This includes two roundtables on Hisec Ganking from both the aggressor and defenders side (the recordings of which were kept confidential upon the wishes of both parties)

Confidentiality still standing, I'm curious if the conversation went something like this...

Aggressors: "We should be able to because we want to, buying people is fun and makes us happy! CCP need to give bullies more reward for their efforts"

Defenders: "Help, we don't understand why anyone would want to be a bully"

Was their any resolution from the round tables?

Your commitment to EVE and the CSM last year has been exemplary. I shall be voting for you again. Plus you have a giant America flag hanging on your wall, so that's a major +10.

Hello Jin'taan,

We had a small discussion about Faction standings in my Assembly Hall proposal :
Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions.

Now I'm not going to ask if you actually conversed with CCP about it nor do I want to know the outcome of that discussion if in fact you actually did bring it to their attention.

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC

Seems you're a bit indisposed at the moment to reply so I'll just post my rebuttal now.

This game was based on having a balance in 'Risk vs Reward' and 'Actions vs Consequences' which makes this game great. Currently the only way to repair negative Faction standings is to grind missions. It takes time for players to ruin Faction standings and it should take some time to repair those standings. In the past Characters use to be accountable for their actions in-game, now most everything has been dumbed down and turned into easy mode for the instant gratification crowd. That's something I don't want to see happen to Faction standings.

Currently the in-game aspects of Faction standings :
Positive Faction standings are the only way to access Cosmos Agents (one time access).
Positive Faction and Corporation standings are needed to access Research Agents.
All other Agents only require minimal amount of Faction standing for access (-2.00 or higher standing).
High Faction standings reduce Market Broker fees and Reprocessing fees in NPC stations.
At -5.00 or lower Faction standing, Empire NPC's will attack when in their space.

I think CCP made a big mistake when they removed the need to have Faction standings to anchor POS in high sec space. I'd like to see more content pertaining to Faction standings be added to the game but at this time my inquiry is based more on the effects of negative Faction standings.

I created and shared the 'Faction Standing Repair Plan' with the playerbase back in 2010. In my opinion players need more options available to repair negative Faction standings then what I've listed in 'The Plan'. Most of those Event Agents can only be accessed once in the characters life. A lot of players in-game don't even read the forums so they don't know that guide is available. In fact repairing negative Faction standings is a big task for experienced players. New players who haven't even learned the game yet can easily mess up their Faction standings right from the start without even knowing it, resulting in no access to half of Empire space.

Anyway these are some options I think would help players in-game.

Faction standing repair process be implemented in-game to be very intuitive, not obscure (tutorial perhaps).
Changes to Faction standings notify players with on screen pop up message (option to deactivate).
Actions that would cause negative Faction standing trigger on screen pop up warning (option to deactivate).
All Anti-Empire mission briefings have a warning to inform players those missions will incur negative Faction standings.
Implement Tags for Standings in-game based on similar game mechanics as Tags for Security.
Add NPC Agents to in-game Agent Finder for Faction standing repair (similar to proposal in my forum signature).

Once again good luck with the upcoming election.


DMC

Hello Jin'taan,

We had a small discussion about Faction standings in my Assembly Hall proposal :
Bring Back 'The Endless Battle' Missions.

Now I'm not going to ask if you actually conversed with CCP about it nor do I want to know the outcome of that discussion if in fact you actually did bring it to their attention.

My question - what is your viewpoint regarding Faction standings and as a CSM member, what changes will you propose to CCP pertaining to game mechanics for Faction standings ?

Good luck to you in the upcoming CSM election.


DMC

Goddamnit, I was just typing up my response.

I quite enjoyed the discussion we had there, and hope that you felt it was as productive as I did, even though our overall assesment of the issues didn't really align in that circumstance. At the end of the day I believe that the fact that your plan exists is a symptom of the overarching problem with standings, in that they are incredibly complex and unintuitive to the average player, as they're not communicated particularly well in both terms of how they work, and the consequences of lowering them.

I wouldn't propose any changes directly, as I don't think that's a good way to talk to CCP on a topic like this, however I have - as a result of you bringing it up - tried to discuss with CCP on what they feel the intent and value of the standings system is for the game, and how we can better utilize it for those aims.

I know that's not the answer you're looking for, and that you're dissapointed nothing has been changed, but that's the reallity of the CSM and how it works. At the end of the day we're not CCP's boss and I think anyone who is going to try and tell you that they'll make CCP do something is not only wrong, but will actively hurt the CSM when they're on it. Our job is to give the community feedback on topics (as we have) and provide expert knowledge on subjects that CCP don't have the same depth of understanding that we do.

Caring, compassionate, considerate, knowledgeable. He cares about the player community, is considerate of others and compassionate about his work with CCP as a CSM.

Sir Jin'taan is an easy choice for me. His knowledge of the game and the issues facing players is - in my opinion - second to none. He is considerate of others and will hear debates on many sides of an issue, yet present a balanced, fair conclusion. I am thankful for the opportunity to play this game and communicate with him daily. He also has an extremely sexy FC voice and remains calm and collected under all circumstances.

A shining star in Eve. You have my vote, Sir Jin'taan.

07 Candidate!

First, thank you for your time and effort (both present and future) in representing the capsuleers of New Eden! TheyGÇÖre much appreciated.

IGÇÖm preparing to cast my vote in the CSM12 elections. After reading the information you submitted, though, I still have a question.

By way of background, I started in Eve as a hauler, moving freight in T1 industrials and gradually working my way up in both ships and cargo. However, I repeatedly found my progress impeded by gankers who would destroy my ship and steal my cargo. In low- and null-sec space, thatGÇÖs to be expected. You place your bet and take your chances. In high-sec space, however, this is very frustrating. Why have high-sec space at all then? This frustration drove me into anti-ganking, and IGÇÖve been a proud member of Thomas en Chasteaux's High-Sec Militia for several months now.

So, my question. Where do you stand on high-sec ganking? IGÇÖll concede that ganking is a legitimate style of game play, as CCP has ruled. But I also feel that it should be difficult and dangerous (for the ganker) in the 30% of New Eden designated as high-sec space. In particular, IGÇÖd like to see CCP tweak the game mechanics so that the criminal flag generated by looting a ganked freighter in high-sec space follows all players who handle that loot, and otherwise make looting more realistic. (Thomas en Chasteaux's ideas, not mine.)

As a member of the CSM, would you present such an idea to CCP? Would you push for its adoption? What other game changes might you consider to make high-sec ganking more difficult and less profitable?

Regards,
Cochise Chiricahua.