EVE Search - High Sec Candidate?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

CSM Campaigns

High Sec Candidate?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.20 23:07:52 - [1] - Quote Good Evening, Unfortunately for me, the campaigning season is opening at the same time as my job is getting busy (run-up to Christmas). Despite that, I will read every response to my thread... and I will be prepared to answer questions/interviews. Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart? I would like there to be a "High Sec" platform, for a candidate for the CSM. If no one else wants to step up to the plate, then I will. If someone else wants to run for CSM for the benefit of High Sec gameplay, then I am happy to step down and support them... if they can do a better job. The problem with High Sec space is that the players there are all independent. There is no feeling of "we". This lack of "we" is a problem. The lack of "we all stand together" is a problem. The "apathy of the carebear" is a problem... This I know. I know that, although numerically High Sec has the largest number of log-ins... accounts... players... I know that High Sec will probably never be able to gather together enough in order to support a CSM candidate. But that is no reason to not try!! Come on, High Sec! If something is important for you, stand up for it!! Who am I? You have never heard of me. I am a High Sec Carebear. I am a High Sec Carebear, and proud of it! High Sec Carebears tend not to socialize too much, and are only members of NPC or small corporations. Well, this is not the first character I have created in order to play "EVE". I have never been a member of a big alliance or coalition. I have never been a member of a big corporation. Hell, I have never left High Sec space. I gained my love of Spaceship games by playing Elite... way back on my ZX Spectrum 48k+ (with a jammed SHIFT key (jammed as in... raspberry jam)). Back then it was possible to try docking with a space station and to accidentally line up with the back of the station... and die whilst trying to fly through the back of the station to the entrance. Fun times . I graduated to Frontier: Elite II on a 486 PC, and spent my time happily flying between Barnard's Star, SOL, and Wolf 359. I should have been studying, but flying a (mostly harmless) panther fully loaded with robots was more fun. I kept my eyes open for an online version of a space-sim... and that is where EVE comes in. I really enjoy (as in "really") flying transports, fulfilling contracts, and, sometimes, mining. What would be my Platform: 1) High Sec is worth fighting for! I want to do what I want to do. I do not want to be a part of massive 1000 ship fleets. I just want to transport stuff, and occasionally mine things. Maybe a mission or two. Is that too much to ask? Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around! 2) Banhammer! Somewhen back in September, a number of players belonging to a griefer community were banned from playing eve. According to what I have read on the interweb, and according to what CSM member "funkybacon" said on his blog... the banned players never got told what they were banned for! I am ALL FOR aggressive banning of griefers and harrassers by CCP, but I feel that anyone that pays for an account deserves to know for what they get banned... especially if they have paid-for ($$) game time still running. On the other side, I feel that having a public list of banned players, and crimes (name and shame!!) would also provide assistance for other players (esp. high sec players), in knowing who to avoid! The central register entry could look something like this: "Player XX, banned for X weeks, for: Harassment" Of course, if it is true, that the same "gm" that made the ban is also handling the "appeal" then this also needs changing. 3) New Player Experience The New Player Experience also needs work, and it needs people (on the CSM) that are focussing on it, and representing the needs of the "New Player". If Eve is to continue to grow and develop, (and exist) then New Players are of vital importance. I know that CCP have already said that they are working on this... but it should not be allowed to again fall into the background (as it has clearly already done... judging by the state of the NPE as I started). 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored. I am sure that there are many issues that are burning for someone that wants to represent the High Sec player base. I am sure that you have enough ideas of other things that need to be said (the above are only the things that are burning for me). If the normal, apathetic High Sec resident can get off his/her lazy butt and be bothered to vote, then we can have a voice. It doesn't have to be me.... but someone has to do something... somewhen... for the good of some people! I am also quite prepared to represent/push issues that other High Sec Carebears have, even if I have not mentioned them above. I think it is all-important that High Sec gathers behind a candidate... (even if it is not me) so that our interests do not get swept under the table by the massed/organised nullsec coalitions. Thank you, Lorelei
admiral root Red Galaxy 1854	Posted - 2014.11.21 01:05:00 - [2] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around! I'm interested in how you think you would be able to represent highsec when you clearly have no desire to represent some highsec players, specifically gankers, bumpers and other content creators? Also, do you think your inability to distinguish bad guys (griefers) from good guys (gankers, bumpers and content creators) would impair your judgement? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.21 20:09:59 - [3] - Quote Hey! I even got a response. Of course, it was not from a care bear... because we care bears don't normally respond to things like this! Sorry for the wall of text. I am new to things like this. admiral root wrote: I'm interested in how you think you would be able to represent highsec when you clearly have no desire to represent some highsec players, specifically gankers, bumpers and other content creators? Surprisingly good question! I expect that the ganker/griefer/content creating community would support Psychotic Monk, DJ Funkybacon or someone similar. I am not "anti-ganker" (in the sense that I want to completely stop suicide ganking. Bumping has been ruled legitimate by CCP, and posted about on these forums). I am pro-carebear. There are a large number of people like me that do not want to be ganked, are not interested in the content that other players are proud of producing, and still want to play spaceship games. EVE is, however, a Sandbox, and CCP have (in the main) come out in support of "emergent gameplay". This is something we carebears will have to learn to live with, and learn to work around, if we want to keep playing Spaceship games. Like I said in my initial post: I want at least a 50:50 chance of winning! (I would say that my stance on "Bans" and a clear commentary from CCP about them is something that would interest the content creating community. Staying on top of the New Player Experience is also something that everyone could appreciate.) But let me try saying this, (and see if anyone talks to me afterwards)... The large number of independent carebears making "tear threads" on the forums, and lobbying CCP to nerf all High Sec game play down to nothing has lead to a large amount of non-connected actions from CCP (eg. concord buffs, bounties, mining barge boosts, low slots on freighters etc) all of which give us carebears "tools" with which to defend ourselves from aggressors... but no real plan. CONCORD is broken! If a suicide ganker pre-pulls CONCORD in a system (by shooting a POCO in a rookie ship) then they get more time to do damage on their target, before CONCORD warps in. However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. CCP should level the playing field here.... and either allow (or disallow) CONCORD manipulation on all sides. (after all, organised Gankers could pull CONCORD out of the asteroids just before ganking... and awake and aware miners could see CONCORD disappearing from their belts, and warp off or react in time. Allowing the CONCORD mechanic to be used by both sides is fair. If the gankers don't pre pull CONCORD, then it is their own fault. And under this system, if the miners don't pre-pull CONCORD, then that is their own fault too. Bounties are broken. That page that New Players can look at, the one about the different "careers" in EVE, says something about "Bounty Hunter". What if one could register oneself as a "Bounty Hunter" (for a fee), and then, as a registered "Bounty Hunter" could claim more than the current joke-percent of a bounty? admiral root wrote: Also, do you think your inability to distinguish bad guys (griefers) from good guys (gankers, bumpers and content creators) would impair your judgement? Let me say, as I was considering if it was worth my time at all writing here, I read through a lot of James 315's minerbumping blog. The language used by some of my carebear cousins is unfortunate and shocking. I do not think I have an inability (greater than anyone else) to distinguish between griefers and good guys. I can see how you might infer that from my comments above. For example: one reason I want to have more transparency with the Banhammer, is to clearly define what separates a griefer and a ganker (for example). If I get ganked 10 times in one day by the same person whilst mining in the same asteroid belt, using the same bookmarks... am I getting griefed or ganked? If I get ganked 10 times in the same day by the same person whilst moving between 10 different systems to try and get away... am I being griefed or ganked? DJ Funkybacon wrote a very nice post after the banhammer... where is the line? At what point am I being griefed?? How do you define "griefing"? How does anyone define "griefing" (once they get past the "my shiny ship got killed" tear posts)?? I cant imagine that it is much fun for a "cutting edge" content creator to not know if he is somewhen going to get banned for crossing some imaginary line!
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.21 20:15:26 - [4] - Quote http://pastebin.com/D287VjrW I had a chat with some corps mates last night. I thought I would share it here. If you want to, you can read it and see more about what I am trying to do.
Mike Azariah DemSal Corporation DemSal Unlimited 1916	Posted - 2014.11.21 22:50:48 - [5] - Quote Welcome to the race I am the current Hisec person (according to most) and may run again but I would love to see a second voice added to the council m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1572	Posted - 2014.11.21 22:52:23 - [6] - Quote How could a highsec candidate not know about Mike Azariah? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.21 22:59:27 - [7] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Welcome to the race Thank you! Mike Azariah wrote: I am the current Hisec person (according to most) and may run again but I would love to see a second voice added to the council When do we get to know if you are running again?!?! Zappity wrote: How could a highsec candidate not know about Mike Azariah? Hi Zappity! Thank you for contributing to my thread. As you can see above... Mr Azariah says he "may run again". Whether or not a High Sec candidate "knows" about Mr Azariah... until now there has been no definite declaration of "running again". If you wanted to ask: "How can someone not know that Mike Azariah is the Candidate for High Sec" then the answer would be: He has not yet said that he is "running again". IF you have any questions about what I stand for... or about something I have said, then please feel free to ask! I read every post, and if they are not obvious trolls I respond! :D
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1572	Posted - 2014.11.21 23:04:44 - [8] - Quote Sure. I was just responding to the tone of your OP which seemed ignorant of the fact that there was already such representation. Eg: OP wrote: Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart? Um, yes, there is. Although it is ironic that much of Mike's support probably comes from outside highsec. Out of interest, have you read the minutes? Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Aliana Nomerae Delusions of Granduer Two Drink Minimum 0	Posted - 2014.11.21 23:17:37 - [9] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Hey! I even got a response. Of course, it was not from a care bear... because we care bears don't normally respond to things like this! Sorry for the wall of text. I am new to things like this. admiral root wrote: I'm interested in how you think you would be able to represent highsec when you clearly have no desire to represent some highsec players, specifically gankers, bumpers and other content creators? Surprisingly good question! I expect that the ganker/griefer/content creating community would support Psychotic Monk, DJ Funkybacon or someone similar. I am not "anti-ganker" (in the sense that I want to completely stop suicide ganking. Bumping has been ruled legitimate by CCP, and posted about on these forums). I am pro-carebear. There are a large number of people like me that do not want to be ganked, are not interested in the content that other players are proud of producing, and still want to play spaceship games. EVE is, however, a Sandbox, and CCP have (in the main) come out in support of "emergent gameplay". This is something we carebears will have to learn to live with, and learn to work around, if we want to keep playing Spaceship games. Like I said in my initial post: I want at least a 50:50 chance of winning! (I would say that my stance on "Bans" and a clear commentary from CCP about them is something that would interest the content creating community. Staying on top of the New Player Experience is also something that everyone could appreciate.) But let me try saying this, (and see if anyone talks to me afterwards)... The large number of independent carebears making "tear threads" on the forums, and lobbying CCP to nerf all High Sec game play down to nothing has lead to a large amount of non-connected actions from CCP (eg. concord buffs, bounties, mining barge boosts, low slots on freighters etc) all of which give us carebears "tools" with which to defend ourselves from aggressors... but no real plan. CONCORD is broken! If a suicide ganker pre-pulls CONCORD in a system (by shooting a POCO in a rookie ship) then they get more time to do damage on their target, before CONCORD warps in. However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. CCP should level the playing field here.... and either allow (or disallow) CONCORD manipulation on all sides. (after all, organised Gankers could pull CONCORD out of the asteroids just before ganking... and awake and aware miners could see CONCORD disappearing from their belts, and warp off or react in time. Allowing the CONCORD mechanic to be used by both sides is fair. If the gankers don't pre pull CONCORD, then it is their own fault. And under this system, if the miners don't pre-pull CONCORD, then that is their own fault too. Bounties are broken. That page that New Players can look at, the one about the different "careers" in EVE, says something about "Bounty Hunter". What if one could register oneself as a "Bounty Hunter" (for a fee), and then, as a registered "Bounty Hunter" could claim more than the current joke-percent of a bounty? admiral root wrote: Also, do you think your inability to distinguish bad guys (griefers) from good guys (gankers, bumpers and content creators) would impair your judgement? Let me say, as I was considering if it was worth my time at all writing here, I read through a lot of James 315's minerbumping blog. The language used by some of my carebear cousins is unfortunate and shocking. I do not think I have an inability (greater than anyone else) to distinguish between griefers and good guys. I can see how you might infer that from my comments above. For example: one reason I want to have more transparency with the Banhammer, is to clearly define what separates a griefer and a ganker (for example). If I get ganked 10 times in one day by the same person whilst mining in the same asteroid belt, using the same bookmarks... am I getting griefed or ganked? If I get ganked 10 times in the same day by the same person whilst moving between 10 different systems to try and get away... am I being griefed or ganked? DJ Funkybacon wrote a very nice post after the banhammer... where is the line? At what point am I being griefed?? How do you define "griefing"? How does anyone define "griefing" (once they get past the "my shiny ship got killed" tear posts)?? I cant imagine that it is much fun for a "cutting edge" content creator to not know if he is somewhen going to get banned for crossing some imaginary line! TL;DR Version Contrary to my first post, I don't actually intend to represent all high-sec players, only those players who conform to my belief of what a high-sec player should be.
Aliana Nomerae Delusions of Granduer Two Drink Minimum 0	Posted - 2014.11.21 23:18:40 - [10] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: Welcome to the race Thank you! Mike Azariah wrote: I am the current Hisec person (according to most) and may run again but I would love to see a second voice added to the council When do we get to know if you are running again?!?! Zappity wrote: How could a highsec candidate not know about Mike Azariah? Hi Zappity! Thank you for contributing to my thread. As you can see above... Mr Azariah says he "may run again". Whether or not a High Sec candidate "knows" about Mr Azariah... until now there has been no definite declaration of "running again". If you wanted to ask: "How can someone not know that Mike Azariah is the Candidate for High Sec" then the answer would be: He has not yet said that he is "running again". IF you have any questions about what I stand for... or about something I have said, then please feel free to ask! I read every post, and if they are not obvious trolls I respond! :D Translation I have no clue who or what Mike Azariah is. Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral?

Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.21 23:39:13 - [11] - Quote Zappity wrote: Sure. I was just responding to the tone of your OP The tone of my OP was selected for a reason. Zappity wrote: Out of interest, have you read the minutes? Yes. I read the minutes of the last CSM, Every page... even the ones that were heavily censored due to NDA. Do you have a question about them?
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 1	Posted - 2014.11.21 23:44:42 - [12] - Quote Aliana Nomerae wrote: TL;DR Version Contrary to my first post, I don't actually intend to represent all high-sec players, only those players who conform to my belief of what a high-sec player should be. Um.... thank you for trying to summarise my walls of text. I know I need to improve on them. But I don't think you did it correctly. If you have any questions for clarification, or anything you want to discuss, please feel free to post again. Aliana Nomerae wrote: Translation I have no clue who or what Mike Azariah is. Is it animal, vegetable, or mineral? OK. I am not interested in splitting "High Sec" votes. Mike has not yet said that he is running again... as you can see from his post above. Is he going to declare for CSM 10? Only time will tell... But even if he does... trying to mobilise the High Sec people a bit... well that's not bad! ;)
Amyclas Amatin SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation 488	Posted - 2014.11.22 00:11:50 - [13] - Quote But but but, EVE Online is all about having consequences on other people's gameplay! It's been said to many times I know, but there, I said it again. Tell us more about how one more nerf will somehow save you from gankers that are forced to ever increase their level of organization? One solo player will never be able to defeat a small army that's out to get them, not unless you are actually very very good at all aspects of pvp, and are situationally aware at all times. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ New Order Diplomat, contact me for all your New Order enquiries!
Super Perforator new order logistics CODE. 15	Posted - 2014.11.22 00:33:34 - [14] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: Tell us more about how one more nerf will somehow save you from gankers that are forced to ever increase their level of organization? Is this the point where I say that English is not necessarily my main language? Did you read what I wrote? What I wanted to say was that it is not about NERF and more NERF... but more about having everything make sense. Applying the same rules to gankers and miners... stuff like that. If you have specific questions, I am happy to answer them. Stress? Just cool it... A Diplomat for the New Order. Praise James!
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.22 00:43:17 - [15] - Quote Amyclas Amatin wrote: But but but, EVE Online is all about having consequences on other people's gameplay! Tell us more about how one more nerf will somehow save you from gankers that are forced to ever increase their level of organization? It is not about nerfing. It is about having the same chances (see CONCORD). If you have any specific questions, I will be happy to answer them!
Benny Ohu Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno. 4178	Posted - 2014.11.22 00:54:07 - [16] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. no. gamemasters confirmed this is legitimate gameplay
Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri new order logistics CODE. 54	Posted - 2014.11.22 10:05:38 - [17] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Amyclas Amatin wrote: But but but, EVE Online is all about having consequences on other people's gameplay! Tell us more about how one more nerf will somehow save you from gankers that are forced to ever increase their level of organization? It is not about nerfing. It is about having the same chances (see CONCORD). If you have any specific questions, I will be happy to answer them! Okay, your main idea is that some sort of balance between miners and gankers must be maintained and that both sides must have equal opportunities for success. Fair enough. What I would like to hear is your specific ideas on the issue. What exactly in the game mechanics should be changed to make such a balance work? My second question is: what is your opinion about those of the highsec carebears who make zero effort to ensure their safety, but feel entitled to protection provded by someone else?
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.22 17:07:46 - [18] - Quote Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote: Okay, your main idea is that some sort of balance between miners and gankers must be maintained and that both sides must have equal opportunities for success. Fair enough. Thank you for your questions. The Ganker vs Miner/Freighter issue is always the one that gets the most attentions on the forums, because my carebear cousins keep on coming here and whining. :( At the moment the opportunities are not equal, because some of the systems in place are broken. I know we will never be able to implement anything that will save us from our own "stupidity" (not watching dscan, making sensible fitting choices et cetera). CCP Falcon quite clearly stated that CCP are not responsible for our safety... and I am not (yet) stupid enough to stand there and say: But Mr Falcon, we really want it please! Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote: What I would like to hear is your specific ideas on the issue. What exactly in the game mechanics should be changed to make such a balance work? What exactly in game mechanics? Well for example, I would like to see a fix to the bounty system, so that players actively engaging in bounty hunting (as opposed to whoring off CONCORD or other killmails) get a better payout than the bad one at the moment. That alone, I think, would make some difference in defences, or finding people willing to sit around in asteroid belts waiting for the other "good guys" to show up. I have some ideas that might work better than the current system, but I think that CCP with their knowledge of the game etc should be capable of coming up with functioning, valid changes... and it is up to the CSM to not let them forget about the issue. And then there are other issues one could discuss, eg the spawning of ice. Monotonous regularity, always the same system... always the same time. If it was a bit more random, then we carebears might have to move around a bit. Those trying to gank us might also have to move around a bit. Encouraging mobility encourages an increase in interactions with other players and also increases the chances that I might land in a system that doesn't already have its own hard and fast ganker team installed! At this point, I must say that I have done a lot of thinking about these things. I would not be committed to pushing all my crazy ideas through. The important thing is that someone is there (especially if Mr Azaria is not running again) to see that High Sec does get the attention it deserves. Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote: My second question is: what is your opinion about those of the highsec carebears who make zero effort to ensure their safety, but feel entitled to protection provded by someone else? This is a complete and utter failure of the New Player Experience, and that is (in my opinion) one of the biggest problems facing High Sec today. The fact that it is possible for someone who wants to play a space ship game to come here and undock, and not know that they have to take care of themselves... and that there are the other "good guys" out there that want to kill them. At the moment it is possible to download EVE, undock and fly around without actually knowing anything about the game. I also think one of the things that misleads some people is that the space is divided into High Security, Low Security, and Null Security... changing the names to remove the word "Security" might also lead to some of us carebears not expecting to be "secure" there! (Sad but true!).
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.22 17:13:20 - [19] - Quote Benny Ohu wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. no. gamemasters confirmed this is legitimate gameplay Thank you for the correction. I missed that one, for I do indeed know people that say they got warned off... maybe then for the other reasons that GM stated. I shall be bookmarking that post. One of the main problems facing High Sec, and why we of the more Carebear nature do not ever manage to unite... to do anything... is our complete lack of communication/interaction and sense of "we". I am sure it has not escaped my notice that really the only people responding to my thread at the moment are members of "the other good guys" that, of course, don't actually want a carebear on or anywhere near the CSM!
Haedonism Bot Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 1589	Posted - 2014.11.22 18:07:10 - [20] - Quote It is disingenuous of you to refer to yourself as a "highsec candidate" when in fact you intend to represent only one segment of the highsec community. The same goes for Mike Azariah, except that in his case calling himself a "highsec candidate" is downright insulting, since he has been doing this long enough to know better. If you truly intend to represent all of highsec you need to rethink your platform. CONCORD has already been buffed and ganking has already been nerfed to the point where it takes an absurd level of teamwork and organization to gank anything larger than a rookie ship and making a profit doing it without reimbursement from outside sources is almost out of the question. but guess what? We still do it, and more than ever - if the rumor mill is to be believed. Nerf ganking more than it already has been and I promise you this - you will only make the gankers stronger, better and more organized. We will adapt and thrive, and more carebears will die than ever. If you truly wish to represent highsec, you should be advocating for some of the previous nerfs to be rolled back so ganking can return to its former state as a casual distraction as opposed to a primary occupation executed by professional squads with military precision. The other priority for highsec should be rebalancing the corp mechanics/wardec equation. The goal should be for more wars and greater consequences for dropping corp to evade them. Give incentives to joining high quality player corps, disincentives to joining NPC corps or small PVE/mining corps, and reduce war fees across the board. If you are still serious about representing highsec after getting all that done, you need to work on getting CCP Fozzie to pull his head out of his ass on the in-corp aggression issue. It is your role as CSM to call CCPs out when they are pushing forward with terrible ideas. Do those things, and you can call yourself a representative of highsec. Do the things you proposed in your OP, and you are just another entitled carebear pushing for "one more nerf". CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs www.everevolutioanryfront.blogspot.com

Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.22 19:02:08 - [21] - Quote Thank you for taking the time to write a response. Haedonism Bot wrote: It is disingenuous of you to refer to yourself as a "highsec candidate" when in fact you intend to represent only one segment of the highsec community. Which segment? There has been some discussion since the OP (admittedly not much). What do the gankers want/need? I think trying to get the bounty mechanics fixed, trying to get CCP to be more open with why they ban people (to the people that get banned) and improving the NPE so that the people coming here know before they really start, what they are getting into is all good... I have said that a 50:50 chance would be a good aiming point... and I have already said somethings about what I think could do that. Having found out that I "can" use a dedicated alt (or three) to get CONCORD to spawn in my belt for me (as long as I don't abuse alt-turnover or trial accounts) is a plus point. Haedonism Bot wrote: The same goes for Mike Azariah, except that in his case calling himself a "highsec candidate" is downright insulting, since he has been doing this long enough to know better. If every High Sec player were to vote on the issues that were discussed... we carebears would get all our wishes passed... because we outnumber everyone else. When choosing to represent a group... it makes more sense to try and appeal to the majority (unless of course the majority are lazy/ignorant and think that not voting is also making a statement! ). I have already stated that I do not believe it makes any sense to try and nerf ganking into the ground. I also stated that I do not believe it makes any sense to try and get CCP to make AFK Autopiloting completely safe... I have not yet seen an announcement that Mr Azaria is running, and I did not want to hold off making my own announcement, because the inertia of Carebeardom requires as much time as possible to even have a chance of getting things moving. Haedonism Bot wrote: If you truly intend to represent all of highsec you need to rethink your platform. CONCORD has already been buffed and ganking has already been nerfed to the point where it takes an absurd level of teamwork and organization to gank anything larger than a rookie ship Ok. I know there are lots of passionate supporters of ganking that are scared that a Carebear on the CSM will take away their fun... but it might be more accurate to say it takes an absurd level of teamwork and organization to gank anything larger than a hulk that has been fit by one of my carebear cousins... and there is a big difference between a Hulk and an Ibis. The Concord thing has been taken care of (if you browse the thread up there). I am looking forward to trying it out, if it helps. Haedonism Bot wrote: and making a profit doing it without reimbursement from outside sources is almost out of the question. but guess what? We still do it, and more than ever - if the rumor mill is to be believed. Yes you do. Just look at your alliance killboard. James315 will probably be endorsing other CSM candidates anyway... Haedonism Bot wrote: Nerf ganking more than it already has been and I promise you this - you will only make the gankers stronger, better and more organized. We will adapt and thrive. [snip] The other priority for highsec should be rebalancing the corp mechanics/wardec equation. The goal should be for more wars and greater consequences for dropping corp to evade them. Give incentives to joining high quality player corps, disincentives to joining NPC corps or small PVE/mining corps, and reduce war fees across the board. If you are still serious about representing highsec after getting all that done, you need to work on getting CCP Fozzie to pull his head out of his ass on the in-corp aggression issue. It is your role as CSM to call CCPs out when they are pushing forward with terrible ideas. Do those things, and you can call yourself a representative of highsec. Do the things you proposed in your OP, and you are just another entitled carebear pushing for "one more nerf". That is thing of the dedicated/organised ganker vs carebear. Too many Nerfs are bad... and buffs are actually useless... because no self-respecting Carebear actually understands game mechanics enough to know what to do with them (see my position on the NPE). "High Quality" Corporations might even be a question of definition, I don't know. But if we want people to join those "high quality" corps, then those "high quality" corps have to be out there... and then they have to be willing to take in new players!! An attempt to give an incentive to getting people to join High Quality Corps is the planned removal of Awoxing... which is not the right way to do it. Sugar Kyle is running an intensive discussion on her blog about Wardecs, and I am following it with interest.
admiral root Red Galaxy 1889	Posted - 2014.11.22 19:41:45 - [22] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Salah ad-Din al-Jawahiri wrote: My second question is: what is your opinion about those of the highsec carebears who make zero effort to ensure their safety, but feel entitled to protection provded by someone else? This is a complete and utter failure of the New Player Experience, and that is (in my opinion) one of the biggest problems facing High Sec today. The fact that it is possible for someone who wants to play a space ship game to come here and undock, and not know that they have to take care of themselves... and that there are the other "good guys" out there that want to kill them. At the moment it is possible to download EVE, undock and fly around without actually knowing anything about the game. Do you not think that players have a personal responsibility to find out the rules of the game? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.22 21:40:32 - [23] - Quote admiral root wrote: [quote=Lorelei Ierendi] Do you not think that players have a personal responsibility to find out the rules of the game? I think it is more important to deal with a "reality" that with an "ideal". I think that a large number of my carebear cousins would benefit from a good NPE... and the rest of the galaxy would benefit from having the carebears properly informed about the way things are. Then no one can claim ignorance... the people that think that this is WOW-IN-Space get to learn it right at the beginning...
admiral root Red Galaxy 1890	Posted - 2014.11.23 00:28:38 - [24] - Quote Nice dodge. :) Would you agree that the NPE should include being ganked, with an explanation as to what happened and why? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.11.23 00:41:52 - [25] - Quote admiral root wrote: Nice dodge. :) One man's dodge is another man's answer. admiral root wrote: Would you agree that the NPE should include being ganked, with an explanation as to what happened and why? I would personally think that, if the NPE continued to be mission based... that it should rather include ganking than getting ganked. Getting "ganked" by NPCs (and it would almost have to be NPCs in an organised NPE) is nothing like getting ganked by people, especially if you "know" it is pre-programmed... (no risk no fun). That would also then work as an introduction to CONCORD... an introduction to blowing things up... and a look at the "other side". EVE is, after all, a game about blowing spaceships up, and once you have thought about how spaceships get blown up, then you have a reason to think about how not to get blown up. And at least thinking of / being aware of getting blown up would be a great help for my Carebear cousins.
admiral root Red Galaxy 1890	Posted - 2014.11.23 00:46:24 - [26] - Quote A mission to go gank another player? I'd be so totally down with that. It's the best idea I've heard on this forum all day. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 3	Posted - 2014.11.23 01:00:01 - [27] - Quote admiral root wrote: A mission to go gank another player? I'd be so totally down with that. It's the best idea I've heard on this forum all day. For all intents and practical purposes, it would probably still have to be an npc... that gets "ganked". otherwise there will be too many problems (also with delaying the completion of the NPE because there is no other player there...). But confronting the new player with the violence... and waiting for CONCORD to come and blow you up after you destroyed the target... At the moment in the NPE there are mining missions... industrial missions... fighting missions... why not pirate missions? On the EVE website there was a list of "professions"... and letting / forcing new players to try them all is surely a good thing... How else will they know what they find interesting/fun?
admiral root Red Galaxy 1891	Posted - 2014.11.23 15:04:08 - [28] - Quote Regardless of whether or not you're elected to the CSM, I think you should start an F&I thread on ganking being part of the NPE. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff CODE. is recruiting highsec PvPers for wardecs \| New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that".
Bam Stroker Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 250	Posted - 2014.11.25 00:25:36 - [29] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Unfortunately for me, the campaigning season is opening at the same time as my job is getting busy (run-up to Christmas). Are... are you Santa? EVE Down Under 2014 (Australia's very own fanfest) 21st to 23rd November 2014 in Sydney, Australia www.evedownunder.com
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 208	Posted - 2014.11.25 13:24:59 - [30] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored. Could you expand on how the wardec mechanic is broken? I agree with you for the record, but I would like your view on what can be done to make wardecs more fun and meaningful for all participants. Do you agree that central to this problem of wardecs is the fact that there is not much difference between NPC and players corps, so there is little to motivate players to stay and fight? If so, which concrete changes would you support to improve the desirability of joining, and fighting for, a player corporation? Do you think nerfing NPC corps, or buffing the income of player corps is a solution to this problem?

Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 3	Posted - 2014.11.25 19:27:03 - [31] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored. Could you expand on how the wardec mechanic is broken? Well, I can try (but please remember I am a carebear). I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, a 1 man corps can avoid a declaration of war. I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, the corporations of an alliance have an easier time, avoiding a war. I find it absurd, that wardeccing corps can cause new/inexperienced players to not log in... simply by declaring war on them. Black Pedro wrote: I agree with you for the record, but I would like your view on what can be done to make wardecs more fun and meaningful for all participants. Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits. This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players. Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up. Black Pedro wrote: Do you agree that central to this problem of wardecs is the fact that there is not much difference between NPC and players corps, so there is little to motivate players to stay and fight? Motivation of players to stay and fight is a big theme. Why would players stay and fight in High Sec? One possible answer is to improve the New Player Experience, so that new players can not start playing the game with their WOW sense of entitlement (or at least without knowing that EVE is different). I agree that there is no motivation for players to fight for their own "corporation". As an NPC corporation member I can safely say that I have not had any problems with War Decs. Why can one not Wardec an NPC corporation? Black Pedro wrote: If so, which concrete changes would you support to improve the desirability of joining, and fighting for, a player corporation? Do you think nerfing NPC corps, or buffing the income of player corps is a solution to this problem? This is again a very good question. I would like to remind you, and the audience, that I am a carebear. I see the main roll of the CSM in checking what CCP is doing... and trying to let them know when it sucks. I don't consider myself savvy enough to tell them that "IF Q=1 THEN......" is worse than "IF Q+1=1 THEN...." Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes.... But: NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do.... If one assumes that the model above is set in place, then anyone in a wardecced corp gets a "flag=wardec". This flag remains for the duration of the war (so no running away). Any shareholding member of a corporation can call for a vote to surrender.. Any war-declaring corporation gets the wardec fees refunded equal to maximal 1/10th the "killed" enemy. Aggressors can recruit "allies" just like Defenders. It is a complicated subject. I would be the first to admit, that I am a Carebear, and am not happy when I get wardecced. But.... and I would like to emphasise "BUT": Declarations of war have a place in EVE, and should stay. I think it is important to enable these players. If there is a mechanic in place, that allows High Sec players to "opt out" of such things (at the expense of not having anything from their corps other than a "chat channel") then I am all for it. (of course, that then needs to be balanced with High Sec resource production (ICE/ORE etc)). I would like to say that the CSM is NOT there to present fully finished solutions to all the problems that have developed in the last years in this game.... but are rather elected to represent "interest" groups of players. Erm sorry, I seem to have got distracted. I hope that you have managed to get an idea of what I am thinking... and if you have any more specific questions... I will be happy to try and answer them!! The most important thing: People should VOTE for the CSM. Only in voting are we sure that the CSM represents US. :)
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 3	Posted - 2014.11.25 19:29:02 - [32] - Quote Bam Stroker wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Unfortunately for me, the campaigning season is opening at the same time as my job is getting busy (run-up to Christmas). Are... are you Santa? Oh. Thank you for the interest in my CSM Campaign. Unfortunately, after much research, I can report that SANTA has actually a lot of free time at this time of year. There are enough "Elves" and "Little Helpers" that spend the time caring about the minutiae. Even his wife, Mary, has more to do than he has. Any further questions, please let me know!
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 211	Posted - 2014.11.25 21:02:25 - [33] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Well, I can try (but please remember I am a carebear). I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, a 1 man corps can avoid a declaration of war. I find it absurd, that simply by disbanding, the corporations of an alliance have an easier time, avoiding a war. I find it absurd, that wardeccing corps can cause new/inexperienced players to not log in... simply by declaring war on them. I agree. The question is how to fix it. Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits. This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players. Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up. I also agree. The corporation-that-is-really-an-NPC-corp idea is fine with me as long as it has (almost) all the restrictions of an NPC corp and (almost) none of the benefits of a player corp. Then really nothing has changed in terms of gameplay except that players now have a shared identity and corp channel. This would help player retention, but does nothing to solve wardecs though. Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Motivation of players to stay and fight is a big theme. Why would players stay and fight in High Sec? One possible answer is to improve the New Player Experience, so that new players can not start playing the game with their WOW sense of entitlement (or at least without knowing that EVE is different). I agree that there is no motivation for players to fight for their own "corporation". As an NPC corporation member I can safely say that I have not had any problems with War Decs. Why can one not Wardec an NPC corporation? Ok let me ask you, what would it take to get you out of your NPC corp and into a player corp? And further, what would it take to get you to stay in that player corp and try some PvP, even if that isn't your main "play-style", to defend it? Would raising the tax rate of the NPC corp to 50% do it? Would being valid targets to players of the opposing faction militia do it? Would a player-corp only buff to your income, say missions pay you and increasing amount up to 100% more but only if you as a corp put effort into building a structure and defending it? Would a player-corp only buff to your mining yield, that requires an moderately expensive and destroyable deployable structure do it? I agree that players should always be able to take refuge in an NPC corp to rebuild in case everything they have is lost, but I also think we need some ideas to help encourage people out of these corps eventually. One way to do this is to make living in a NPC less profitable than living in a player corp, and attach some persistent bonuses for staying and defending those player corps. Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Declarations of war have a place in EVE, and should stay. I think it is important to enable these players. If there is a mechanic in place, that allows High Sec players to "opt out" of such things (at the expense of not having anything from their corps other than a "chat channel") then I am all for it. (of course, that then needs to be balanced with High Sec resource production (ICE/ORE etc)). I agree. Eve is about risk vs. reward. To fix wardecs, there just needs to be a way to make living in player corps more lucrative than NPC corps, and some incentives to stay with a particular corporation. If players are totally risk-adverse and want to spend their life in a wardec-free corp lite or NPC corp - fine - but they should earn significantly less than players who take responsibility for creating, maintaining and defending a player corporation and its assets. Best of luck on your CSM campaign.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.25 22:45:31 - [34] - Quote Please remember I am a carebear! Black Pedro wrote: I agree. The question is how to fix it. That is why CCP get their big bucks! I would say, as a member of a voluntary player organisation (eg CSM) that it is more my job to tell them that their solution is ** and to point our flaws etc. Black Pedro wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Well, I think that non-consensual PVP has limits. This ties in to the descriptions of "coporation lite" that have been circulating. Having a "corporation" that simply exists for social interaction, without any of the POS/POCO/Wardec components of the game is (imho) a good idea. The key to New Player Retention seems to be involvement in a social group... interaction with other players. Having then social groups "corporations" that want to take part in PVP, SOV, poco/pos things... and also wardecs... is a step up. I also agree. The corporation-that-is-really-an-NPC-corp idea is fine with me as long as it has (almost) all the restrictions of an NPC corp and (almost) none of the benefits of a player corp. Then really nothing has changed in terms of gameplay except that players now have a shared identity and corp channel. This would help player retention, but does nothing to solve wardecs though. On the contrary... to solve the problem of wardecs, you have to solve the problem of corporations... and new players. Any mechanic that enables a war dec to carry on and maybe shoot something.... well that is a good mechanic. Without addressing NPE and potential corporations changes, it is impossible to talk about serious, relevant wardec changes/nerfs. Black Pedro wrote:** Ok let me ask you, what would it take to get you out of your NPC corp and into a player corp? And further, what would it take to get you to stay in that player corp and try some PvP, even if that isn't your main "play-style", to defend it? ]Would raising the tax rate of the NPC corp to 50% do it? Would being valid targets to players of the opposing faction militia do it? Would a player-corp only buff to your income, say missions pay you and increasing amount up to 100% more but only if you as a corp put effort into building a structure and defending it?[/quote] 1) raising taxes does not help new players. New players don't know any better... 2) letting militia target people that declare war on an npc corps.... would be a good thing. But the NPC corps must be deccable...... (see an earlier post). Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does.
Black Pedro Yammerschooner 213	Posted - 2014.11.26 10:53:00 - [35] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: On the contrary... to solve the problem of wardecs, you have to solve the problem of corporations... and new players. Any mechanic that enables a war dec to carry on and maybe shoot something.... well that is a good mechanic. Without addressing NPE and potential corporations changes, it is impossible to talk about serious, relevant wardec changes/nerfs. I agree they are related but I am not sure we need to implement that before a wardec change. There really isn't any difference from a game mechanics view whether a new player stays in an NPC corp, or in some new un-wardeccable corp-lite that is really just a form of player controlled NPC corp. There are, and still will be player corps, and we need ideas to make wardecs between them meaningful and more engaging. I don't agree that anything that enables a wardec to carry on is good. CCP could just make dec-dodging an exploit again and wars would go on longer then, but people would still just dock up and play an alt, or worse, go play another game entirely. We need ways to make players want to stay in a player corp. Otherwise, if there is no incentive or desire to defend it but we force them to endure the whole dec, they just won't log in. Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does. Ok, so you think making NPC corps more dangerous or punitive might be better than enticing carebears with carrots to player corps. Do you think carebears would put up with this increased risk, or would they quit the game? I really don't have a sense of the carebear thinking on this.
admiral root Red Galaxy 1913	Posted - 2014.11.26 20:24:40 - [36] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes.... But: NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do.... Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff? No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| Sabriz for CSM New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 162	Posted - 2014.11.27 05:16:02 - [37] - Quote How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances. I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc. How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are?
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 162	Posted - 2014.11.27 05:21:42 - [38] - Quote admiral root wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes.... But: NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do.... Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff? The fundamental problem is illogical player behavior(which as a dev you have to account for). There is a certain prestige and mindset with joining a corp that you don't have with joining a chat channel. So a lot of players create/join corps even when they are clearly better off joining a chat channel and mailing list. These players are also the reason awoxing is being removed and wardecs got nerfed. Eve is a social game and you really do want to encourage the userbase to be social. I would support a "corp in name only" status for the "social" players. This would allow CCP to attach better risks and rewards to "real" corporations
admiral root Red Galaxy 1914	Posted - 2014.11.27 23:39:39 - [39] - Quote I can appreciate your point about the prestige of being in a corp, though it's not something I personally experience (I'm a member of the minerbumping channel \o/), and I certainly agree with you that more interaction between players is good for them and for the game. However, I honestly don't see these non-corp corps changing anything, other than eleventy-one of the dang things when everyone deserts the now-deccable NPC corps. It's moving a problem, not resolving it. No, your rights end in optimal+2*falloff \| Sabriz for CSM New Order diplomat "no one hates you, none of us care enough for that
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 165	Posted - 2014.11.28 02:57:02 - [40] - Quote admiral root wrote: I can appreciate your point about the prestige of being in a corp, though it's not something I personally experience (I'm a member of the minerbumping channel \o/), and I certainly agree with you that more interaction between players is good for them and for the game. However, I honestly don't see these non-corp corps changing anything, other than eleventy-one of the dang things when everyone deserts the now-deccable NPC corps. It's moving a problem, not resolving it. I am in the minerbumping channel too, so I understand what you mean. It solves the problem of "corps are one size fits all". Once you have a corp for social people who aren't interested in the risks or rewards, you can change mechanics for real corps to give real benefits and risks.

Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.28 19:45:36 - [41] - Quote Black Pedro wrote: I agree they are related but I am not sure we need to implement that before a wardec change. There really isn't any difference from a game mechanics view whether a new player stays in an NPC corp, or in some new un-wardeccable corp-lite that is really just a form of player controlled NPC corp. Yes. There is no difference in terms of game mechanics... but in terms of social player mechanics.... and social players are happy players! Black Pedro wrote: There are, and still will be player corps, and we need ideas to make wardecs between them meaningful and more engaging. I don't agree that anything that enables a wardec to carry on is good. CCP could just make dec-dodging an exploit again and wars would go on longer then, but people would still just dock up and play an alt, or worse, go play another game entirely. The most extreme of my carebear cousins will simply go and play the Hello Kitty browser game, whilst waiting for a wardec to expire.... Black Pedro wrote: We need ways to make players want to stay in a player corp. Otherwise, if there is no incentive or desire to defend it but we force them to endure the whole dec, they just won't log in. You will find, that you can take a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink (except if you use the camel-brick strategy... but that violates the human rights of the camel....). I think that there is simply no way to make a player take part in a war dec if he doesn't want to.... But if he is in a corp with a POCO or a POS then... losing his stuff is punishment enough... and if he doesn't want to fight.... then spending a week or two just docked up is punishment enough... and damages his "mining/farming for plex". Then it is up to the player what he does.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.28 19:51:12 - [42] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Player-Only buffs to mining yield are less important. The vast majority of Care Bear experience says that the vast majority of care bear players (sad but true) are not influenced by anything that anyone else does. Ok, so you think making NPC corps more dangerous or punitive might be better than enticing carebears with carrots to player corps. Do you think carebears would put up with this increased risk, or would they quit the game? I really don't have a sense of the carebear thinking on this. [/quote] I guess it works like this.... I think that some of my carebear cousins will take the path of least resistance.... But CCP Statistics shows that they are more likely to keep playing if there is some kind of social connection. NPC Corps are poison for the soul of EVE...
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.28 19:53:31 - [43] - Quote Tear Jar wrote: admiral root wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Describing the complicated changes that are necessary in order to bring balance is difficult. I am not set-in-stone with any particular set of changes.... But: NPC corps should be WarDec-able. (but WarDec the Caldari State... then the Caldari FacPo are also gonna fight back!!) Players should opt between "social groups" (no dec, fixed tax, no poco/pos etc) that cannot dec and are not deccable (social group) and Corporations that can do anything that a corporation anywhere can do.... Doesn't that mechanic already exist in the form of chat channels? Wouldn't making your non-corp corps a game mechanic just move the problem from a handful of big NPC corps to a whole bunch of smaller ones, at the cost of a bunch of time coding stuff? The fundamental problem is illogical player behavior(which as a dev you have to account for). There is a certain prestige and mindset with joining a corp that you don't have with joining a chat channel. So a lot of players create/join corps even when they are clearly better off joining a chat channel and mailing list. These players are also the reason awoxing is being removed and wardecs got nerfed. Eve is a social game and you really do want to encourage the userbase to be social. I would support a "corp in name only" status for the "social" players. This would allow CCP to attach better risks and rewards to "real" corporations Trust me... before your average "care bear" gets informed enough to join a "chat channel" he has already given up and gone back to WOW! Being a part of a "corporation in name only" is something that gives CareBears a chance to feel as big as the members of the CFC, or CODE. or Nulli Secunda.... etc. (Remember "Feeling" is as important as "being"...)
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.28 20:04:23 - [44] - Quote Tear Jar wrote: How do you intend to give carebears a "50:50" chance of winning? The chance of winning an encounter varies drastically depending on circumstances. I mean, an afk hulk has a near 0% chance of winning against a ganker. A skiff has a near 100% chance of winning against the same ganker. Properly tanked he has a 100% chance of winning against 5. Against 7+ he has a variable chance of winning depending on how much attention he pays to local, if he mines aligned, has bodyguards etc. How do you intend to give carebears an even chance of winning given how variable circumstances are? Good question. At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo. I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank.... I have some ideas.... but once again I present the theory that CSM should control the CCP plans... and not present their own ideas too strongly (especially when they have no idea about how hard or impractical something should be to code!). One of my ideas (especially for Freighter Pilots): The Caldari Navy Intelligence Self Destruct Device: This device was developed for Caldari Navy Intelligence... once activated it guarantees (99.5%) the complete destruction of the Ship AND the Cargo............ So when it is fitted... the pilot simply has to be not AFK.... and he can deny potential Gankers any loot whatsoever...
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1589	Posted - 2014.11.28 20:07:44 - [45] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 4	Posted - 2014.11.28 20:08:40 - [46] - Quote Zappity wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels).
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1589	Posted - 2014.11.28 20:14:03 - [47] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Zappity wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights! Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.11.28 20:28:45 - [48] - Quote Zappity wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Zappity wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights! Are you trying to derail my CSM campaign with some petty ethical distractions? Or would you care to comment on the state of the game today?
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1589	Posted - 2014.11.28 20:44:30 - [49] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Zappity wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Zappity wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: violates the human rights of the camel... Hmm. Well the brick strategy is especially cruel (for male camels). I have no doubt. But I'm not convinced that a camel can have human rights! Are you trying to derail my CSM campaign with some petty ethical distractions? Or would you care to comment on the state of the game today? Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.11.28 21:33:39 - [50] - Quote Zappity wrote: Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not. And your opinion about the state of the game? Or any of the EVE related issues* that have been mentioned here? *I think it would be a shame if the CSM was elected based upon the differences between camels and humans.

Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1590	Posted - 2014.11.28 21:52:47 - [51] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Zappity wrote: Well it's hardly an 'ethical' distraction. An animal would clearly have animal rights rather than human rights. I'm not making any comment on whether any particular practice is cruel or not. And your opinion about the state of the game? Or any of the EVE related issues* that have been mentioned here? *I think it would be a shame if the CSM was elected based upon the differences between camels and humans. I think the game is in a better state than ever. Most of my concerns about specific issues were canvassed during the summer summit - I think the current CSM is doing an excellent job. Tags4Standings is about the only highsec issue I care much about (bring it on). I would like to see highsec separated by lowsec to make the trade hubs more independent. That's about it, really. Oh, except for dynamic system sec status. That would be fantastic. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 5	Posted - 2014.11.28 22:22:11 - [52] - Quote Zappity wrote: I think the game is in a better state than ever. Why? Zappity wrote: Tags4Standings is about the only highsec issue I care much about (bring it on). And in what direction do you care about it? I personally think that tags4sec as it is... well it is a bit easy. Easy for some antisocial ganker-type to just spend a few hundred million ISK and get their standings back. What do you think? Zappity wrote: I would like to see highsec separated by lowsec to make the trade hubs more independent. That's about it, really. I don't think having the only route between Jita and Amarr going through LowSec space would make any great improvement for the game. Trade Hubs will develop where they are economical... and if the map is changed then (after a time) the most popular trade hubs will change with them. Of course this makes a horrible disadvantage for the New Players that are just starting... but then well... maybe they/we should have started playing earlier! Zappity wrote: Oh, except for dynamic system sec status. That would be fantastic. Dynamic System Sec Status? Do you mean... that "Sec" status would be system specific? Please explain more!
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1590	Posted - 2014.11.29 00:56:31 - [53] - Quote Why do I think the game is better than ever? So many fixes since Crucible and now starting on the fun big stuff. Lorelei Ierendi wrote: I personally think that tags4sec as it is... well it is a bit easy. Easy for some antisocial ganker-type to just spend a few hundred million ISK and get their standings back. What do you think? I didn't say tags4sec, I said Tags4Standings. As in faction standings. My views are on record - I think the current grind is awful. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=383006 Lorelei Ierendi wrote: I don't think having the only route between Jita and Amarr going through LowSec space would make any great improvement for the game. Trade Hubs will develop where they are economical... and if the map is changed then (after a time) the most popular trade hubs will change with them. Yes, that's the point. At the moment Jita dominates everything because it is too easy to region trade for arbitrage. I routinely use public courier contracts with the reward set at 0.1% of collateral. It is too easy atm and separation would provide risk vs reward as well as many new opportunities. Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Dynamic System Sec Status? Do you mean... that "Sec" status would be system specific? Please explain more! Yes, as in the security status of a system would change according to events within that system. There are plenty of threads about the idea, e.g. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5218416 , especially page 2. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Tear Jar Emolgranlan Code Enforcement Branch 170	Posted - 2014.11.29 01:02:05 - [54] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: At the moment... fitting tank requires a very big drop in potential mining yield, or cargo. I could support a variety of ideas that allow players to actively (as in NOT AFK) to switch between Yield and Tank.... .. They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly. It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears.
BeBopAReBop RhubarbPie The Conference Elite CODE. 1139	Posted - 2014.11.29 16:03:30 - [55] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: [b]Is there room for a High Sec candidate on the CSM? Someone that has the well-being of the multitude of High Sec pilots at heart? Yes there is, and that candidate is Sabriz. Good luck with your run though. New player resources: http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Main_Page - General information http://www.evealtruist.com/p/know-your-enemy.html - Learn to PvP http://belligerentundesirables.com/ - Safaris, Awoxes, Ganking and Griefing-á
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2014.11.29 20:58:49 - [56] - Quote Tear Jar wrote: They can already do that. We have mobile depots and orcas, both let you switch between yield and tank on the fly. Flying an Orca is probably really boring, and with the changes coming to ISboxer, I am not thinking about multi-boxing any time soon. Tear Jar wrote: It honestly sounds like you aren't very knowledgeable about the game, which is a common problem for carebears. We carebears need all the help we can get, including a voice on the CSM. That is my opinion. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Zappity Stay Frosty. A Band Apart. 1590	Posted - 2014.11.29 22:09:18 - [57] - Quote Ah, now I understand. So your key point of distinction with Mike Azariah is that you are the pro-ISBoxer candidate. Good luck with that. Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 8	Posted - 2014.11.29 22:25:36 - [58] - Quote Zappity wrote: Ah, now I understand. So your key point of distinction with Mike Azariah is that you are the pro-ISBoxer candidate. Good luck with that. Nope. Not in the slightest, but Im not about to start trying being a one-man mining fleet now. And I am looking forward to seeing Mike starting a campaign thread! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 335	Posted - 2014.12.01 19:01:37 - [59] - Quote Definitely support more highsec PvE player on the CSM. Good luck! As far as wardeccs, consider the following. Marmite Collective recently wardecced my 1 man corp. Is there any conceivable game mechanic that will get me to fight them at 90-1 odds and given that all they do is train and practice PvP? Absolutely not. It's either dec dodge, NPC corp, or dock up and play on alts. The fact that they are even able to dec me is the problem, and shows why the wardecc system is fundamentally broken. Hopelessly one sided wars with no chance of a defender victory do not lead to interesting gameplay, they just lead to boredom. I would hope that if you are elected CSM you would examine whether wars serve any purpose in highsec (in fact there is some crazy statistic out there than 90%+ of the losses are incurred by one side of the war, on average. These are turkey shoots, not wars.)
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 10	Posted - 2014.12.01 19:15:40 - [60] - Quote Dear Mr Belvar, Thank you for taking an interest in my campaign. I hope that you will use your votes correctly come voting day... I had a conversation including someone on my corps that seemed to think that NOT VOTING was also sending a message. Veers Belvar wrote: Definitely support more highsec PvE player on the CSM. Good luck! As far as wardeccs, consider the following. Marmite Collective recently wardecced my 1 man corp. Is there any conceivable game mechanic that will get me to fight them at 90-1 odds and given that all they do is train and practice PvP? Absolutely not. It's either dec dodge, NPC corp, or dock up and play on alts. The fact that they are even able to dec me is the problem, and shows why the wardecc system is fundamentally broken. Might I ask what you use your 1 man corps for? Does being in a 1 man corps bring any advantages for you, as a player, over being in an NPC corps (other than taxes)? This also comes to what people have been saying about looking that the corporation system as a whole? You know that stuff about "social" corporations with no gameplay relevance... vs. corporations that want to build structures, do things and have gameplay relevance. If your 1 man corporation is an entity that excerpts some direct influence on the game (eg dropping secure containers with messages) then there has to be a mechanism for someone to attack/stop you. This is EVE after all. But if this one man corporations exists solely so that all your alts fly under the same banner... then that is a different matter, I think. But why would someone want to stay in a one man corporation? Wouldn't joining a group of others enable more interaction and involvement? Maybe once the AWOX removal hits, that will reduce the one men corporations..? Veers Belvar wrote: Hopelessly one sided wars with no chance of a defender victory do not lead to interesting gameplay, they just lead to boredom. I would hope that if you are elected CSM you would examine whether wars serve any purpose in highsec (in fact there is some crazy statistic out there than 90%+ of the losses are incurred by one side of the war, on average. These are turkey shoots, not wars.) War is not necessarily always about having a "fair fight", but I agree that the mechanism as it is, is hopelessly broken. Almost as bad as the bounty system. Tora Bushido is also running for the CSM, and if you read his thread... and the linked interview... well you will see that he-who-is-probably-High-Secs-prime-War-Deccer has some ideas on making things more balanced. I read his interview, and I find some of his ideas good... but I will give him time to write his long post and present them before I steal them. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664

Veers Belvar Swordmasters of New Eden 336	Posted - 2014.12.01 19:23:26 - [61] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Dear Mr Belvar, Thank you for taking an interest in my campaign. I hope that you will use your votes correctly come voting day... I had a conversation including someone on my corps that seemed to think that NOT VOTING was also sending a message. Might I ask what you use your 1 man corps for? Does being in a 1 man corps bring any advantages for you, as a player, over being in an NPC corps (other than taxes)? This also comes to what people have been saying about looking that the corporation system as a whole? You know that stuff about "social" corporations with no gameplay relevance... vs. corporations that want to build structures, do things and have gameplay relevance. If your 1 man corporation is an entity that excerpts some direct influence on the game (eg dropping secure containers with messages) then there has to be a mechanism for someone to attack/stop you. This is EVE after all. But if this one man corporations exists solely so that all your alts fly under the same banner... then that is a different matter, I think. But why would someone want to stay in a one man corporation? Wouldn't joining a group of others enable more interaction and involvement? Maybe once the AWOX removal hits, that will reduce the one men corporations..? War is not necessarily always about having a "fair fight", but I agree that the mechanism as it is, is hopelessly broken. Almost as bad as the bounty system. Tora Bushido is also running for the CSM, and if you read his thread... and the linked interview... well you will see that he-who-is-probably-High-Secs-prime-War-Deccer has some ideas on making things more balanced. I read his interview, and I find some of his ideas good... but I will give him time to write his long post and present them before I steal them. I use a one man corp to evade the 11% NPC tax rate. When running incursions/L4s the 11% is an irritating tax that serves to reduce your rewards. By joining a 1 man corp and just folding and reforming when you get wardecced, you avoid the 11% in taxes. Joining multimember corps in highsec is pretty terrible right now. Awoxxing/wardeccs/theft make them basically useless. You can essentially capture all the benefits just by fleeting up and chatting, so all the corp does is give you donwsides. Fundamentally the problem with highsec wars is you can't force people to fight. If necessary I will make 6 incursion/L4 alts, just dock up whoever gets wardecced, and play on one of the other ones. Since there is no way to punish docking up and playing on alts, wars themselves become a joke. Personally I think that highsec would be better off if we just got rid of non-mutual wars. As far as Tora's ideas his main suggestion was to make it more expensive to dec smaller corps and cheaper to dec larger ones. Any analysis of his ideas must take into account that most of his income comes from deccing larger groups, so he has a pretty major conflict of interest.
Lanctharus Onzo Alea Iacta Est Universal Brave Collective 46	Posted - 2014.12.02 04:59:16 - [62] - Quote Well hello there! My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I an one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast. In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10. Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/ As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods: Email: [email protected] Twitter: @CapStable Or via our contact form We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy. Sincerely, Lanctharus Onzo Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal Writer, Co-host of the Cap Stable Podcast Twitter: @Lanctharus
Midgen Black Water Oasis 6	Posted - 2014.12.02 08:20:39 - [63] - Quote wow... this is juicy **slerpslerpslerp i wuv delicious conflict...... you know wut m8's?!?! I hereby officially declare my candidacy for "replacement" high-sec carebear representative if Lorelei Ierendi is booed off the stage :D I'll represent Low-sec fail pirates, high-sec self righteous carebears, and egomaniacal bitter null-vets across the entire Galaxy!! That should pretty much cover most of not ALL of the true nature of the eve online community and culture :) Midgen for CSMX!!! \o/
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 2793	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:28:51 - [64] - Quote I have removed a rule breaking post. The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. Also, if you want to declare you are running for CSM X yourself, feel free to start your own candidacy thread. Do not hijack someone else's. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Beers Veldspar Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 38	Posted - 2014.12.02 10:39:33 - [65] - Quote I fully support Veers BelvarGäó in his crusade for a better SafeSec. Omniscient Oracle of New Eden, Incursion Hero, 6 months GCC timer advocate, Leader of bumping is bullying community, Ivy League space-lawyer, future permanent CSM member, the next level of human evolution, the epitome of modesty - *Veers Belvar*
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 13	Posted - 2014.12.03 22:42:47 - [66] - Quote ISD Ezwal wrote: I have removed a rule breaking post. The Rules: 5. Trolling is prohibited. Trolling is a defined as a post that is deliberately designed for the purpose of angering and insulting other players in an attempt to incite retaliation or an emotional response. Posts of this nature are disruptive, often abusive and do not contribute to the sense of community that CCP promote. Also, if you want to declare you are running for CSM X yourself, feel free to start your own candidacy thread. Do not hijack someone else's. Thank you for your help! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Alan Mathison EVE University Ivy League 11	Posted - 2014.12.04 17:51:51 - [67] - Quote Hi Lorelei: While doing other things, and evolving as time goes on, at this point I consider myself a "HiSec Carebear." As such your campaign is of interest to me. I don't like ganking, although I don't think it should be removed completely, and I very much don't care for the "content" that organizations like CODE say they provide. Having said all of that, I do have some questions I'd like to ask. Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible. EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it? It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority? EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do? Finally, and most importantly, do you like cats? :-) Thanks much! -- Alan Mathison Proud Sophmore, EVE University
Beatrix Dacella Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 3	Posted - 2014.12.05 13:34:55 - [68] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: High Sec is worth fighting for! I want to do what I want to do. I do not want to be a part of massive 1000 ship fleets. I just want to transport stuff, and occasionally mine things. Maybe a mission or two. Is that too much to ask? Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around! Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored. Unfortunately I could not support this platform based on these two sections. It comes across very much as grr gankers, it is not for you to say 'I don't want your content' and make yourself immune from it. I'd be interested to hear your version of 'balance' that you say is missing, despite the constant nerfs to ganking over time. How far do things need to go before they are 'balanced'? What is your vision of that state?
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 14	Posted - 2014.12.05 20:36:04 - [69] - Quote Alan Mathison wrote: Hi Lorelei: Hi Alan! Alan Mathison wrote: While doing other things, and evolving as time goes on, at this point I consider myself a "HiSec Carebear." As such your campaign is of interest to me. I don't like ganking, although I don't think it should be removed completely, and I very much don't care for the "content" that organizations like CODE say they provide. Having said all of that, I do have some questions I'd like to ask. Space has become littered with abandoned POS structures. What is your position on getting rid of them? I'd like to see, perhaps, a orbital degrading mechanic once the fuel is gone. This, then would open up the moons for pilots that will actually use them. The current mechanic, of course, involves Wardec-ing a possibly abandoned Corp and then sitting there for an extended period of time blapping the structures. I think something better is quite possible. I know what you mean. As I write, one of my alts is sitting in his Typhoon firing torpedoes at a POCO that I am sure is no longer needed by the one-man corps that put it there... a long time ago. That is really tedious! I would not be against having some form of decay that requires a corporation that owns structures to be active, and interact with them. Or how about removing the "reinforced" timer from some things that get shot at... if they are from an "inactive" corporation... so there is no 24 hour timer to be active. inactive could be defined in several ways, but for example either refuelling... or not having a director logging in for a specific amount of time...? Alan Mathison wrote:* EVE seems to be popularly seen as more than a game, perhaps moving into the hobby realm. I'm aware that some discussions have been held with regard to finding a way to bring a more casual player or a more casual play-style option into EVE. Would you advocate this? If so, how might this be done without fundamentally changing the nature of the game? Would it? All play styles should be possible... but I thought that that was the point of EVE. There are already casual players here, and playing, so I don't think per se that the game needs to be fundamentally changed! What we have seen is that social interaction increases the chance of player retention. (This is where I probably say that thing again, that I have said earlier in my thread about "social corporations" that have no real ability to impact anything in the game). Alan Mathison wrote: It seems a given that CSM X and CCP will look at dealing with the SovNull question this term. Beyond that, from a gameplay perspective, what would you advocate as the next priority? The New Player Experience. Providing new players with the tools to learn to play and have fun. For example: There are many out there that have seen the latest "this is EVE" trailer, and want to be a part of that... we need to take that starting enthusiasm and somehow keep it going... before people get fed up whilst running against the learning cliff. Alan Mathison wrote: EVE players seem to be quite passionate about the game, yet it is said that the voting rate for CSM elections is lower than that of even the United States midterms. Does this diminish the validity of the CSM? What would you like to do to combat the voter apathy that we see and effectively educate the voters on the reality of what the CSM can effectively do? The CSM is what it is. If the EVE players are not interested in it, then that is their own fault. Everyone has a chance to vote. Firstly, I would love to see an option for the players that are actively interested in the game, or are actively interested in the CSM but not any of the candidates to have a "none of the above" option when voting. Then we could get reliable statistics on the apathy of the EVE players. And stealing an idea from another candidate, maybe CCP could implement a POPup (like the downtime popups) so that everyone on log in gets a pop up saying "don't forget to vote for the CSM" during the last week of the campaigns? And as to your question about cats: I like cats as much as the next person, but where I live, domestic-cats-gone-feral are a real problem for all manner of wildlife. I would advocate responsible cat ownership! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Raziel Walker Lucifer's Hammer A Band Apart. 22	Posted - 2014.12.08 08:29:55 - [70] - Quote You stance against gankers and wanting your mining vessel to have a 50% win chance eliminates you as a serious candidate. You are in a pve ship facing someone who fitted his ship for the single purpose of killing you. If you fit for the sole purpose of tanking his damage can he still solo gank you while making a profit? What makes you a better candidate to vote for as Mike Azariah or Sugar Kyle? Their goal is to improve eve for everyone. Your goal seems to be improving eve for carebears while nerfing gameplay of people that are not you.

Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 14	Posted - 2014.12.08 19:59:32 - [71] - Quote Thank you for taking the time to read my Campaign Thread! Beatrix Dacella wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: High Sec is worth fighting for! I want to do what I want to do. I do not want to be a part of massive 1000 ship fleets. I just want to transport stuff, and occasionally mine things. Maybe a mission or two. Is that too much to ask? Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around! Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored. Unfortunately I could not support this platform based on these two sections. It comes across very much as grr gankers, it is not for you to say 'I don't want your content' and make yourself immune from it. What do war decs have to do with Gankers? (Other than CODE. seem to have a war dec thing starting up....) I do not want to make myself "immune" to it. I think I already mentioned a couple of times in the thread words to the effect of "I am not campaigning for a Theme Park EVE, because CCP will never make one." Beatrix Dacella wrote: I'd be interested to hear your version of 'balance' that you say is missing, despite the constant nerfs to ganking over time. How far do things need to go before they are 'balanced'? What is your vision of that state? For example: Give me the tools to keep me safe. Allow me to decide to use them, or take the risk not to. The New Player Experience does not (as it stands) prepare new players, also new carebears, for life in EVE. I've played through the tutorials on more than one alt... and there was nothing there about D-SCAN. There was nothing there about how to fit a ship according to the current theories and trends for PVP or PVE. There wasn't even anything like a friendly nudge in the right direction. OK, you could say that "Google is your friend" but there are enough of us Care Bears out there that have not mastered the intricacies of efficient internet searching... how about (for example) an EVEmail automatically for every new character (firstly introducing the new guy to the functionality (or presence of) EVEmail) that has a couple of helpful links... wikis... EVE Uni... stuff that a new guy might like to read? Press the information into the hands of us Carebears. Then see what we do with it. If we do nothing, then that is our choice/fault... but it ought to be a choice... and just trying to Google EVE brings up a lot of old Information, and information of dubious quality. And I believe that I have also said that I would LOVE to have the Caldari Navy Intelligence Secure Self Destruct module... that is 99.5% guaranteed to destroy my ship, all mods, all cargo et cetera. It is, of course, an active mod... but if I am not AFK or dicking around I can make sure that those gankers don't get their hands on my shinies! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Feyd Rautha Harkonnen Lords.Of.Midnight The Devil's Warrior Alliance 1656	Posted - 2014.12.09 20:42:12 - [72] - Quote Oh look, another carebear wanting to turn hisec into a risk-free Disneyland. When EvE becomes a milquetoast WoW of hisec fappery, we will be able to look back through successive CSM members like Ripard Teg, Mike Asariah and this carebear as the clapping seals who didn't fight CCP on behalf of preserving the sandbox and our HTFU traditions. But then it will be too late. tldr; Do NOT elect carebears like this to the CSM. F Would you like to know more?
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 14	Posted - 2014.12.09 20:59:35 - [73] - Quote Feyd Rautha Harkonnen wrote: Oh look, another carebear wanting to turn hisec into a risk-free Disneyland. Not exactly. But if you had read what has been written, you would have known that. For example the post directly above yours! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Don Cordelion School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:03:58 - [74] - Quote CCP keeps repeating that new player retention is much better for players that join player corporations yet wardecks make high sec carebear corporations foolish affair. We really need change that even if it means having corp-lite and tears of some high sec PvP'ers.
Cade Devereaux Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2014.12.10 12:44:01 - [75] - Quote Don Cordelion wrote: CCP keeps repeating that new player retention is much better for players that join player corporations yet wardecks make high sec carebear corporations foolish affair. We really need change that even if it means having corp-lite and tears of some high sec PvP'ers. Thats a part of EVE. EVE is not, nor is it supposed to be, easy. Most things in EVE you have to fight for and nobody is gonna hold your hand while you figure out how to do it. The first corp I ever joined got deced into oblivion cause most of the members didn't want to fight. Such is life, but saying that high sec wars are why players don't stay in EVE is kinda silly.
Don Cordelion School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2014.12.10 13:11:23 - [76] - Quote Cade Devereaux wrote: Thats a part of EVE. EVE is not, nor is it supposed to be, easy. Most things in EVE you have to fight for and nobody is gonna hold your hand while you figure out how to do it. The first corp I ever joined got deced into oblivion cause most of the members didn't want to fight. Such is life, but saying that high sec wars are why players don't stay in EVE is kinda silly. No, CCP is saying that player retention is much higher when you get players to socialize. Nothing silly with that, makes perfect sense.
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 16	Posted - 2014.12.10 18:51:07 - [77] - Quote Thank you for taking time to read my thread! Raziel Walker wrote: You stance against gankers and wanting your mining vessel to have a 50% win chance eliminates you as a serious candidate. Well I am serious. Just because I do not say all the things you agree with, does not make me any less serious. That 50% chance can be achieved in a myriad of ways.... One of the first among them would be teaching new players... having some kind of tutorial... about DSCAN and how to use it. If I am paying attention to DSCAN then it is harder for the catalysts (or atrons) to get close enough. That is worth a few percentage points right there. The problem is... there is nothing letting new players know about DSCAN... There is no official guide to sensible fitting... or even really the basics. Like I said... give me the tools to do what I can, and then if I choose not to do it, then it is my fault. Raziel Walker wrote: You are in a pve ship facing someone who fitted his ship for the single purpose of killing you. If you fit for the sole purpose of tanking his damage can he still solo gank you while making a profit? Probably not. At least not if I do it properly. Raziel Walker wrote: What makes you a better candidate to vote for as Mike Azariah or Sugar Kyle? Vote for me and them, if you want. There is room for more than one High Sec member on the CSM. One of my main points is also to try and get people to vote, at all. So even if you don't want to vote for me, and want to make sure that I have no success... please vote for someone! That way we know you care! Raziel Walker wrote: Their goal is to improve eve for everyone. Your goal seems to be improving eve for carebears while nerfing gameplay of people that are not you. Oh. At the start I thanked you for reading my thread. I should just have thanked you for replying to my thread. I don't know what I am saying that would be a "nerf" to gankers... for example? In fact some gankers might claim that with the Faction Police, CONCORD, the Barge buffs... that they have a significant disadvantage, and in the interests of coming up to 50% they need some love too... Funny that the gankers don't say that... Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi State War Academy Caldari State 25	Posted - 2014.12.12 21:25:19 - [78] - Quote And on the subject of "gankers".... is there anyone out there that would want to tell me what that particular "crowd" might view as important for the next year?!? Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
J'Poll CDG Playgrounds 5007	Posted - 2014.12.14 12:18:46 - [79] - Quote Don Cordelion wrote: Cade Devereaux wrote: Thats a part of EVE. EVE is not, nor is it supposed to be, easy. Most things in EVE you have to fight for and nobody is gonna hold your hand while you figure out how to do it. The first corp I ever joined got deced into oblivion cause most of the members didn't want to fight. Such is life, but saying that high sec wars are why players don't stay in EVE is kinda silly. No, CCP is saying that player retention is much higher when you get players to socialize. Nothing silly with that, makes perfect sense. A. Socializing isn't the same as joining a corp. But judging by the stupidity of what is going on in NPC corps, I can't blame people and CCP for saying that joining a corp is better. B. Only stupid ****** indy corps do get wardecced. A friend of mine, miner by heart, has been in an indy corp for nearly 3 / 3.5 years now...And only once saw a wardec, which was when he just joined. It's those that make themself a target in one way or another that get wardecced. Personal channel: Crazy Dutch Guy Help channel: Help chat - Reloaded Public roams channels: RvB Ganked / Redemption Road / Spectre Fleet / Bombers bar / The Content Club**
Tisiphone Dira New Order Logistics CODE. 43	Posted - 2014.12.14 15:21:52 - [80] - Quote All miners already have a 99% chance of winning a gank attempt. The fight starts long before my guns start firing. I am a lion. I have set up camp in a region, I have scouted it out. Of all the miners, I have selected you to engage solo. Why is that? Because you are a sickly gazelle. The big strong tanked procurers and skiffs (and even well tanked rets and macks) won our engagement before it even started. I scanned everbody, checking for a weak tank or antitank, I checked your bio for anti-lion propaganda. Their shields warded me off and their bios, while not positive and compliant, were at least neutral, so they remain safe. I have no reason to call in the rest of my pride to send a message. Others in my region will continually bring concord to protect them. Or post falcon sentries to jam me, or camp the gates to protect their pocket. Some will keep an eye on local and watch for my scout, they will warp off before I get there. The fact that I started firing on you means that I have pegged you as a wounded gazelle who is too focused on eating the grass, look up once in a while would you? The ones I gank voluntarily gave up your 99% chance in favor of yield. That choice has consequences, that is what EvE is all about. Now then, you do seem a bit confused about some of the mechanics and what goes into ganking. I hereby invite you to try it out for yourself. I don't believe you can fairly take this anti-ganking position as a CSM candidate without having explored what actually goes into successfully suicide ganking somebody. That 50% thing is nonsense, but because you haven't seen it from our end, you wouldn't know. Prove you have an open mind, gank something.

Sylphy TSOE Po1ice TSOE Consortium 53	Posted - 2014.12.19 08:44:29 - [81] - Quote admiral root wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around! I'm interested in how you think you would be able to represent highsec when you clearly have no desire to represent some highsec players, specifically gankers, bumpers and other content creators? Also, do you think your inability to distinguish bad guys (griefers) from good guys (gankers, bumpers and content creators) would impair your judgement? If there wasn't this stupid rule in place, where X spots on the CSM are actually pre-reserved (and are held by the same entities, who are all basically their own team), we could have 2 sides from each of the categories we'd want represented (High, low, null, w-space, +other areas) The character does not represent the views/opinions of its Corporation or Alliance.
Bing Bangboom DAMAG Safety Commission 340	Posted - 2014.12.29 21:59:08 - [82] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 1) High Sec is worth fighting for! I want to do what I want to do. I do not want to be a part of massive 1000 ship fleets. I just want to transport stuff, and occasionally mine things. Maybe a mission or two. Is that too much to ask? Griefers, gankers, bumpers, "content creators" stop me having my fun, and stop me wanting to play. Gankers have been nerfed and Carebears have been buffed in the past... but despite everything there is still no "balance". If I have to expose my mining/transporting self to the wild and evil whims of others, then I would like to be able to have (at least) a 50:50 chance of winning. At the moment it is not so... this needs changing! You say that you are "creating content", but I dont't want your content! I am creating my own content happily flying my freighter/retriever around! I don't really mind you stealing my catch phrase as it cannot be said often enough, although an attribution would be nice for my publicity loving self. However, I do object to you following it with a sentiment that is the exact opposite of what it means. Fight back. Do something to win the conflict between you and your enemies. THINK about what he has and what you have and turn the odds in your favor. If you won't fight then you deserve what is done to you. We in the New Order and our supporters ARE fighting for highsec, fighting against those who would ruin it, make it into a safe, quiet, uninteresting ISK faucet. Those like you. Your campaign boils down to "destroy highsec aggression". Like thousands before you you only claim to want to make it even, just a little more balanced, just one more nerf. And unfortunately, highsec has received these nerfs. But the carebears keep dying. And so here you are, asking for more because the carebears will never accept less than total safety. Highsec IS worth fighting for. Its a desparate battle for the soul of the game. After enormous setbacks we are finally turning the corner. Highsec WILL be saved... even if we have to kill every carebear to do it. Highsec is worth fighting for. Bing Bangboom Agent of the New Order of Highsec Belligerent Undesirable Highsec is worth fighting for. By choosing to mine in New Order systems, highsec miners have agreed to follow the New Halaima Code of Conduct.-á www.minerbumping.com
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 164	Posted - 2015.01.04 02:08:35 - [83] - Quote Don Cordelion wrote: CCP keeps repeating that new player retention is much better for players that join player corporations yet wardecks make high sec carebear corporations foolish affair. We really need change that even if it means having corp-lite and tears of some high sec PvP'ers. Not all corporations are created equal when new player experience is concerned. The kind of corporations often targeted by highsec pirates are barely, if at all, above NPC corporations in their ability to serve new players. Small highsec mining or mission running corporations should be left to those who are old and experienced enough to know what they are doing and should absolutely not be recommended as a starting point for new players. Solo HS carebearing is all fine and good, but it it should be reserved for those who are truly dedicated to their carebearing ways. Against popular opinion, it is not a suitable environment for fresh players and definitely not a good starting point for those still unsure of what kind of content they want from this game. I have seen a lot of people run a few missions or mine a few droids either solo or in a small highsec corp, and unsubmit out of boredom and due to a feeling of irrelevance. The players who I have seen become active content creators and active players have more often than not been those who have been engaged and pulled along for meaningful content by established Null, Low or WH based groups. Everyone can use a low-sp scout or a hero tackler, so there is no reason not to take the newbie along for the ride. The Finnish speaking player community has this excellent player retention system called Suomi Op, where players from established corporations run public PvP operations open for everyone who speaks the language. This has been a major contributing factor for player retention among those few newbies who are fortunate enough to find out about it. These operations have given new players a taste of the kind of game play they might otherwise not have encountered at all before unsubmitting, and have also helped give a lot of established carebears a taste of what making things explode feels like. The realization that the markets are full of replacement ships and that the "scary" parts of eve aren't actually that scary at all when you are no longer alone and miserable is an important experience for both the newbie and the veteran carebear. I strongly recommend player outreach programs such as this to everyone else as well, not least since they are an excellent excuse to get totally drunk with strangers on TeamSpeak. Kudos to newbie-friendly veterans such as Mauno Materialisti, Lacco, Ugly Eric, Shana Tirii and others for contributing to my retention trough Suomi Op when I was a clueless newbie.
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 63	Posted - 2015.01.06 10:01:20 - [84] - Quote Hi Tisiphone, thank you for taking time to comment in my thread. Tisiphone Dira wrote: Now then, you do seem a bit confused about some of the mechanics and what goes into ganking. I hereby invite you to try it out for yourself. As I said in my opening post, the holiday season is always hectic, but I have been keeping up with my thread. Thank you for the invitation: https://zkillboard.com/character/94644678/ Of course, I more than adequately reimbursed my victims, based on the zkillboard killmail. I was surprised at how quickly Concord showed up in Amarr... when you read about it, it seems like a long time, but it seemed like they were on top of me, just as I pulled the trigger. I even got shot at by what you would call a "white knight" whilst trying to pull Concord out of the belts... After I mailed my victims to explain why I did just what I did, I got the following response: > Thx not probleme sorry i speack litel english but i have understand so no death threats or anything. Tisiphone Dira wrote: I don't believe you can fairly take this anti-ganking position as a CSM candidate without having explored what actually goes into successfully suicide ganking somebody. That 50% thing is nonsense, but because you haven't seen it from our end, you wouldn't know. Prove you have an open mind, gank something (barge/exhumer). I don't necessarily think of myself as "anti-ganking" shudder And I still don't think the 50% thing is nonsense... as I have said before, we can reach something like that by at least informing the New Players that there is such a thing as "DSCAN" and how it (more or less) works. Tisiphone Dira wrote: E: To be honest, I don't trust you enough to tell you what I find important as a ganker, what's stopping you taking that and just running an an anti-(whatever I say) platform. You need to prove yourself first. The info is already out there though... Do you have an open mind? Tisiphone Dira wrote: E2: The above edit seems like a real problem for a 'high-sec' candidate Well I am not going to fly around ganking things until my sec drops low enough for Faction Police to come. Like I said, I personally enjoy more things like hauling... trading... Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 65	Posted - 2015.01.11 20:59:59 - [85] - Quote Lanctharus Onzo wrote: Well hello there! My name is Lanctharus Onzo and I an one of the co-host and writers of the Cap Stable Podcast. In early 2014 our podcast interviewed a great majority of the candidates for CSM9 and we will be doing the same for CSM10. Here is our announcement: http://capstable.net/2014/12/01/council-of-stellar-management-x-call-for-candidate-interviews/ As we stated in the announcement, you can contact us to schedule your one on one interview via any of the following methods: Email: [email protected] Twitter: @CapStable Or via our contact form We look forward to speaking to you about your particular skill set and expertise in EVE Online and we hope you success in your candidacy. Sincerely, Lanctharus Onzo Co-host & Writer of the Cap Stable Podcast Military Director, Alea Iacta Est Universal Just did my interview. I was a bit nervous, and am looking forward to seeing how it came out. Thanks guys! :) Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 105	Posted - 2015.01.12 18:56:02 - [86] - Quote Dear Mr Bangboom, Bing Bangboom wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 1) High Sec is worth fighting for! I don't really mind you stealing my catch phrase as it cannot be said often enough, although an attribution would be nice for my publicity loving self. Um... I had to actually research to find out what you meant. I actually got that from some guy that posted containers around in space... his name was Maximilian something (Rota..sky?). Anyway he had the word "free" in there, and I sort of changed it. Where did you get your catchphrase from? Bing Bangboom wrote: However, I do object to you following it with a sentiment that is the exact opposite of what it means. Your campaign boils down to "destroy highsec aggression". Like thousands before you you only claim to want to make it even, just a little more balanced, just one more nerf. And unfortunately, highsec has received these nerfs. But the carebears keep dying. And so here you are, asking for more because the carebears will never accept less than total safety. Ah. I don't think you are right there. And I don't think I want total safety... but well. Feel free to read some of the posts in this thread, and get yourself up to date on what we have been talking about... if you are really interested. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 107	Posted - 2015.01.26 19:08:50 - [87] - Quote http://capstable.net/2015/01/26/lorelei-ierendi/ Interview is up. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
John A Than Aliastra Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.01.28 04:18:32 - [88] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: For example: Give me the tools to keep me safe. Allow me to decide to use them, or take the risk not to. Congratulations, you don't need to run anymore! Your argument is so powerful that CCP retroactively did this! Any ship can fit a tank, any player can check the world map for recent killings, any ship can stay aligned, any player can watch local, join an intelligence channel, pre-pull CONCORD, add known gankers to a watchlist. And despite all this, you can never be completely safe. And that's fine. If you seriously think it isn't, you are arguing that a fleet of 10 tackle frigates, 100 HACs, and 30 battleships shouldn't be able to destroy a tanked freighter, which is clearly BS. If you are arguing that it should take -more- ships than it -currently- does to destroy tanked ships, then NO. That number has already been raised numerous times, and people who ask for 'just one more nerf' are followed by people who never knew what it was like before that nerf, and then ask for 'just one more nerf', and so on and so on. Which is why highsec is so safe now. If you want to be safer, raise your EHP with modules, not by crying to CCP that it's too dangerous.
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 110	Posted - 2015.01.28 19:11:10 - [89] - Quote Hi John! Thank you for taking the time to communicate in my thread. John A Than wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: For example: Give me the tools to keep me safe. Allow me to decide to use them, or take the risk not to. Congratulations, you don't need to run anymore! Your argument is so powerful that CCP retroactively did this! Any ship can fit a tank, any player can check the world map for recent killings, any ship can stay aligned, any player can watch local, join an intelligence channel, pre-pull CONCORD, add known gankers to a watchlist. If I recall correctly, and I do, when I wrote that bit I was thinking more about also having people having the chance to learn the tools... Other than having a strange button on the screen... there was nothing telling me about what DSCAN was. I think I also missed the bit in the tutorial about checking the map for the killings... John A Than wrote: And despite all this, you can never be completely safe. And that's fine. If you seriously think it isn't, you are arguing that a fleet of 10 tackle frigates, 100 HACs, and 30 battleships shouldn't be able to destroy a tanked freighter, which is clearly BS. If you are arguing that it should take -more- ships than it -currently- does to destroy tanked ships, then NO. That number has already been raised numerous times, and people who ask for 'just one more nerf' are followed by people who never knew what it was like before that nerf, and then ask for 'just one more nerf', and so on and so on. Which is why highsec is so safe now. If you want to be safer, raise your EHP with modules, not by crying to CCP that it's too dangerous. I don't recall asking for nerfs? Did I do that? It's mostly about not having any way to learn those things, other than sitting down with google and getting a headache. Of course, such things as bringing randomness into the response times of CONCORD would be an interesting addition to the fight in high sec... a module that lets me destroy my ship and loot if I am not afk is something I would also find interesting. Stuff like that. "nerfing" one group or the other is not going to change anything. That has already been proved time and again. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Ashterothi The Order of Thelemic Ascension 212	Posted - 2015.01.28 20:53:09 - [90] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 2) Banhammer! Somewhen back in September, a number of players belonging to a griefer community were banned from playing eve. According to what I have read on the interweb, and according to what CSM member "funkybacon" said on his blog... the banned players never got told what they were banned for! I am ALL FOR aggressive banning of griefers and harrassers by CCP, but I feel that anyone that pays for an account deserves to know for what they get banned... especially if they have paid-for ($$) game time still running. On the other side, I feel that having a public list of banned players, and crimes (name and shame!!) would also provide assistance for other players (esp. high sec players), in knowing who to avoid! Lorelei Although the exact reason was never explicitly stated, anyone who was paying attention could easily infer as to why it occurred, and it wasn't for suicide ganking or in game griefing. Are you advocating an escalation of banning for such behavior by CCP, especially in the wake of their announcement allowing the tactic of "Hyperdunking" Ashterothi for CSM 10!

Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 111	Posted - 2015.01.28 21:02:16 - [91] - Quote Hi Ashterothi! Thank you for taking the time away from your own campaign thread in order to visit mine! Ashterothi wrote: Although the exact reason was never explicitly stated, anyone who was paying attention could easily infer as to why it occurred, and it wasn't for suicide ganking or in game griefing. Are you advocating an escalation of banning for such behavior by CCP, especially in the wake of their announcement allowing the tactic of "Hyperdunking" No, I am not advocating an escalation of banning. Suicide ganking is not griefing. I am not advocating a policy change here... just maybe some more clarity/transparency for the bans that take place. If you have the energy, I think I talked about this on my capstable interview! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Ashterothi The Order of Thelemic Ascension 217	Posted - 2015.01.28 22:38:29 - [92] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Hi Ashterothi! Thank you for taking the time away from your own campaign thread in order to visit mine! Ashterothi wrote: Although the exact reason was never explicitly stated, anyone who was paying attention could easily infer as to why it occurred, and it wasn't for suicide ganking or in game griefing. Are you advocating an escalation of banning for such behavior by CCP, especially in the wake of their announcement allowing the tactic of "Hyperdunking" No, I am not advocating an escalation of banning. Suicide ganking is not griefing. I am not advocating a policy change here... just maybe some more clarity/transparency for the bans that take place. If you have the energy, I think I talked about this on my capstable interview! Thanks for clarifying that! And best of luck to you! Ashterothi for CSM 10!
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2305	Posted - 2015.01.31 05:51:03 - [93] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: I would like there to be a "High Sec" platform, for a candidate for the CSM. If no one else wants to step up to the plate, then I will. If someone else wants to run for CSM for the benefit of High Sec gameplay, then I am happy to step down and support them... if they can do a better job. It looks as though there is a considerable turnout, and I am trying to round all of you up to get the high-sec force to work on fixing up this long-stagnated region. I am really excited to see that not only are there so many of you, but you've got great ideas and completely unique viewpoints! You in particular would appear to be the first carebear candidate this round, to which I must say I am a tad surprised. You've got an interesting perspective from the standpoint of one who likes to run package delivery. We throughout EVE rely a lot on you folks for our logistics teams but we don't always consider your feelings. As you are a casual gamer, I think you'll find a lot of agreement with Mike Azariah's style. He has already been in the CSM twice in a row and is highly likely to win a third seat. I assume you knew by now that he is indeed running again. Well I'd like to see you bounce ideas off the other highsec candidates. I want your unique input. You've said you're fighting for the right to play your way and for the chance to survive, well one of the big topics that Jenshae Chiroptera and I have been discussing recently is providing tools for the defender to allow them to step up their game with skill and save their shipments or whatever it is they're defending. So if you've got the time, please stop by my highsec reform thread. I'm hoping to get at least a bit of input from all of you, and I want you all to come with an open mind. I believe that all highsec candidates can work together through differing opinions and goals, united toward one grander goal: that highsec definitely needs work! CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2430	Posted - 2015.02.01 10:43:16 - [94] - Quote BTW I am following this thread and if you have questions about what it is like being the 'highsec' csm guy. Ask away. You are taking up a hard task because while a large percentage of the game live in highsec they do not organize nor do they really care about the metagame (elections included). Hopefully Leeloo and the rest of the CCP community team can generate some more noise this year and we can get a decent turnout. Some will tell you that this is Nulls year . . . with expected sov changes. Yes and no. the changes are coming but the game is a whole, not isolated instances. Any change in one area has an affect across the whole of the game. Even when they are talking about a part of space you know less about you have the right and the responsibility to represent your part of the game and ask how it wide the effects will be. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 113	Posted - 2015.02.01 14:43:40 - [95] - Quote Hi Mike! Thanks for stopping by! Mike Azariah wrote: BTW I am following this thread and if you have questions about what it is like being the 'highsec' csm guy. Ask away. You are taking up a hard task because while a large percentage of the game live in highsec they do not organize nor do they really care about the metagame (elections included). Hopefully Leeloo and the rest of the CCP community team can generate some more noise this year and we can get a decent turnout. I think something like a popup on logging in for the week of the elections would be a good thing. Like I have said, we get several popups in the run-up to downtime every day... one week of pop-ups on logging in with the elections coming would not be too much more of an inconvenience. Then we could at least be sure that no one missed out on voting because they didn't know!!! Mike Azariah wrote: Some will tell you that this is Nulls year . . . with expected sov changes. I hope that the changes in null will bring us high sec carebears also fresh wind! Aside from the game mechanics, I hope that the changes in null will make it more exciting than it previously seemed to be, and more accessible (for someone sitting outside and watching). Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2315	Posted - 2015.02.01 19:23:16 - [96] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Aside from the game mechanics, I hope that the changes in null will make it more exciting than it previously seemed to be, and more accessible (for someone sitting outside and watching). I feel the same way. I've been in nullsec and liked it, but trying to maintain myself out there is stressful. I just don't play the game enough anymore, and as a result if I want to join in on a fleet starting out there, I have to gather my things and ship out a day before in preparation, because that's actually easier than staying out there sometimes. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky Highsec reform thread
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 118	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:06:56 - [97] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: http://capstable.net/2015/01/26/lorelei-ierendi/ Interview is up. And the discussion of the interview is up: http://capstable.net/2015/02/04/csm-x-show-3/ I get air time between about minute 39 and 46. I found the comments... interesting and valuable. Does anyone else have any comments? Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1447	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:26:01 - [98] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: more clarity/transparency for the bans that take place. If you have the energy, I think I talked about this on my capstable interview! If they're not providing any rationale for a ban, it's because CCP security is concerned that giving the person a reason would give them information they could use to work around the ban. It's for people that violate the EULA so baldly that there's no possibility that they were acting in good faith. If you make CSM, you will eventually learn how seriously Team Security takes this kind of operational security, but then you won't be able to tell anyone. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2469	Posted - 2015.02.09 18:50:14 - [99] - Quote There is also the fact that CSM is NOT a two things that people seem to think that we are. We are not the internal affairs of ccp so we do not double check all the bans to make sure they are right. We see the stats of bans and the effects, we may advise on the wording of rules and such but ccp security are trained professionals whose job it is to keep the game 'clean'. We are not the Human Resources department. We have no effect on hires or fires nor should we. This came up at the beginning of last term and the smart thing to do is stay clear and send condolences to those who were laid off and to those left behind. Congrats to people who move on to new jobs and new futures. These are people and their livelihoods. Act accordingly m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 879	Posted - 2015.02.10 01:05:15 - [100] - Quote Lorelei, you have my support. Maybe the OP title could be a statement rather than a question? Mike Azariah wrote: Some will tell you that this is Nulls year . . . with expected sov changes. m I would like this to be EVE's year. I have a dream This galaxy will rise up, and live out the true meaning of its existance: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all pilots are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Minmatar, the friends of former carebears and the newbies of former SOV owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the waste land of low sec, a space sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of barrenness, will be transformed into an oasis of thriving systems and conflict. I have a dream that our four types of space will one day live in a galaxy where they will not be judged by the alliance they are in (except Goons ) but by the content of their character. I have a dream today! CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog

Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 119	Posted - 2015.02.12 18:30:04 - [101] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: There is also the fact that CSM is NOT a two things that people seem to think that we are. We are not the internal affairs of ccp so we do not double check all the bans to make sure they are right. We see the stats of bans and the effects, we may advise on the wording of rules and such but ccp security are trained professionals whose job it is to keep the game 'clean'. And I am NOT advocating or assuming that the CSM gets to approve bans or control bans. I would, however, like to know if the person applying to join my corp has a shady history etc. That is the rationale behind my "Wall of Shame". Mike Azariah wrote: We are not the Human Resources department. We have no effect on hires or fires nor should we. This came up at the beginning of last term and the smart thing to do is stay clear and send condolences to those who were laid off and to those left behind. Congrats to people who move on to new jobs and new futures. These are people and their livelihoods. Act accordingly Oh heaven forbid that any game company, anywhere, lets players have anything to do with hiring or firing! I have, of course, been reading the blog posts, twitter et cetera of CSM9 and have decided not to say anything more about it at the moment! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Aditu Ibuki Metaphysics Industries Holed Up 2	Posted - 2015.02.14 20:59:41 - [102] - Quote Can I make a suggestion that a less controversial platform for those of us who do not play EVE for PvP is the additional of new content which is not centered around PvP or in areas where PvP is likely in seconds once you decloak. EvE has improved it fleet combat in the last 7 years or so, but it has always had an amazing potential in its economy implementation. Would CCP countenance adding new content for non PvP or PvE activites, the last time this seemed to happen was with PI and some small additions to exploration. This is not about dumbing down the game or making it risk free it is about giving so love to the areas of the game that at lot of us are attracted to in Eve other than exploiting other players. Why has CCP never widened trade possibilities much or fleshed out more NPC companies opportunities for player content?
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 119	Posted - 2015.02.15 09:57:15 - [103] - Quote Thank you for stopping by my thread! Aditu Ibuki wrote: Why has CCP never widened trade possibilities much or fleshed out more NPC companies opportunities for player content? You raise some interesting points... and I am going to have to think about that. But my initial, not really thought about, emotional response would be something along the lines of: isn't the thing about Eve that it is a Sandbox, with player generated content... and shouldn't CCP stay as much out of it as possible, and enjoy what we do with each other? As a really non-PVPer I can appreciate the feeling of "lack of content" (especially on weekends when there are really no suitable freighter contracts for me, where I want to go). If you are not PVPing sometimes it feels like you have to struggle to find something to do. But if it is too much, I don't think that for EVE the right answer is "more content" but rather "try another game as well". Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Bellak Hark New Eden Media Organization 37	Posted - 2015.02.17 10:26:25 - [104] - Quote Your campaign ad
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 122	Posted - 2015.02.17 18:07:13 - [105] - Quote Bellak Hark wrote: Your campaign ad Thank you! It is very nice! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4067	Posted - 2015.02.21 02:54:03 - [106] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: 4) Wardecs. The war dec mechanic is broken. There have already been talks/suggestions about enabling player groups that are not eligible for "war deccing" but also not eligible to put up POS or POCOS.... This is a central theme to New Player Retention, and not to be ignored. You have my vote; any possibility you could expand on this in a bit more detail? I'd be interested in your thoughts. Thanks. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Syn Shi School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 124	Posted - 2015.02.21 03:03:24 - [107] - Quote I wasn't gonna vote but the overwhelming response has convinced me to vote for this candidate. ty all for helping me make the decision.
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 129	Posted - 2015.02.22 17:58:29 - [108] - Quote It has indeed been a busy week! The official candidate list is out - I am there. https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ortXpjkEXGPaFkTpuRRnm7MFpz6-lBNmSH7vUw5yvBs/edit?pli=1#gid=901990959 Just for clarity, I wanted to point out (as I said in at least one other place) that I am living in Germany, but I am not german... just in case that ends up being important for anybody. Whilst I have been taking a couple of days (more or less) away from the internet, there came an interesting DEVblog on the New Player Experience. https://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/opportunities-abound-the-new-player-experience/ Looks like interesting times are ahead! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 1806	Posted - 2015.02.22 19:03:15 - [109] - Quote So gonna go ahead and ask this because i cant read through 6 pages on a mobile that can barely show 4 lines of text at a time, and I sure as hell wotn rememebr to come back later. what defines a 50:50 win chance in ganks? is it 1 miner versus 1 ganker, is it based on 1 miner versus a 5-man ganking squad? how do you scale mechanics that no matter how many gankers there are the miner has a 50:50 chance of being safe, and how does that eman balanced? or another approach, how do you determine what a "fair" number of gankers is to start the 50:50 chance at? should 1 ganker have no chance to kill a miner? should it take 10 for a 50:50 chance? what ship/base are you basing the gankers flying with this (catalyst atron nado, etc)? do gankers now have to travel in groups of 25+ tornadoes just to kill a freighter? in short, how complicated must you make ganking without changing anything needed by the miner/trader before its "balanced"? edit if the psot if too long that already answers what im asking, just tell me the page its on, make my poor life easier with this terrible terrible excuse for a smartphone
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 129	Posted - 2015.02.22 21:52:43 - [110] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: So gonna go ahead and ask this because i cant read through 6 pages on a mobile that can barely show 4 lines of text at a time, and I sure as hell wotn rememebr to come back later. Still, thank you for stopping by, anyway. Nariya Kentaya wrote: in short, how complicated must you make ganking without changing anything needed by the miner/trader before its "balanced"? edit if the psot if too long that already answers what im asking, just tell me the page its on, make my poor life easier with this terrible terrible excuse for a smartphone Ok. Some of the things / ideas I have said on this subject in various forum/interview and stuff: - Teach the new players about DSCAN, as part of the NPE. - Introduce some randomness in CONCORD response times (both longer and shorter than currently...) - An active self-destuct module that would allow a non-afk miner/freighter to take most of his stuff with him... if he chooses. I can understand that with so many candidates you don't feel that you have time to read all the threads and listen to the interviews et cetera... but if you really want to know... you really should read the thread and listen to the interviews... Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664

Nariya Kentaya Ministry of War Amarr Empire 1806	Posted - 2015.02.22 22:18:57 - [111] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Nariya Kentaya wrote: So gonna go ahead and ask this because i cant read through 6 pages on a mobile that can barely show 4 lines of text at a time, and I sure as hell wotn rememebr to come back later. Still, thank you for stopping by, anyway. Nariya Kentaya wrote: in short, how complicated must you make ganking without changing anything needed by the miner/trader before its "balanced"? edit if the psot if too long that already answers what im asking, just tell me the page its on, make my poor life easier with this terrible terrible excuse for a smartphone Ok. Some of the things / ideas I have said on this subject in various forum/interview and stuff: - Teach the new players about DSCAN, as part of the NPE. - Introduce some randomness in CONCORD response times (both longer and shorter than currently...) - An active self-destuct module that would allow a non-afk miner/freighter to take most of his stuff with him... if he chooses. I can understand that with so many candidates you don't feel that you have time to read all the threads and listen to the interviews et cetera... but if you really want to know... you really should read the thread and listen to the interviews... thanks for the response and i DO try and read most fo the threads and interviews, its just there are alot so I have to prioritize, and not to be offensiv here but, I try and restrict that to the candidates with the highest likelihood of re-election (so i can judge my opinion on whether to support them or look for someone else), because franly its difficult for an "independent" to compete with a main party (WH/nullsec community backed candidates) or an entrenched member (because lets face it, if someone was re-elected once, their chances of being re-elected again are decently boosted)
Ampoliros Ni-Dunes Ouroboros Infinitum 0	Posted - 2015.02.23 09:31:57 - [112] - Quote I will vote for you, Lorelei Lerendi. I don't know if The Caldari Navy Intelligence Self Destruct Device is your idea, but I'd love that to be advocated. Additionally, as for the bounty mechanics, if it hadn't been suggested before, I would like to see a "Bounty Hunter" skill set, raising the payout significantly higher than it is currently. As for wardeccs, and player corporations generally, what is your view in raising wardecc cost / CONCORD bribe 10 to 100 fold, aswell as corporation creation cost. Both also could be raised in difficulty with skills. Nachbar Gr+++ƒe!
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 134	Posted - 2015.02.23 18:38:09 - [113] - Quote Thanks for stopping by my thread to ask questions! :) Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: I will vote for you, Lorelei Lerendi. I don't know if The Caldari Navy Intelligence Self Destruct Device is your idea, but I'd love that to be advocated. The idea is so good that I am sure that something similar must have been suggested before, but I did not read it anywhere. I actually got the idea whilst listening to CODE. players talking about how undesirable it is to be AFK... I thought how best to reward a player for not being AFK... and how a non-AFK player (in a single account) can best defend himself from different forms of ganking. That is what I came up with. Oh, and I am sure that the Caldari Navy Intelligence have something like that... just do not want to give it out. Where are the elite spies when you need them! Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: Additionally, as for the bounty mechanics, if it hadn't been suggested before, I would like to see a "Bounty Hunter" skill set, raising the payout significantly higher than it is currently. Something has to be done about the bounties. Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: As for wardeccs, and player corporations generally, what is your view in raising wardecc cost / CONCORD bribe 10 to 100 fold, aswell as corporation creation cost. Both also could be raised in difficulty with skills. Well I have advocated more the "non-deccable, no POS "corporation"" as a means for players being able to group together and avoid wardecs. I think once a wardec is running, then it is unfair to the deccer to have it so easily defeated (dissolve corp and reform). So we need a mechanic that: 1) allows groups of players to avoid being wardecced, in exchange for having (as a group) no real tangible influence on in-game structures, taxes et cetera. 2) allows wardecs to be meaningful declarations of war that persist until resolved (either diplomatically, or when no longer paid for). 3) allows it to be possible to bring in as many allies as wanted - on both sides of a fight. The increasing costs per ally make involving other players less likely because: People want to hold out to see if good PVPers / Mercs want to help. I talked more about this here: http://justforcrits.com/csmx-lorelei-ierendi/ Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Ampoliros Ni-Dunes Mobit Constellation Bureau 1	Posted - 2015.02.24 12:16:36 - [114] - Quote Thank you for your reply. Lorelei Ierendi. In the interview in the link you provided you said something that caught my attention: Highsec is underrepresented in the CSM. That's terrible! Users and players can create as much content in low and null sec as much as they want and is possible, but highsec is something CCP has a responsibility for. I don't yet have much insight in the NPE, but I think new players should be able to get an understanding of the difference between order and anarchy (which is just another word for sandbox imo) and learn to decide how much they want to or can take before being confronted by piracy et al the first day on. And I don't think a few repetetive missions count. As much CCPlease I (and many others) would like to do, I want to refrain from details, pleads and rants for now. This is my first CSM election, and we'll see what, if anything, will change. I have a strong RPG and SciFi background, and being a carebear is for me the only way to play the game. And btw, I only very recently discovered its exact meaning, and I think it's a dumb word, It should be a completely legit playstyle just like pirates or anyone living in wormholes. But I agree in being AFK is not legit, and I agree with your 50:50 approach.One can't be without the other. Ok, just one rant. Creating a corporation is too easy and too cheap. There should be a minimum bar of what one corporation may expect from wardeccing another in terms of resilience and defense. The stronger mostly become stronger on cost of the weak, not other strong ones. That may be anti-darwinian, but it's a game after all. And as for wardec mechanics, the cost could be dependant on system security. You pay so much, and may attack the enemy corp members up to this or that system security. After all a wardec payment is a CONCORD bribe, and I would like to see a 1.0 sec CONCORD integrity withstand but the highest bribe (or even additionally Connection skill), and a 0.5 sec CONCORD crimewatch officer look the other way for cheap. That may result in a corp fleeing into higher sec rather than immediately disbanding the corp altogether. This as much as for CCP having to take responsibility for its highsec. Good luck on your election!! And sorry for the "neighborly" greetings earlier, in the official candidate list your country of origin is listed as Germany.
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 134	Posted - 2015.02.24 18:29:34 - [115] - Quote Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: Thank you for your reply. Lorelei Ierendi. My pleasure. Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: Users and players can create as much content in low and null sec as much as they want and is possible, but highsec is something CCP has a responsibility for. I am not sure that I agree with that. CCP have a responsibility for defining the game mechanics et cetera... and the rest of it is just up to us players! I think that CCP needs to take a look at the game mechanics that are currently at work in High Sec, compare them to the other Secs, and see if there is enough difference there to make things worthwhile. Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: I don't yet have much insight in the NPE, but I think new players should be able to get an understanding of the difference between order and anarchy (which is just another word for sandbox imo) and learn to decide how much they want to or can take before being confronted by piracy et al the first day on. And I don't think a few repetetive missions count. This is Eve. When we fly out of a designated "rookie" system we are at risk and exposed to the big bad world. I think that it would be bad for players in EVE to simply be able to totally "opt out" of the Sandbox. The Sandbox also includes High Sec. When you really look at it, the differences in Sec are more or less just differences in the way players (can) shoot each other. Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: Ok, just one rant. Creating a corporation is too easy and too cheap. There should be a minimum bar of what one corporation may expect from wardeccing another in terms of resilience and defense. As a proud member of a one man corporation, I disagree. Like I said, what I would like is to see my Corporation able to bring in as many allies and mercs as I want to help fight my war. But I don't need to post what I think, again! Ampoliros Ni-Dunes wrote: Good luck on your election!! And sorry for the "neighborly" greetings earlier, in the official candidate list your country of origin is listed as Germany. The form for registering for the CSM did not allow me to enter a nationality that was different from my address. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 134	Posted - 2015.02.25 18:31:38 - [116] - Quote Nariya Kentaya wrote: thanks for the response my pleasure. Nariya Kentaya wrote: and i DO try and read most fo the threads and interviews, its just there are alot so I have to prioritize, and not to be offensiv here but, I try and restrict that to the candidates with the highest likelihood of re-election (so i can judge my opinion on whether to support them or look for someone else), because franly its difficult for an "independent" to compete with a main party (WH/nullsec community backed candidates) or an entrenched member (because lets face it, if someone was re-elected once, their chances of being re-elected again are decently boosted) Just because it is difficult, however, does not mean that it is not worth trying! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 979	Posted - 2015.02.26 04:11:58 - [117] - Quote You have my mining laser! Erm ... I mean vote. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 134	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:32:09 - [118] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: You have my mining laser! Erm ... I mean vote. Thank you! I will take what I can get! :) Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Sibyyl Gallente Federation 23507	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:54:29 - [119] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. CCP should level the playing field here.... and either allow (or disallow) CONCORD manipulation on all sides. CSM campaign writeups should be carefully vetted against (grossly) incorrect statements about current game mechanics. Your understanding is not correct here. You should be better aware of the rules that affect you. Rush to danger, wind up nowhere Sabriz for CSM go go go
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 139	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:05:02 - [120] - Quote Sibyyl wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: However... if a miner pre-pulls CONCORD in an asteroid belt, but having an alt in a rookie ship fire one shot at their mining vessel... then this is potentially a bannable offense. CCP should level the playing field here.... and either allow (or disallow) CONCORD manipulation on all sides. CSM campaign writeups should be carefully vetted against (grossly) incorrect statements about current game mechanics. Your understanding is not correct here. You should be better aware of the rules that affect you. And of course, this was already handled about two posts after the one you are quoting. But thank you for reading, anyway! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664

Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1042	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:51:12 - [121] - Quote Lorelei, I am interested in hearing your views on something like this. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
yarasta Armer Puffheads almost anonymous 0	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:03:19 - [122] - Quote ok, you pretty much had my vote at "Elite on the spectrum 48", the joys of being captain Jameson.
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 142	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:31:27 - [123] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lorelei, I am interested in hearing your views on something like this. Thanks for asking! I think I said somewhere that LowSec actually probably needs an Ore-Type that is unique, and pretty much essential for producing some stuff. I think that would be the best and easiest way to get miners out there in the first place. Once there is a reason to mine in low, then one could look at balancing ships around that. Unfortunately as the system is, I think other changes probably would not motivate many High Sec players to move over there. Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 142	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:32:31 - [124] - Quote yarasta Armer wrote: ok, you pretty much had my vote at "Elite on the spectrum 48", the joys of being captain Jameson. Trying to dock through the back of a space station, cos of the state-of-the-art line graphics. Good times! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1054	Posted - 2015.03.06 15:02:08 - [125] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: ... LowSec actually probably needs an Ore-Type that is unique, and pretty much essential for producing some stuff. .... That could be a good carrot but it would make Null and Worm Holes even less self suffient. Additionally, aren't there too many rods keeping people out of Null? Not enough tools to adapt in there? CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 144	Posted - 2015.03.07 10:55:56 - [126] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Lorelei Ierendi wrote: ... LowSec actually probably needs an Ore-Type that is unique, and pretty much essential for producing some stuff. .... That could be a good carrot but it would make Null and Worm Holes even less self suffient. Additionally, aren't there too many rods keeping people out of Null? Not enough tools to adapt in there? I think one of the big draws of null is the BIG alliances, BIG battles et cetera. I think anything that entices people out of High Sec could be a good thing... and that is where the unique ORE should come in. Maybe "self sufficiency" should involve more than one sec status? Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1064	Posted - 2015.03.07 20:08:03 - [127] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: Maybe "self sufficiency" should involve more than one sec status... low, high and null? I can get behind this. Desireable but non-essential things in different and all sectors of space. (So Null might have desireable thing #1 but Low would have #2, bit like how WHs have the T3 stuff. You don't need T3s to fight wars but you need almost all minerals to make all ships.) Essential ship building and POS fuelling in all sectors of space. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 146	Posted - 2015.03.10 22:25:01 - [128] - Quote So finally the CSM voting is over... I managed to attract the attention of Gevlon Goblin, and the official voting list of the Anti-Ganker community (see the bio of Sarah Flynt). Some of the commentators thought I was a troll... even gave me A+++ marks as a troll... but I am no troll. The CSM is something that needs to be taken seriously, and if I don't get elected, then you can bet I will be back. High Sec is also something that need to be taken seriously... even when the focus of the next year appears to be SOV changes! I am looking forward to seeing the results of the elections... and reading the analyses of those results! Here's hoping for a better High Sec! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 146	Posted - 2015.03.11 01:45:35 - [129] - Quote So on the eve of the end of the voting for the CSMX election... I found myself in the Anti Ganking channel. Here is the chat (at the end... there is a pastebin link... if someone wants to read it all! I tried to hide the names of everyone... apologies if I missed anyone! ....... ...... ...... n++[ 2015.03.10 23:54:15 ] Antiganke12> Good luck with the CSM vote, Lorelei n++[ 2015.03.10 23:54:25 ] Lorelei Ierendi > Antiganke11 getting banned forever. that is like a permaban! that is almost as much win as Erotica1. n++[ 2015.03.10 23:54:35 ] Antiganke11 > that's not a troll. n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:11 ] Antiganke7 > everyone famous in the game falls into one of two categories . . . either they've earned respect like Chribba and EveUni . . . n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:13 ] Antiganke11 > If they see a ban as recognition of their worthiness, then that's their problem. As long as they aren't put in the tournament agai nto waste more time of ccp, participants and viewers :P n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:15 ] Lorelei Ierendi > Antiganke11 trolls are ugly monsters that regenerate their hp unless you use fire or acid.... so that sounds like a troll to me n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:28 ] Antiganke7 > or they're shameless self-promoters n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:33 ] Antiganke13 > Lorelei Ierendi I think you are listening to them too much... them saying that they win doesn't mean it's true n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:35 ] Lorelei Ierendi > same thing n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:42 ] Antiganke11 > oh, code is certainly the altter Antiganke7 n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:50 ] Antiganke11 > *latter, can't type tonight n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:56 ] Antiganke7 > Antiganke11 couldn't agree more n++[ 2015.03.10 23:55:58 ] Lorelei Ierendi > Antiganke13 why must it be that they think they win. n++[ 2015.03.10 23:56:39 ] Antiganke5 > Lorelei Ierendi they don't. they're trolling n++[ 2015.03.10 23:56:45 ] Antiganke13 > DIdn't you say they got the ultimate troll win? n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:05 ] Antiganke11 > code. relies entirely on propaganda n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:06 ] Lorelei Ierendi > Antiganke5 they dont just say it. they think it n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:14 ] Antiganke11 > they'll make anything a win because they did it. n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:45 ] Antiganke5 > Lorelei Ierendi the line member maybe. not their leadership though n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:48 ] Antiganke7 > Antiganke11 and if it's really a loss, they'll blame AG n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:48 ] Lorelei Ierendi > well it has been fun talking tonight! it is now 1am and I have to work tomorrow... o7 n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:59 ] Antiganke11 > either way though... that doesn't really matter. Players are free to think however they do. n++[ 2015.03.10 23:58:06 ] Lorelei Ierendi > I'll be back..... n++[ 2015.03.10 23:58:08 ] Antiganke7 > Lorelei Ierendi o7 n++[ 2015.03.10 23:58:21 ] Antiganke11 > as long as it doesn't create a toxic environment, something i'm afraid eve is turning too much towards n++[ 2015.03.10 23:58:22 ] Antiganke5 > Lorelei Ierendi thanks for joining :) n++[ 2015.03.10 23:58:25 ] Antiganke9> o7 The whole chat: http://pastebin.com/yTHi5zhD Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1086	Posted - 2015.03.11 04:44:21 - [130] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: n++[ 2015.03.10 23:57:05 ] Antiganke11 > code. relies entirely on propaganda The high sec trade hub campers and gankers are the kids that hang around corners beating up little newbies for their lunch money. Sending you a hilarious battle report from when I started talking about how gankers are really carebears, CODE sent a contingent to my home system, caught one procurer because he was stuck on the invisible part of an asteroid. Then they had a 97% ISK loss when they were wiped out. CSM Ten movement for change. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. Status: Rabid carebear Blog

Lorelei Ierendi Lorelei for CSM 146	Posted - 2015.03.19 21:04:15 - [131] - Quote So congratulations to all who got in! I am looking forward to seeing a more detailed breakdown of voting! And a big thank you goes out to all those who supported me. And, of course, I shall be back in the running next year! Hello, world! Lorelei for CSM! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=386664
Jenshae Chiroptera The Volition Cult 1121	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:26:14 - [132] - Quote Lorelei Ierendi wrote: I shall be back in the running next year! Good luck. Try get a large alliance behind you. It is the short cut to a seat. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . SOV is stagnant because Low Sec is not the next step from High Sec and a viable place to grow alliances to the point they can challenge Null alliances. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Jenshae Chiroptera 1186	Posted - 2015.04.01 13:59:20 - [133] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Quote: Round beginning - 18 candidates remain Elimination: "Thoric Frosthammer" with 1045.000000 votes Quote: Round beginning - 13 candidates remain Elimination: "Lorelei Ierendi" with 1375.000000 votes CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Lorelei Ierendi We Care A Lot 153	Posted - 2015.04.02 21:27:39 - [134] - Quote Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Jenshae Chiroptera wrote: Quote: Round beginning - 18 candidates remain Elimination: "Thoric Frosthammer" with 1045.000000 votes Quote: Round beginning - 13 candidates remain Elimination: "Lorelei Ierendi" with 1375.000000 votes The second run was the STV thing to find the 2 candidates with the most votes... the ones with the permanent seats. http://hisec-carebear.blogspot.de/
Jenshae Chiroptera 1230	Posted - 2015.04.07 02:25:29 - [135] - Quote Quote: Round beginning - 15 candidates remain 1332 "Lorelei Ierendi" 1057 "Thoric Frosthammer" Still a weird system to jump so far. CCP - Building ant hills and magnifying glasses for fat kids. . High Sec needs a stepping stone to other areas of space, where they can grow. Fozzie is treating a symptom.
Xenuria Marcabian 5th Invasion Fleet 1010	Posted - 2015.04.07 16:43:28 - [136] - Quote What made you choose the name Lorelei? Any particular history you have with that name? CSM 11 Candidate My Lore Predictions


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.