a solid plan on how to do so (i.e no step #1, step #2, etc) - and like many things in RL, having a good will means nothing if solid action isn't taken place.

Also, regarding another point Dabljuh put up (or alluded to) - I feel, from my prior experience deal with you, that although you are very good at being "political" on the forums, when it comes to "real time" behavior, you lack most of the tact and finesse that true politicians need, especially if you are suppose to represent the player bases idea to CCP. Honestly, and I know I've said it several times in this thread, the use of digging RL info to smack talk someone in local is total lack of tact imo, and if you dared do it to a "real" person, you'd prob end up in a hospital. Having said that, I'll give you time to prove me wrong, and if by the CSM election date I see enough evidence that you have the skills to represent us properly vs. CCP, Ill still vote for you - even if I don't like you personally.

-mash

---

Originally by: Mashashige

---

I know I've said it several times in this thread, the use of digging RL info to smack talk someone in local is total lack of tact imo, and if you dared do it to a "real" person, you'd prob end up in a hospital.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Edited by: Spectre3353 on 11/10/2009 13:43:37

Originally by: Mashashige

---

I know I've said it several times in this thread, the use of digging RL info to smack talk someone in local is total lack of tact imo, and if you dared do it to a "real" person, you'd prob end up in a hospital.

---

I feel like you're pretty stuck on one thing that you've brought up like six times already in this thread. Since this is more of a personal thing between EP and PC, why don't we talk in game next time you get a chance.

---

Originally by: Lightningshade

---

Edited by: Lightningshade on 11/10/2009 20:54:28

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Edited by: Spectre3353 on 11/10/2009 13:43:37

Originally by: Mashashige

---

I know I've said it several times in this thread, the use of digging RL info to smack talk someone in local is total lack of tact imo, and if you dared do it to a "real" person, you'd prob end up in a hospital.

---

I feel like you're pretty stuck on one thing that you've brought up like six times already in this thread. Since this is more of a personal thing between EP and PC, why don't we talk in game next time you get a chance.

---

Sorry to involve myself on something that shouldnt involve me. I feel that as this point it is important to discuss this issue publicly. I like your goals. The way a CSM rep carries himself withing game, and also out of game, to me, is important.

---

Originally by: Omgah

---

Lets be honest, CSMs haven't really accomplished much have they.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Originally by: Logit Probit

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

What Improvements/Changes Am I Advocating?

* Encouraging Tactics Beyond Blobbing and Camping

---

Spectre, I am interested on hearing your ideas regarding this. I am skeptical, to say the least, that anything could change the predominance of these two tactics. Please elaborate on how you think alternative tactics could be made viable in lowsec.

---

Well the first thing to keep in mind is that I said we need changes that help "encourage" tactics beyond blobbing and camping. You can't "solve" or "prevent" something that is a core part of the game. Nothing will ever remove such activities as long as Eve continues to grow (higher population) and as long as people enjoy seeing themselves on killmails (I'm not judging, I know I do). That being said, some of the more recent changes in the game as well as some mechanics that are considerably older, encourage these types of behaviors and discourage moving from system to system or putting your ships at risk. More specifically:

(1) No one wants to fly frigates around lowsec if they are unable to even use them at a majority of locations where pilots actually congregate/travel through (ie: gates, stations). This encourages the use of larger ships.

(2) No one wants to fly ships around if they are just going to lose them in lame situations where they cannot get a fight out of it (ie: agility/speed changes mean that it is very difficult to travel without getting caught on a gate before you can warp). This also encourages or almost forces people to have multiple accounts with which to scout which I am not a big fan of.

(3) No one wants to fly and risk their nice T2 ships if they are so incredibly expensive. I totally agree with the idea of having to earn improvements to what you fly via paying for it but T2 cruisers costing 150 to 200 million ISK to properly fit is way, way out of whack (I hear that this is already being worked on and reduced material cost for T2 ships is already implemented on Sisi).

I don't have all the solutions but I believe most pilots will agree that the most fun engagements they experience in lowsec involve gangs of similar strengths where both sides actually get to use tactics and fight each other as opposed to one simply ganking the other with a superior numbers as they pass through a gate. 0.0 already has this type of combat... why can't lowsec be different and unique? Any changes that could encourage players to not be afraid to go out in all sized ships and in smaller gangs and lose their ships would be good ones. The trick is to figuring out how to do it via buffs or changes that effect everyone as opposed to nerfing which usually makes nobody happy. I am only one man with some basic ideas on this and it would definitely take other minds on the CSM and in CCP in conjunction to come up with what tweaks would have the right (or any) results.

---

Originally by: Hoo Is

---

In this long post all you did was identify the problems we all know exist, either I missed the part where you put out your suggestion on how to fix it, or it was omitted.

---

Originally by: Hoo Is

---

In this long post all you did was identify the problems we all know exist, either I missed the part where you put out your suggestion on how to fix it, or it was omitted.

---

Quote:

---

(1) No one wants to fly frigates around lowsec if they are unable to even use them at a majority of locations where pilots actually congregate/travel through (ie: gates, stations). This encourages the use of larger ships.

---

Quote:

---

(2) No one wants to fly ships around if they are just going to lose them in lame situations where they cannot get a fight out of it (ie: agility/speed changes mean that it is very difficult to travel without getting caught on a gate before you can warp). This also encourages or almost forces people to have multiple accounts with which to scout which I am not a big fan of.

---

Quote:

---

(3) No one wants to fly and risk their nice T2 ships if they are so incredibly expensive. I totally agree with the idea of having to earn improvements to what you fly via paying for it but T2 cruisers costing 150 to 200 million ISK to properly fit is way, way out of whack (I hear that this is already being worked on and reduced material cost for T2 ships is already implemented on Sisi).

---

Originally by: Avan Sercedos

---

Alright, time to actually contribute something.

I know that at this point, this poor horse might literally just be a stain on the floor BUT... Player Bounties. Do you have any ideas on how the current, obviously broken system could be redeemed?

---

Quote:

---

Make sentry guns scale based on ship size and possibly even gang size so that larger ships/gangs don't have such a severe advantage in lowsec and so that frigates don't get basically one-volleyed when engaging under sentries.

---

Quote:

---

Reverse some of the agility nerfs that were made so that people are less likely to be nabbed on a gate as they travel in smaller ships. Right now you can easily catch a plated cruiser with a regular old non-sensor boosted battlecruiser. It isn't even that hard to catch frigates aligning most of the time.

---

Quote:

---

Reduce the price of T2 ships. If you do so, people won't be so afraid to roam with them and get into fights with them. This isn't really something that we will have to worry about much longer from what I hear as T2 costs and materials are already being tweaked on Sisi.

---

Quote:

---

Previous CSM members already brought up the idea of revamping the bounty system and fleshing out the ability for there to be bounty hunters via things like transferable kill rights. I believe that the idea was shot down. I agree that the current system is broken as most people I know simply jump into an empty jump clone and pod themselves to get free money. I don't really have any great ideas on how this could be improved and honestly it's not a priority I would bring back up to the CSM.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Edited by: Spectre3353 on 07/10/2009 17:38:20

I was advocating that there be perhaps a small number of systems in lowsec that are only accessible to players who are -5 (not +5). These systems can have a sort of anti-CONCORD police that keeps the peace. These systems could become hubs in lowsec to try and alleviate the fact that most negative sec status players are forced to have alts to haul goods for them out of high security space not to mention that right now there are no unique benefits to being blinky but tons of negatives...

...and so forth. The real thing I am trying to do here overall is to spur conversation about how to make lowsec unique, viable to live in without requiring an alt character and profitable/fun for all types of players.

---

Originally by: Avan Sercedos

---

These two things seem slightly at odds. First, by allowing frigates to have a chance to engage under sentries, you give gate camping a boost by allowing for frigate tacklers to... well, tackle, but then buff the align times on the things that the frigates would be able to tackle (such as certain cruisers) that a regular 1Sebo'd BS would not be able to tackle, but then make those cruisers more agile so that presumably a frigate would now no longer be able to get a tackle on them before they finish decloaking and aligning ... I guess I'm just not really seeing what the net change here would be.

---

Originally by: Bourreau

---

I for one really like the idea of pirate controlled systems for outlaws. I would even be happy with just a few that created some incentive for being a bad guy. Currently there is very little aside from love for pvp/yarring. To address your idea for unique reasons for being an outlaw perhaps unique outlaw items could be had in some way? LP for pirate factions would be one method, loot drops another. I suppose you might kill concord/faction rats instead of the current ones? Thats certainly something that could be discussed.

You mentioned drug manufacturing which I have heard is something ccp wants to realize and implement more fully. Maybe you could manufacture drugs in the pirate stations instead of needing a pos?

Lets have a pirate focused expansion!

---

Originally by: Lyshah

---

I've realized that I dont have agree with all Specs ideas to believe he'll do a great job. Hope theres still room for some more discussion tho... Good luck!

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Originally by: Avan Sercedos

---

-snip-

---

Totally valid point. I suppose I assume that the net "nerf" to gatecamping via increased sentry damage and increased incentive to roam thanks to better viability of smaller/faster ships would way outweigh the ability to sort-of kind-of tackle with frigs on gates now. Besides, my Phobos with three sensor boosters can already tackle virtually anything and can tank sentries for quite a while so why would I start using a frig on a gate instead? Obviously that is specific to me but it is an example of how a lot of pirates camp on gates.

---

Originally by: Helicity Boson

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Well, i wish you luck. Here are the things why i will not vote you, just to help you in a long run.

1. Anyone with numbers in their name is a BIG no no.
2. Your suggestions lag imagination and i don't find them special or much needed.
3. I think you lack the experience.

I wish you luck

---

1: anyone with lord in their name is more of a douche
2: his suggestions represent something a large number of us have an interest in
3: I think you dont know spectre, what he does in real life, or what kind of experience he may or may not have.

NEXT!

Anyways, good luck spectre, I think you are actually a good candidate, no matter how mucgh i like to slag off on you in our own forums, you've got the level head needed for this, and the sincerity required to represent all of us low sec people.

---

Originally by: Avan Sercedos

---

But does your Phobos shut off mwds I mean, to prevent ships that cannot align in time, but CAN easily outpace most gatecamping ships... anyways I guess I'm getting away from the point.

Most of the time, when you start shooting something that is neutral on a gate (when solo), it is because you assume that you will be able to kill them fast enough that the sentries won't break your tank, or add enough dps to your target's dps (if there is any) to kill you. As you increase the ship sizes, sentries do become less and less of a concern. I don't think that this is a trait of the damage output of the sentries, but simply the scale of firepower and endurance being brought to bear.

In English, what I am saying is that I do not think there is a way that sentries can be adjusted to allow for frigates to last any significant amount of time under them without them being able to last indefinitely under them, since there is nothing (significant) that is smaller than a frigate. So, at the frigate level, each and every point of damage that is coming against you counts significantly more in terms of how long you are going to survive. The levels of dps that a frigate can take without either shrugging off the damage (lol) or dying horrendously quickly are essentially nonexistant, and thus, when it comes to frigates engaging at gates, there is no real balanced option for how sentries could. Either:

A) They do as they do now and make any fight done on a gate in a frigate impossible
-or-
B) They become completely irrelevant when you are in a frigate

That may be a false dichotomy, but I don't think that it is.
Once again, I blame Mountain Dew.

Also, replace all instances of 'you' with 'I', if it doesn't apply to you.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Ok well first let's take a quick step back just to realize that this is one idea of many and the overall theme is to try and make fighting in ships of all sizes viable in lowsec. Right now, frigates get the shaft hardcore, especially if you're a pirate, because sentries make them almost unusable in 95% of the locations where people fly. Perhaps other solutions such as giving incentive to leave gates/stations would work better than the scalable sentries idea and your concerns are totally valid.

---

Quote:

---

More specifically in response, I don't understand what you mean by saying that sentries can be adjusted to do a moderated amount of damage based on ship size. If you change sentries to hit every ship for an amount of damage based on their hull size instead of just firing at 4 random targets at a time for 30 seconds, you guarantee that eventually those ships are going to have to bugger out unless they are obscenely tanked. Even then, most super tank ships will either run out of buffer or cap boosters eventually. Right now you can park a bunch of bigger ships on the gate and tank sentries almost indefinitely by splitting those 4 shots up among your gang but the instant a frigate gets cycled upon it gets almost instantly killed. Spread the damage evenly and consistantly among the gang and engaging on gates doesn't become impossible but you can now do it in all sized hulls for a short amount of time but not very long.

If I was going to go and throw random numbers out there, I would make it something like 200 DPS to frigs, 400 DPS to cruisers, 600 DPS to battleships, etc. If I remember corrently, sentries currently do 350-400 DPS spread out via 4 guns. I know the number of guns varies but I think it's always 4 guns on stations/gates in lowsec (please correct me if I'm wrong).

---

Originally by: Nostradamus Negulesco

---

It seems to me me that you're trying to run on a platform you don't really believe in, at least in part. Take your battleclinic record: there are a huge amount of carebear ganks, gate-camp kills and good old fashioned 1vs1 kills. This is by no means a criticism, ofc you can play the game as you see fit.

However, a players' in-game activities reflect his real-life bias toward Eve, and your bias appears to be toward piracy and all that goes with it. For someone who seems to have spent most of their eve career pirating in one way or another, a platform advocating mining improvements and reduction in blobbing is a bit of a stretch. It's like electing an NRA official to office and expecting greater gun control.

As a (generally) non-pirate player with an interest in low-sec, I'd probably vote for a member of one of the four militias anyway. Most militia are non-pirates who live in low-sec, and probably see miners/haulers as more than thin-hulled loot receptacles, ready to be cracked open

Essentially, I'm saying that there are plenty of pirates in Eve - probably enough to get a CSM elected. You should concentrate on those players and maybe stop trying to 'reach across the floor' to the carebear types. I've spent two years developing an industrial base. During that time, people like yourself have consistently made my life more difficult (but ofc that's what you're there for ). My carebear side has no problem with pirates, but I certainly wouldn't vote for one.

Otherwise I think you have a strong platform, and good luck with your campaign.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

I feel that improving lowsec is directly related and very dependant on it's accessibility, profitability and outright fun-ness (I made that word up) to everyone of every profession and every security status. Improving mining and/or mission running in low security space can and should be something that is a buff to both the industrialists doing the work and the pirates trying their damnedest to ruin it.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

If you want to make low sec more appealing to carebears, you would want to make it more unappealing for pirates/griefers. The problem is definitely not that there's not enough reward. Your insinuation shows where you stand.

---

Originally by: Bourreau

---

Aside from moon mining what rewards are you talking about? You do realize that almost all, if not all, pirates must have alternative ways of making money to support their nefarious activities? Pirating really doesn't pay, at all.

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Edited by: Dawts on 15/10/2009 14:03:05
I stopped listening when you tried to suggest that low-sec ratting was rewarding, then I stopped listening again when you said pirating isn't a profession.

What changes would you like for low-sec?

edit: u mad?

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

More valuable ores to mine in low sec. Carebears already have plenty of reasons to be in low sec to do their carebearing there. The reason they don't is because all productivity goes down the drain when your faction ship gets blown to bits within 5 minutes.

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Edited by: Dawts on 15/10/2009 14:03:05
u mad?

---

Originally by: Dawts

---

Edited by: Dawts on 15/10/2009 14:03:05
I stopped listening when you tried to suggest that low-sec ratting was rewarding, then I stopped listening again when you said pirating isn't a profession.

What changes would you like for low-sec?

edit: u mad?

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Edited by: Lord Bentley on 07/10/2009 15:23:29

Originally by: Helicity Boson

---

Originally by: Lord Bentley

---

Well, i wish you luck. Here are the things why i will not vote you, just to help you in a long run.

1. Anyone with numbers in their name is a BIG no no.
2. Your suggestions lag imagination and i don't find them special or much needed.
3. I think you lack the experience.

I wish you luck

---

1: anyone with lord in their name is more of a douche
2: his suggestions represent something a large number of us have an interest in
3: I think you dont know spectre, what he does in real life, or what kind of experience he may or may not have.

---

I don't know spectre, if i would i probably would vote for him. I just still see no new or imaginative ideas here. Also, name does not make a person, unless it has numbers in it. You don't see a person with name like "John 230982", but you might run into a lord from time to time. This **** breaks immersion.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

Of course you don't know these things but: Belt rats are better in low sec. Missions pay more and give more LP in low sec. More valuable ores to mine in low sec. Carebears already have plenty of reasons to be in low sec to do their carebearing there. The reason they don't is because all productivity goes down the drain when your faction ship gets blown to bits within 5 minutes. It is simply impossible to be economic if you have to protect yourself from the space equivalent of suicide bombers who have no interest in being economic in their approach to maximizing their damage to the game experience of others.

The problem, and that's the last line you said in the part that I quoted, is that "pirating" isn't a legitimate profession in EVE. CCP and self-proclaimed pirates like to pretend so, but it really isn't. It's not a way of making isk or otherwise gaining something in the game. To put it more simple: There's no pirating in EVE, it's just psychopathic grief killing. Don't talk around it: Pirating is not a legitimate profession.

Now some people, me included, may argue: it should be. Mainly because space games have a long tradition of there being "space pirates" and EVE is no different in that it tries to make this approach viable, the problem is that EVE fails horribly.

There's already several groups of people that shoot ships in order to make a living. That's mission runners and belt ratters. They make fine money in high sec and 0.0, but not in low sec. Because of the psycho grief killers. No: There's no pirating in the game. Just psycho grief killing. There's people in 0.0 needing to shoot down players in order to maintain their security.

Pirating, read psycho grief killing in low sec, isn't a legitimate profession. Virtually every psycho grief killer either has a looong carebear past or a carebear alt that makes this financially viable. It's not legitimate in its current form.

I'm gonna go as far as saying that pirating, read psycho grief killing, should be likened to URL spammers in EVE or email spammers in the real internet. Those don't make a living in the game, but from a subjective point of view, their actions are understandable, they're trying to satisfy an out-of-game need, trying to reach an out-of-game-goal. But in those cases, we hate them for a reason, because they make use of ingame/RL facilities in a way that makes it much worse for everyone else. But we use spam filters and ignore buttons to get rid of those people. What do we do against the psycho grief killers of eve? CCP still likes to pretend that it's a legitimate activity, even when it really is about as legitimate as spamming URLs. But that way, psycho grief killers can go about their "business" unhindered. What we (everyone but the psycho grief killers) need is a CSM that convinces CCP that "pirating in low sec" isn't currently a legitimate profession and CCP and everyone else needs to stop pretending that it is.

If you disagree with this, maybe based around the notion that eve is a sandbox and everyone can do whatever they like, consequently you'd have to argue that spamming URLs is also a legitimate activity in the game and CCP should - despite the net damage to the player experience as a whole - should therefore take measures to protect the game experience of URL spammers.

But this is about Spectre wanting to be a CSM. I'm just saying: Spec won't agree to anything I say here, spec in fact has refused so far to show any fleshed plans to improve the experience in low sec except for vague suggestions. According to him, he gets to jet around in the world while we (other players) are supposed to come up with ideas that he can take credit for.

---

Originally by: Lex Alandar

---

Edited by: Lex Alandar on 16/10/2009 20:19:12
...He talks about killing "ships" in missions as though this is some noble pursuit, but clearly killing players in lawless space makes one psychopathic?...

...FIND A WAY AROUND IT.... Use a ****ing scout, or make some anti-pirate friends to run defence for you!...

...I miss being a blinky pirate, but until there is an actual reason to live that lifestyle rather than a bunch of senseless negatives and restrictions, I will try to keep my sec above -2.0.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

The gods! Take note, noobie: Low sec isn't lawless space. 0.0 is. Low sec is meant to be a space with less security (no immediate concordokken) but still with the laws and supposedly, some sort of drawback to being a psycho grief killer.

What I'm criticising is that in reality in low sec, Psycho Grief Killers have all the advantages and none of the disadvantages that they would have in either high sec or 0.0. It's virtually impossible to provide economical defense for an operation in low sec because that either just attracts a bigger blob or the scope of the defense make the rest of the op grossly unprofitable.

In 0.0, defense is territorial, and any bigger blob gathered to attack a mining op (that thanks to higher profitability of the op and the higher efficiency of defensive operations, will always be able to afford some security) will just be perceived as an attack on sovereignty and "psycho grief killing" turns into a boring standoff or (rarely) into a big wasteful battle.

Oh, and you enjoy being a psycho grief killer? Well I enjoy URL spamming and constantly recreating alts/trials. EVE is a sandbox and I can do whatever I want!

Also, you might be right with me opposing space violence. But when you run with your vagabond 100% of the time you can when you're not massively outgunning whatever it was you were trying to gank in the first place, you oppose space violence as well. Of course arguing that you should fight when experience tells you that you're gonna get owned would be 'tarded and anyone suggesting to do so is as well. But isn't that exactly what you keep asking "carebears" to do?

Oh wait, no, you're actually asking them to stop making profitable ops, which is what I find the defining motivation of a carebear.

Furthermore, it's not just unprofitable, but downright impossible to work as law enforcer in low sec with stations that let pirates dock everywhere, and idiotic "ingame laws" that make the law enforcer frequently lose more sec rating than the psycho grief killers themselves in the long run. Like you, trying to stay above -2.0, and probably still managing to effectively be an all-out pirate / psycho grief killer.

Take note that "bounty hunters" as a profession exist in the same way that "pirates" do. If either exist, then only as completely ineffective caricatures of what they ideally should be doing (if the game mechanics worked in a different way)

Go (try to) be a "pirate" in 0.0 - In low sec, you're just a psycho grief killer exploiting CCPs broken concept of the law to the detriment of everyone else.

---

Originally by: SunGod RA

---

now now, show us on the bunny where the ebil pir8 touched you.

---

Originally by: Dabljuh

---

blah blah blah bunch of bull**** from someone who failed reading comprehension 101 and likes to fail at e-assumptions

---

Originally by: Venetian Tar

---

There's a lot of walls of text in this here thread.

Can we get a tl;dr for each of them please?

---

Originally by: General Coochie

---

Edited by: General Coochie on 18/10/2009 12:33:04
I will vote for Spec cause he is a cool guy and I like his visions.

However trying and curing eve just a bit from blob warfare is not easy. I agree with Avan Sercedos concern about frigates getting it easier under gate fire. If you make frigs able to tackle easily at gates you will limit soloing even more, no matter what agility changes you make, as a SEBO inty can catch almost anything. I'm thinking about my thorax, I'm outlaw so I'm free game to everyone. If there is a frigate or interceptor on gate ready to tackle I'm ****ed. That is the way of being outlaw and I accept it, however if everyone easily could be tackled on the gate by interceptor I think it would promote gate camps more and making soloing without a scouting alt suicide for everyone wanting to explore low sec. This would further add to ppl not wanting to go to low sec. And then you would have to come up with even stronger incentives for ppl to go to low sec. And I think even coming up with good balanced isk advantages of low sec is tricky as it is.

I think making frigs able to tackle anyone (not just outlaws) at gates would be the deathblow to soloing in low sec in anything but a frig. Limiting one man gangs and limiting small gangs even more.

You have a 3*SB phobos but not everyone has or wants to risk it at a camp. A sebo stiletto on the other hand gets the job done for ~20mill and isn't a sitting duck as much as the phobos is.

It would be to easy setting up a working gate camp.



I think leave the gate mechanic more or less as it is. I do like your aggression session change timer suggestion though for station that could go for gates as well. Then make the belts and other celestials in low sec worth visiting. This doesn't have to mean that low sec suddenly gets crowded by carebear victims. But if low sec was truly rewarding you would atleast not be able to instantly know if someone is a bait or a potential victim at a celestial, this might make ppl more inclined to attack at celestials solo or small gangs, taking the fighting away from gates and stations. Cause 95% of everything in belts these days is bait, and knowing that it is bait is what makes ppl bring the blob against the potential blob thats waiting.

---

Originally by: Yargok

---

He almost came off like a sane human being! :P

---

Originally by: Scrobes

---

I'd vote for Dabljuh. ;)

---

Originally by: Wensley

---

My vote is for sale. What's it worth to you, Speccy Weccy?

---

Originally by: Wensley

---

My vote is for sale. What's it worth to you, Speccy Weccy?

---

Originally by: "DeBingJos"

---

About gatecamping,

Just an idea: If there is an easy way to see who is on the other side of a gate the gatecamp could still be done, but it would be a lot more difficult.

Gatecamps from Highsec to Lowsec would almost cease to exist and a gatecamp from lowsec to lowsec (or 0.0) would mean you'd have to camp the gate at 2 sides. Thus increasing the number of ships you need.

Less gatecamps means more traffic to lowsec. Which is also good for the pirates. And lets be honest, it is more fun to ransom/kill another ship if you have to look for it instead of waiting in a boring gatecamp...

Another suggestion for your campaign: Fix the ship sensors, clicking every 2 seconds is hardly fun.

---

Originally by: Gaven Darklighter

---

weather or not I have substantial monetary gain to be had by supporting him I will gladly vote for him because while I may not agree with him all the time, at least he isn't a dilapidated sac of carebear tears waiting to be popped.

GL Spec

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

To me, by far, the most important thing for me and my corp to get out of Eve is FUN. There are other things that get weighed in but this is and has always been the number one most important factor. Judging by the fact that we have a lot of fun, I would say we are successful pirates.

---

Originally by: Dakius

---

Who is Spectre3353?

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Quote:

---

(1) No one wants to fly frigates around lowsec if they are unable to even use them at a majority of locations where pilots actually congregate/travel through (ie: gates, stations). This encourages the use of larger ships.

---

Make sentry guns scale based on ship size and possibly even gang size so that larger ships/gangs don't have such a severe advantage in lowsec and so that frigates don't get basically one-volleyed when engaging under sentries.

---

Originally by: Spectre3353

---

Quote:

---

(2) No one wants to fly ships around if they are just going to lose them in lame situations where they cannot get a fight out of it (ie: agility/speed changes mean that it is very difficult to travel without getting caught on a gate before you can warp). This also encourages or almost forces people to have multiple accounts with which to scout which I am not a big fan of.

---

Reverse some of the agility nerfs that were made so that people are less likely to be nabbed on a gate as they travel in smaller ships. Right now you can easily catch a plated cruiser with a regular old non-sensor boosted battlecruiser. It isn't even that hard to catch frigates aligning most of the time.

---

Originally by: CCP Mitnal

---

I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.

---

Originally by: RedSplat

---

Linking information in the public domain is against the EULA?

---