Originally by: Nexus Kinnon

---

scagga is a cool dude you should vote for him

---

Originally by: Nomakai Delateriel

---

Originally by: Nexus Kinnon

---

scagga is a cool dude you should vote for him

---

Scagga, I don't recognize that alt .

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

But, it's Nexus! We flew alongside each other under the Amarr Militia.

---

Originally by: Slarti

---

Hello Scagga

Re: your election campaign......I approve

However I would like your opinion on a few subjects.

1 û How will you make access to 0.0 space more `friendlyÆ to casual tourist types. I donÆt mind getting ganked once there but I would like to have a reasonable chance of making it to somewhere deep within 0.0 without having to use an interceptor to out run all the banks of warp disrupters.

2-What will you do to prevent the inequality causing EVE to become a `voiceistÆ society. The `you canÆt join this corporation or other unless you use a voice programÆ mentality must be eradicated. Not everyone wants to use sound and should not be discriminated against for their beliefs.

3-Piracy you say. What will you do to make the everyday life of the average pirate more agreeable. May I suggest a bespoke ore theft ship, with the cargo capacity of an industrial coupled with the tank and firepower of say.....a Drake?

You are without doubt one of the real `charactersÆ in the game today and you deserve your chance on the committee. I whole heartedly declare my vote to be yours sir.

Slarti
x

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

What is your opinion on pirate gatecamps? I am not saying it should be impossible. But you say life is becoming harder for pirates due to some random stuff, while gatecamping is only becoming easier for the pirates (more people = larger gangs = easier to tank guns, introduction of hics, etc). And while pirates seem to enjoy whining about being blobbed 25 vs 5, they dont have any issues ganking a noob 5 vs 1.

---

Originally by: Furb Killer

---

Somewhere in GD it was asked how you can get more people into low sec. The answer many gave and what i also think: Decrease the number of gatecamps. Sure i know low sec isnt camped everywhere (am often enough in low sec), but if you run into a gatecamp you lose a ship without anything you can do about it. I would have no issues with making it easier for pirates to find people in belts when low sec rats get improved, but then it should be compensated by a nerf to their ability to gatecamp.

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

I will suggest a few things, but first I must make the assumption mentioned below:

First assumption:

0.0. and Low sec should become more populated because this is a 'good' thing.

(I don't necessarily agree or disagree with the assumption)

Defining with the problem

Let's start with the basics: the problem with manufacturing and populations in low sec are intertwined. They feed off each other when equilibrium sets in, but usually there first needs to be a reason to create demand for supply to increase. I would call these incentives, particularly ones that can outweigh the risks encountered, while also exceeding the abilities to achieve the same goal in high sec space.

Proposed approaches to the problem

1. Agents
- A low sec specific suggestion: Tie the quality of a level 4 agent to the frequency that they are used: Low sec agents will become significantly better over time due to reduced use in comparison to those in high sec. This would mean that running l4 low sec missions would be even more profitable than l4 high sec missions as it stands now.

Note: Some people have suggested moving all level 4 agents to low sec/0.0. I am not convinced that taking that action is a wholly good idea at this moment in time.

2. Work on existing attractions: Factional Warfare
- Factional warfare (I've got ideas for this in my campaign thread) could use tweaks to its mechanics and incentives to make it worth doing without having to take breaks to earn cash through other means as often
- Tying in with Factional warfare would be modifications to fleet warfare to make it easier to command small gangs in various locations simultaneously, reducing blob warfare and increasing the spread of targets
- Add pirate factions to Factional warfare (see next proposal)

3. Piracy
While this might sound counter-intuitive, I think that piracy in low sec needs to be looked at and enhanced. I would love to see pirate faction agents supplied in low sec, sending pilots to kill high ranking members of empire militias, or even against rival pirate factions! More pvp'ers in low sec will create increased demand, particularly if they are working for pirate agents based in low sec. (Note: These agents would not be operating in the same way as current agents, I envision them as a bridge between FW, PVE and PVP)
- Please see my campaign thread for specifics, including the answers I gave to Mr Slarti's questions on improving the pirate's everyday activities

4. Trading mechanics
- Enhancements to the trade interface could make it easier for traders to assess where there is demand by being able to see WHERE buying/selling is taking place. This would help them know where to set up new low sec trading hubs. For specifics, please see my campaign thread e.g. embargoes, player-run shops

5. Inter-corporate and alliance Treaty formalisation
- Right now it is not as easy as it could be to arrange formal relations between corporations, e.g. trade embargoes, supply contracts etc. I have proposed that contracts be worked on to include 'treaties', which allow a corporation to perform a service for another, while having that treaty active automatically gives them the standings and orders to fill. This streamlines diplomacy and allows the creation of more complex, mutually beneficial relationships to be much more straightforward

---

Originally by: Slarti

---

1 û How will you make access to 0.0 space more `friendlyÆ to casual tourist types. I donÆt mind getting ganked once there but I would like to have a reasonable chance of making it to somewhere deep within 0.0 without having to use an interceptor to out run all the banks of warp disrupters.

---

Originally by: Alica Wildfire

---

First there must be consequences for the sovereign of a system.

---

Originally by: Alica Wildfire

---

Another thing is contraband. I tried it a bit to smuggle small arms to Amarr and am not quite shure about, if it is working at all. With systems contesting there could be a quite funny way to open these markets for people who like to deal with forbidden fruit.

---

Originally by: Alica Wildfire

---

Going away from station-hugging and gatecamping and moving to a more dynamic scenario with plexing is very good. It leads to smaller encounters with much more fun and dynamic.

---

Originally by: Nexus Kinnon

---

scagga is a cool dude you should vote for him

---

Originally by: Darius Shakor

---

Just registering my support for the evil Ammatar, Scagga.

Pretty much all you have gone over so far is what I would like to see including the small scale pvp prospects and the possibilities for more tactical 0.0 environments.

What are your thoughts on alliances and consolidaion of 0.0 space? Like the further from a core hub the weaker the defences might become? I have felt for a while this would encourage some more tactical aspects and a different approach to taking over someone's space.

Also, the idea of the pillage of an outpost sounds good but maybe it could be applied to a smaller scale like inflicting actual cost damage to outposts and POS external structures. I personally would like to be able to conduct raids into the fringes of an alliance's space (if weaker through range from the core as stated above) and disrupt POS operations while inflicting a cost on repairs to external structures without needing to bring a 150+ blob to do so. Light damage but over time an annoyance to the space owners or their tennants.

Good for those like me that have long lost interest in the resource and time drain of claiming space but have no means of doing meaningful damage to such an entity without having to resort to sov warfare mechanics. Thoughts?

---

Originally by: Elizabelle

---

Still have your AYD corp for ya if you want it back.

---

Originally by: Seong'an Kim

---

Originally by: Elizabelle

---

Still have your AYD corp for ya if you want it back.

---

And here it is

---

Originally by: Lyn Farel

---

Greetings Scagga,

I do not know if you remember me but i'm really surprised and glad to see you campaigning for the 2nd CSM election. I have read all your ideas and well... i'm really impressed by your creative potential. Ideas and concepts you simply add here are just answering to questions / issues in a really "universe-realistic feeling" way (flatlining, outpost pillaging, and many other ones for example).

As you seem to be interested by the pirate scale/gameplay/side, i'm wondering if you are thinking of new ideas as well for the bounty hunter system ?

Originally by: Slarti

---

1 û How will you make access to 0.0 space more `friendlyÆ to casual tourist types. I donÆt mind getting ganked once there but I would like to have a reasonable chance of making it to somewhere deep within 0.0 without having to use an interceptor to out run all the banks of warp disrupters.

---

It is right you actually need some NRDS 0.0 alliance to tolerate neutrals and "empire-like" activities in those remote areas, but well... Scagga will correct me if i'm wrong but from what i understood in his program i saw big new opportunities to see alliances - if they want to become empires - to consider their territories for inhabitants and population, followers, market side effects, settlements/colonization, etc etc, and not only for ressources and isk-basic rewards only (farming, farming, farming...). [cf alliance treaties, alliances like empires]

---

Originally by: Smagd

---

A mate buys me beer if I come here (Zaq, I hope you heard that) so here's my promise:

Free Pax Amarria plus vote for you if you can promise to talk to the council about sorting by more than three attributes.

Missing for me are: "Sort by meta level" "Sort by volume" "Sort by base price" and ditch the reverse if it takes that for making space. And "Sort by
Quantity" places the assembled items with no quantity at the very HIGH end of the list, where it should be close to the 1-quantity unassembled stacks.

Beer. Beer made me post this.

---

Originally by: Starbud Paul

---

On the 0.0 stuff i would like to see some kind of sov holding cap for the bigger aliances introduced; somthing like a max amout of regions that they would be able to hold at 1 time to alow the smaller alliances to stake a claim and even out the game power block play.

where would u stand on that idea ?

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

I gave your suggestion thought in between cups of good coffee, Mr Smagd (you might have seen me meddling in teonusude, actually :P).

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

Originally by: Starbud Paul

---

On the 0.0 stuff i would like to see some kind of sov holding cap for the bigger aliances introduced; somthing like a max amout of regions that they would be able to hold at 1 time to alow the smaller alliances to stake a claim and even out the game power block play.

where would u stand on that idea ?

---

Well Starbud, it's a problem worth discussing. To deal with this particular problem, I would say that a 'cap' on sovereignty per se is an artificial way of dealing it. Rather, I would support other approaches, such as mobile infrastructure and ways for small groups to 'infest' the larger 0.0. alliance's space.

Basically ways that could allow smaller groups to thrive in 0.0 akin to nomads, without needing to fight the sovereignty war. See my answers to Darius's questions for further elaboration.

The end result, I think, would mean that if a powerful alliance creates a huge empire that cannot be defeated by a conventional war, they might have to face an 'unconventional war' with many small groups threatening the security of their space in multiple loci.

---

Originally by: Lyn Farel

---

It could also be cool to see also some sort of "micro" governements inside alliances. I mean, still in the "adding content in 0.0 alliances" purpose why not create some tools for corps / players to manage their global assets (POSes, mobiles bases or whatever you could imagine) ? You could directly though such "governements" make some products illegal, set laws that could flag pirates (or any other kind of player if you are a kind of a pirate alliance, why not), etc. Maybe a bit ambitious though, but your idea made me think to that raw concept. Well, btw that is something i have always wanted to see in sov places, some tools to manage standings easily, some tools to get overlays of your assets, some tools to get closer to the "alliances = growing empires" concept.

What do you think of that ?

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

3. Piracy
While this might sound counter-intuitive, I think that piracy in low sec needs to be looked at and enhanced. I would love to see pirate faction agents supplied in low sec, sending pilots to kill high ranking members of empire militias, or even against rival pirate factions! More pvp'ers in low sec will create increased demand, particularly if they are working for pirate agents based in low sec. (Note: These agents would not be operating in the same way as current agents, I envision them as a bridge between FW, PVE and PVP)
- Please see my campaign thread for specifics, including the answers I gave to Mr Slarti's questions on improving the pirate's everyday activities

---

Originally by: Take Enemy

---

Edited by: Take Enemy on 18/11/2008 20:54:27

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

3. Piracy
While this might sound counter-intuitive, I think that piracy in low sec needs to be looked at and enhanced. I would love to see pirate faction agents supplied in low sec, sending pilots to kill high ranking members of empire militias, or even against rival pirate factions! More pvp'ers in low sec will create increased demand, particularly if they are working for pirate agents based in low sec. (Note: These agents would not be operating in the same way as current agents, I envision them as a bridge between FW, PVE and PVP)
- Please see my campaign thread for specifics, including the answers I gave to Mr Slarti's questions on improving the pirate's everyday activities

---

How about Pirate "factional" warfare? Ability to join a cartel and attack the other cartels, plus the faction warfare pilots associated with the range of the pirate cartel?

Build in the same incentives you have discussed regarding factional LP for pirate LP, etc.

---

Quote:

---

I'd say you should be able to sign up for pirate factions with hidden agents in low sec - the prerequisite being that you have a very low sec status (e.g. lower than -5). You'd probably have to do some 'dirty jobs' to gain their trust, e.g. smuggling illicit goods, killing high ranking FW pilots, etc...

This may lead to significant improvement in your standings to them while having terrible effects on your relations with the other empires. The idealist in me would say pirates should have hidden low sec bases and not be able to dock at empire-faction controlled entities, but I doubt that would be practical from CCP's pov. Realistically I would say that hidden pirate routes in low sec, only usable to those with good pirate standings would be something to include as a 'perk', as well as immunity from belt rats.

I'd love to see it possible to use a pirate agent to get useful intel for PVP. e.g. where have the last guristas ships been destroyed within a radius of 5 jumps? Have any of our comrades seen miners in low sec? etc...

---

Quote:

---

As you may have read in the original post(s), I have mentioned that piracy needs to be looked at. I have suggested elsewhere that a pirate could have a sort of 'tactical edge' in their 'home' low security space. Part of this process involves the introduction of highly useful pirate agents in low security space. Now I know what some may think at this point - "...agents? for my piracy?"

Quoting a post I have made elsewhere about integrating pirates with factional warfare and giving them an edge in low sec space:

"How about, if one were to attain significantly good standings with a pirate faction, that they could get access to intelligence reports from the NPC pirate via their agents?

e.g. "Within a range of 5 jumps, what ships have been sighted in the belts killing our comrades, or for more malicious intentions: have you see anyone mining?"

This could spice up interactions with agents and their uses, making having good standings with a faction not only allow you to identify with them, but to have mutually beneficial relations. I.e. the pirate faction may have an agenda to harrow particular space lanes more intensively to allow for a drug smuggling operation to go about unabated. About the pirate agents: I mentioned that they should be in ships in space - their locations, as well as this hidden bases I mentioned, could change with time, allowing CCP to direct them to the areas where they can have most fun and have most interaction with their enemies."

Another post of mine from elsewhere:

"I agree - there is little support for pirate factions in this regard. While pirate NPCs can infest asteroid belts (based out of where exactly?), there is little one can do to have positive standings unless one ventures to 0.0. I have previously written about the need for low sec pirate agents - perhaps hidden at moons or stations in low security space, that may give players a way of gaining good standing with pirates.

Ok, what about some consequences?

I have thought about this, and have suggested that gaining standings with the pirates may include perks such as gaining access to 'hidden' stargates or 'bases' in low sec space, which can give them an edge. This is merely a concept, not yet at the stage of a formal proposal - so I am open for discussing such ideas. Also, I would support the notion of pirate NPCs not firing at people with +ve standings to the respective faction. This can make the infiltration of missions in low sec quite interesting (amongst other ideas that I have to move all of the missions with decent profit/hr to low sec). There are a few other ideas that I have spoken about that I cannot recall at this moment.

Right, how could this integrate with something like say...Factional warfare?

It is my opinion that one reason 'RP' and 'FW' doesn't seem to matter is the stark division between PVE and PVP activities. I would like to see new bridges built, where agents could send you on 'assassination missions', for instance.

An example: Go kill a member of x militia of y rank or at least z victory points production, and bring me his corpse. You have 1 week and will receive a certain amount of isk depending on the rank / ship class destroyed.

To avoid exploitation, how about creating other consequences in FW, such as losing some % of your rank if you are killed, podded and handed in for someone else's mission? "

---

Quote:

---

Yes, I agree that there are still many issues that need to be ironed out. There is the question your statement leads to: What incentives should a pilot have to raise rank?

As we've previously said, rank doesn't mean anything at present. If players dropped tags and could lose rank, having a high rank probably still not be affilitiated with PVP ability, because there would probably be a group who'd label it 'how good you are at surviving'. However, we're getting closer to the solution imo - keep reading.

As you know from the 'tilting at windmills' thread, there have been strong calls for live events to be returned. Well, how would that work in a FW context? I'd love to see more 'personalised' events. Perhaps, in the future, if live events arrived at factional warfare, what do you think if the highest ranking pilots in the militia would be the first choice of contact for the Faction representatives? This blends PVP, RP, FW, etc...it gives RP'ers an incentive, non-RP pilots moments of fame and recognises their ability to achieve their rank (and keep it in lieu of the head-hunters).

Fleet/gang-level engagements may change if rank becomes visible in the overview, with primaries being influenced by the ranks. Killboards may include how many pilots of X rank you killed - like the snipers in WW2. Any love for this theme of thinking?*

*Edit: Even thinking that the high ranking pilots, wanting to preserve their ranks, may start to take the 'command' roles - in command ships at the core of the fleet so they could stay alive, but that could be a bit on the side of wishful thinking Laughing

There is the other question, what's the point in doing complexes/winning systems over? This leads me to the 'so what' factor; When Amarr (whom I fight for) won back the first 1-2 systems, I was overjoyed. The underdogs (at the time) were pushing back the tide. After watching them retake subsequent systems, (up to the 8th now), there has been an item of the 'so what factor', in that it doesn't carry significant consequences/rewards. This is a problem I'm still thinking of solutions for, so please send me any feedback you have on it.

---

Originally by: Scagga Laebetrovo

---

Thank you, gentlemen. Whatever the result of this election, I will work on getting the best of the ideas formally written up and put through the assembly hall.

---

Originally by: Nexus Kinnon

---

Unlucky Scagga, you deserved it more than a few of the people on there.

---