Jita Park Speakers Corner

I HOPE twelve hundred posts in 12 hours will have more weight on his opinion than you think.

It is good to hear that all of you are so heavily invested in the game, and specifically in things that need an overhaul. You guys still have passion for EVE and that in turn makes me more passionate for what I do here. Furthermore, it would appear that Two step, albeit being present at the CSM summit, seems to have misinterpreted what has been stated so far. That said, I want to bring three quotes from the CSM meeting minutes to your attention:

From page 19:

"Unifex: Once we have a theme, we can begin to thread the issues you've identified as needing to be prioritized into that theme. POS's, for example, desperately need some improvement. How do we fit that work into our theme? Maybe we don't do all of the modular POS work at once, but we start by making some modules, solving the hangar problem, for instance. But that new hangar module would also exist to support other new activities as part of the themed expansion. "

From page 99:

"Seagull: We have 4 things that are interacting [regarding the POSes]: the gameplay and design of the POS system, the role POSes play in achieving things in the game (its features), the technical layer (code) then manages all of this (which currently is old and needs refactoring), and art. Regarding art, there is the question of do you want to redo the art, do you want to show individual modules (as opposed to have things inside, like a station), and then you have technical issues, such as what does the rendering complexity of a scene do to client performance?"

"Seagull: The reason there's a “no” to doing [Modular POSes] right now is that it was affecting all of these areas in a way that was too big to do at once. What you're trying to do is try to find a way to get what you want, but what we need to do is go back and look at how we can separate all these layers, and figure out something reasonable, and then have Art do something that's immersive and amazing."

Nowhere has CCP stated that the Player Owned Structure system will not receive attention. Many of you have already pointed out that it is painful to use at best, a huge pile of unusable dingleberries at worst. Some talk about this being the "old" CCP appearing again but I want to assure all of you that the mistakes that happened in 2011 will not repeat themselves. CCP has only stated that THE OVERHAUL CANNOT HAPPEN ALL AT ONCE

I can't make promises for game designers or the people that make content for EVE Online. Please try to remember that. What I can do is assure you that your voices have been heard, the opinion of the CSM has been heard, and the concerns raised in this thread have been heard.

Unfortunately I don't think pitchforks and rage will change Unifex's opinion on this. . . . . . . Data on the other hand is a much better tool to get the general point across.

For CCP: What metric did Unifex/Seagull/Ripley/Soundwave use to come to the conclusion that the major POS work would effect a small number of people?

For Players: What kind of metric do you think would show CCP how important changing the state of POSes is?